Michigan Turns Blue at the Top as Benson Wins Governor’s Race and Democrats Claim Return to Power in Lansing

 

LANSING, Mich. — Democrats swept Michigan’s leading statewide executive races in Tuesday’s election, with Jocelyn Benson winning the governorship, Garlin Gilchrist II capturing secretary of state and Eli Savit winning attorney general.

Democrats also retained control of the state Senate and declared victory in their effort to reclaim the state House, positioning the party to restore unified control of Michigan government. Legislative results remained incomplete Wednesday morning, however, and the available seat counts did not yet provide a final breakdown of either chamber.

Across Michigan’s 13 congressional districts, Democrats had secured six seats and Republicans four, while three competitive contests remained without a confirmed call in the results reviewed.

All vote totals below are unofficial and reflect Wednesday-morning updates.

Benson defeats James for governor

Benson led Republican John James by 501,801 votes, receiving 2,572,776 votes, or 54.5%, to James’ 2,070,975 votes, or 43.8%. Approximately 96% of the estimated vote had been counted.

Libertarian Anthony Hudson received 0.9%, while U.S. Taxpayers candidate Donna Brandenburg and Green Party candidate Douglas Campbell each received 0.4%.

CBS News separately projected Benson’s victory, confirming that Michigan’s outgoing secretary of state had won the contest for governor.

Her victory gives Democrats continued control of the governor’s office and, if the party’s declared House victory holds, a renewed opportunity to advance legislation through both chambers.

Gilchrist wins secretary of state; Savit takes attorney general

Gilchrist defeated Republican Anthony G. Forlini in the secretary of state contest. The tally showed Gilchrist with 2,509,276 votes, or 53.7%, compared with Forlini’s 2,040,817 votes, or 43.6% — a lead of 468,459 votes.

In the attorney general race, Savit received 2,430,859 votes, or 52.4%, against Republican Doug Lloyd’s 2,079,170 votes, or 44.8%. Savit’s advantage stood at 351,689 votes.

Both Democratic victories were also projected by CBS News.

Together, the three statewide wins keep Michigan’s principal elected executive offices in Democratic hands.

Statewide office	Winner	Party	Vote share
Governor	Jocelyn Benson	Democratic	54.5%
Secretary of state	Garlin Gilchrist II	Democratic	53.7%
Attorney general	Eli Savit	Democratic	52.4%

Democrats secure Senate majority; House victory declared as counting continues

The clearest legislative outcome was the state Senate, where Democrats had secured 21 seats and Republicans 14, with three contests outstanding.

Michigan’s 38-member Senate requires 20 seats for a majority. Democrats therefore had enough seats to control the chamber regardless of the remaining results.

The state House picture required more qualification. The available tally showed Democrats with 54 seats and Republicans with 43, leaving 13 unresolved. A majority in the 110-member House requires 56 seats.

Chamber	Democratic seats shown	Republican seats shown	Outstanding	Control
State Senate	21	14	3	Democratic majority secured
State House	54	43	13	Democratic victory reported; available tally still short of a majority

Michigan Advance reported Wednesday morning that Democrats had reclaimed the House and retained the Senate. Its accompanying numerical totals were also incomplete, so that report supports the announced outcome but does not establish a final chamber split.

Democrats were reported to have won control of both chambers, but 54–43 should not be presented as the final House result.

Several completed district counts illustrated Democratic gains. In House District 27, Jaime Churches defeated Republican incumbent Rylee Linting, 23,113 votes to 21,472. In District 28, Sherry Berecz defeated Republican incumbent Jamie Thompson, 20,928 to 20,204, with all precincts reporting in both contests.

In District 15, covering the Dearborn-area contest, Democrat Jalal Abdallah defeated Republican Hassan Nehme, 26,203 votes to 9,970, according to the reported complete precinct count.

In the Senate, completed precinct returns showed Democrat Carol Glanville defeating Republican incumbent Mark Huizenga in District 30, 76,081 votes to 62,625. Democrat Sean Carlson also finished ahead of Republican Ryan Berman in District 13, 71,577 to 63,379.

All 13 congressional races: Democratic gains possible as three contests remain unresolved

Michigan’s congressional results combined comfortable incumbent victories with three closely watched contests in Republican-held districts.

The district-by-district results below identify projected winners and distinguish them from candidates who were leading while counting continued. Percentages are rounded to whole numbers for consistency.

District	Winner or leading candidate	Main opponent	Status
1	Jack Bergman, Republican — 54%	Callie Barr, Democrat — 44%	Bergman reelected
2	John Moolenaar, Republican — 61%	Ben Ambrose, Democrat — 37%	Moolenaar reelected
3	Hillary Scholten, Democrat — 57%	Terri DeBoer, Republican — 41%	Scholten reelected
4	Sean McCann, Democrat — 50%	Bill Huizenga, Republican — 48%	McCann leading; race uncalled
5	Tim Walberg, Republican — 59%	Christian Vukasovich, Democrat — 39%	Walberg reelected
6	Debbie Dingell, Democrat — 67%	Heather Smiley, Republican — 30%	Dingell reelected
7	William Lawrence, Democrat — 51%	Tom Barrett, Republican — 48%	Lawrence leading; race uncalled
8	Kristen McDonald Rivet, Democrat — 56%	Thomas Smith, Republican — 42%	McDonald Rivet reelected
9	Lisa McClain, Republican — 63%	Ray Pooley, Democrat — 35%	McClain reelected
10	Christina Bertrand Hines, Democrat — 52%	Michael Bouchard, Republican — 46%	Hines leading; race uncalled
11	Jeremy Moss, Democrat — 61%	Ethan Baker, Republican — 37%	Moss elected
12	Rashida Tlaib, Democrat — 76%	James Hooper, Republican — 21%	Tlaib reelected
13	Donavan McKinney, Democrat — 77%	T.P. Nykoriak, Republican — 20%	McKinney elected

The unresolved contests in the 4th, 7th and 10th districts carried the greatest implications for the delegation’s partisan balance. All three seats were held by Republicans entering the election.

Hines and Lawrence declared victory early Wednesday, but those announcements were separate from an Associated Press race call. McCann also led Huizenga in the returns reviewed, with that contest still unresolved. 

With six Democratic victories and four Republican victories established, those three remaining races would determine the final composition of Michigan’s delegation. If Democrats maintained their leads in all three, they would hold nine seats to Republicans’ four.

Cavanagh and Hood win Supreme Court seats

Michigan Supreme Court incumbents Megan Kathleen Cavanagh and Noah P. Hood won the two seats being contested, preserving the court’s 6–1 majority of Democratic-nominated justices. Supreme Court candidates appear without party labels on the general-election ballot, although parties nominate them.

With approximately 81% of the estimated vote counted, the supplied results showed:

Candidate	Votes	Share of votes cast
Megan Kathleen Cavanagh — elected	2,200,316	34.1%
Noah P. Hood — elected	1,900,716	29.5%
Michael Warren	885,413	13.7%
Casandra Morse-Bills	815,680	12.7%
Jody White	341,662	5.3%

Because voters could select two candidates, those percentages represent shares of candidate votes, rather than the percentage of individual voters supporting each justice. The supplied image does not display every candidate’s total.

Voters reject constitutional convention, approve campaign-finance proposal

Michigan voters overwhelmingly rejected Proposal 1, the question of calling a state constitutional convention. The results showed “no” receiving 3,067,673 votes, or 73.8%, against 1,090,520 votes, or 26.2%, for “yes.”

Proposal 2, described on the results graphic as restricting utility and contractor contributions and expanding campaign-finance disclosure rules, passed with 3,435,147 votes, or 81.1%. Opposition totaled 802,414 votes, or 18.9%.

The statewide executive victories, continued Democratic Senate control and reported House takeover point toward a substantial shift in governing power in Lansing. The remaining legislative and congressional counts will determine the size of the party’s gains.

Jocelyn Benson’s Data-Center Hypocrisy Demands Answers

 

Benson now promises strict rules for data centers. But when a company employing her husband pushed a project in Saline Township, local officials rejected it—and the development moved forward after the company sued.

Jocelyn Benson wants Michigan voters to believe she will stand up to data-center developers. She says she would impose a moratorium until the state adopts rules for public hearings, transparency, environmental protections, and electricity costs.

Then comes the question her campaign cannot bury: Why should Michigan trust her to enforce rules she is only demanding now, after a company employing her husband helped push a controversial project past a community’s rejection?

Ryan Friedrichs, Benson’s husband, was a senior executive at Related Companies and worked on the Saline Township data-center project. He appeared before local officials for the developer. In September 2025, the township board voted 4–1 against the rezoning required for the project. Related Digital sued days later. The township then reached a settlement that allowed the project to proceed.

That is the record: elected local officials said no; the developer sued; and the project moved ahead through a settlement. Residents were heard, but they did not get the result their board’s vote called for.

Benson now says Michigan needs open negotiations and transparency to prevent backroom deals. Those principles sound compelling in a campaign speech. They sound considerably less convincing when a company tied to her household was pressing ahead with a project after local officials rejected it.

The connections raise an obvious ethical cloud. Friedrichs worked for the company advancing the project. Stephen Ross, Related Companies’ founder, previously employed Benson as CEO of the Ross Initiative in Sports for Equality and has contributed to her campaigns. That does not prove a quid pro quo or establish that Benson intervened in the Saline project. It does make the public entitled to demand more than a carefully worded denial.

Benson’s financial disclosure lists $370,000 in income for Friedrichs from his employer. That is not proof of a project commission, and it should not be portrayed as $370,000 paid by the data center. But it is a substantial household income from the company whose project he worked on. Related Companies has said Friedrichs received no commission from the project; Bridge Michigan found no evidence he stood to make millions. Those facts limit what can responsibly be claimed. They do not make the underlying relationship disappear.

Benson’s campaign says Friedrichs is no longer working on Michigan data-center projects, has recused himself from state-related work that could come before a Benson administration, and that Benson herself had no role in authorizing or developing the Saline project. The project advanced under Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s administration. But “I wasn’t the decision-maker” is not a satisfying answer to a candidate now asking voters to trust her judgment on the same industry that employed her husband.

The real issue is not whether Benson personally signed a permit. It is whether she applies one standard to politically connected insiders and another to everyone else. Her husband helped advance the project. Her former professional benefactor founded the company behind it and donated to her campaigns. The township rejected the project, then faced a lawsuit and settled.

Now Benson says future developers must negotiate openly, respect communities, and meet strict conditions. Where was that standard when her husband’s employer was making its case in Saline?

Voters should not accept campaign promises as proof of accountability. They should demand clear answers: What did Benson know about Friedrichs’s role, and when? What steps did she take to avoid conflicts? Why should residents believe her proposed guardrails will bind powerful developers when the Saline project advanced despite the local board’s rejection?

The public record does not establish a kickback or prove Benson intervened. It does establish enough overlapping relationships and enough political double talk to make this a serious credibility problem. Benson wants to write the rules for data centers. Before Michigan hands her that power, she should explain why her own household’s connections to this project did not require stronger safeguards from the start.

The project’s critics have collected documents and links at Data Center Darlings. Readers should also examine the township records, independent reporting, and Benson’s response.

Benson Says Michigan Can “Get Around” Trump’s Canada Tariffs — But a Governor Cannot Override Federal Trade Law

The Democratic nominee for Michigan governor is promising Canadian “carve-outs.” The Constitution raises a much harder question: Where exactly would a Michigan governor get the authority to bypass a federal tariff?

Michigan Secretary of State and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jocelyn Benson has made an extraordinary promise to Michigan voters: if elected governor, she says she can negotiate directly with Canada to protect Michigan from President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

There is just one enormous problem with that promise.

The governor of Michigan does not control United States tariff policy.

Benson has repeatedly promoted what she calls “subnational agreements” between Michigan and Canada. Her campaign has described them as “carve-outs” that could protect Michigan businesses, consumers and the auto industry from federal tariffs.

On September 30, Benson said she would negotiate agreements “simply between Michigan and our neighbor to the north” to find ways to protect Michigan border crossings from federal tariff policies. Her campaign has made similar statements repeatedly. (jocelynbenson)

But Benson has gone considerably further than simply promising better relations with Canada.

During a September 6 appearance on CBS's Face the Nation, Benson said that as governor she could meet Canadian officials and find ways to ensure Michigan-Canada trade “gets around these tariffs.” 

That wording matters.

Because governors can negotiate, cooperate and advocate.

They cannot rewrite federal tariff law.

CBS Immediately Asked the Obvious Question

CBS moderator Margaret Brennan challenged Benson directly.

If the tariffs are being imposed by the federal government, Brennan essentially asked, how could Michigan possibly cancel out those costs at the state level?

Benson did not identify a federal statute giving Michigan an exemption. She did not identify presidential authority allowing Michigan to establish its own tariff schedule. And she did not explain how an agreement between Michigan and Canadian officials could legally eliminate a tariff imposed under federal authority.

Instead, she returned to the idea of subnational agreements and said Michigan could find ways for trade with Canada to “get around” the tariffs. 

That isn't a minor detail in her proposal.

It is the central legal question.

If Benson is merely proposing cooperation with Canada to reduce other costs associated with trade, she should say precisely that.

If she is claiming that Michigan can negotiate a Canadian “carve-out” that exempts goods from a valid federal tariff, she needs to explain where that authority exists.

Tariffs Are Federal Policy, Not Michigan Policy

The Constitution did not create 50 separate American trade policies.

Article I gives Congress authority over commerce with foreign nations. The Constitution also sharply restricts states' authority over imports and exports.

And Article I, Section 10 specifically restricts states from entering agreements or compacts with foreign powers without congressional consent in circumstances covered by the Compact Clause. The Constitution Annotated published by Congress notes these explicit restrictions on state power. 

Then there is the Supremacy Clause.

Valid federal law is the supreme law of the land. A state cannot simply enact a conflicting policy because its governor believes Washington made a bad decision.

That principle applies whether the governor is a Republican fighting a Democratic president or a Democrat fighting a Republican president.

Michigan does not get a constitutional veto over Washington simply because federal policy disproportionately affects Michigan.

Imagine the Reverse Situation

The constitutional problem becomes obvious if the political parties are reversed.

Suppose a Democratic president imposed federal environmental restrictions on imports from another country.

Then imagine a Republican Michigan governor announcing:

I disagree with Washington, so I'm negotiating directly with that foreign country to create a Michigan carve-out that gets around the federal restrictions.

Would Democrats accept that?

Would Benson?

Almost certainly, the immediate question would be whether a governor was attempting to nullify federal law.

That is precisely why constitutional limits cannot depend upon which party controls Washington.

Michigan Can Work With Canada. That's Not the Same Thing.

None of this means Michigan's governor must sit silently while federal trade policy damages the state.

Michigan and Canada share enormous economic interests. A governor absolutely can maintain relationships with Canadian officials, promote Michigan exports, encourage Canadian investment, coordinate infrastructure projects, work on supply-chain problems and lobby Washington for exemptions or changes in federal policy.

A governor could also pursue lawful state policies designed to offset some economic consequences of tariffs.

Those are legitimate exercises of state leadership.

But Benson's rhetoric repeatedly goes further.

Her own campaign said on September 14 that she would negotiate agreements so Michigan-Canada trade could “get around these tariffs.” (jocelynbenson)

More recently, her campaign quoted her describing “carve-outs” between Michigan and Canada designed to protect Michigan from the tariffs. (jocelynbenson)

Those claims deserve scrutiny.

Where Is the Legal Authority?

Benson is running to become governor of Michigan, not president of the United States and not the United States Trade Representative.

So there are straightforward questions she should answer:

1. What specific legal authority allows a Michigan governor to negotiate a tariff “carve-out” with Canada?

2. Would the agreement require approval from Congress or the federal executive branch?

3. Would U.S. Customs and Border Protection still collect the federal tariff when Canadian goods enter Michigan?

4. If the federal tariff remains payable, what exactly does “get around these tariffs” mean?

5. If Benson isn't claiming Michigan can override the tariff itself, why repeatedly describe the proposal as a way to “get around” federal tariffs?

Those aren't partisan questions.

They are constitutional ones.

A Governor Cannot Create Her Own Foreign-Trade Policy

There is an important distinction Benson's campaign appears determined to blur.

A governor can oppose federal policy.

A governor can lobby to change federal policy.

A governor can challenge federal action in court when there is a legitimate legal basis.

A governor can cooperate with Canadian officials on matters within state authority.

But a governor cannot simply declare that Michigan has negotiated its way out of federal law.

If Washington has imposed a valid tariff under federal law, Michigan cannot erase that tariff through an agreement negotiated in Lansing or Toronto.

That's federal supremacy.

And no campaign slogan changes it.

Benson Owes Michigan More Than a Promise

Perhaps Benson has something narrower in mind.

Perhaps “get around” doesn't mean circumventing the tariff legally. Perhaps she means finding efficiencies, subsidies, procurement arrangements, supply-chain changes or other policies that reduce the economic impact of tariffs without eliminating them.

If that's the proposal, Benson should explain it.

Because telling Michigan voters that their governor can negotiate “carve-outs” with another country and “get around” federal tariffs creates an impression of gubernatorial authority that simply does not exist if she is talking about overriding the tariff itself.

Michigan voters deserve specifics before Election Day.

Benson is free to argue that Trump's tariffs are economically destructive. She is free to campaign against them. She is free to demand that Congress repeal them or that the president withdraw them.

What she cannot credibly promise is something the Constitution does not give a Michigan governor the power to deliver.

Michigan is a state, not a sovereign nation with its own tariff policy.

And whoever occupies the governor's office remains bound by the same Constitution and federal laws as everyone else.

Michigan Governor's Race Faces Conflict-of-Interest Questions as Rx Kids Program Draws New Scrutiny

LANSING, Mich. — As Michigan's 2026 gubernatorial race intensifies, a growing web of political, financial, and ethical questions is emerging around Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, her husband Ryan Friedrichs, and the rapidly expanding Rx Kids cash assistance program.

While no evidence has established that any laws have been broken, critics argue the circumstances create the appearance of a significant conflict of interest that deserves public scrutiny.

At the center of the controversy is Ryan Friedrichs, Benson's husband, who serves on the Rx Kids Advisory Circle, a leadership body that helps guide fundraising, communications, policy development and strategic growth for the statewide program. His advisory role comes as Benson campaigns to become Michigan's next governor while simultaneously serving as the state's chief election official.

The timing has raised difficult questions.

Rx Kids began as a pilot program in Flint, providing direct cash payments to expectant mothers. What started as a relatively small initiative has since grown into a taxpayer-funded program receiving hundreds of millions of dollars and expanding into Democratic-leaning communities across Michigan.

Critics argue the program's expansion deserves heightened oversight because research associated with the program reported that Rx Kids participants voted at higher rates than comparable residents in the 2024 election.

According to research cited by supporters of the program, Rx Kids enrollees were nearly five percentage points more likely to vote than similar nonparticipants. While increased civic participation is not inherently improper, opponents argue that directing massive taxpayer-funded programs into politically favorable areas while a statewide candidate's spouse helps advise the organization creates an appearance that cannot simply be ignored.

The concern becomes more significant because Benson will oversee election administration while seeking the state's highest office.

Even if every action surrounding Rx Kids complied with the law, ethics experts have long argued that public confidence depends not only on actual fairness but also on avoiding situations that create the appearance of favoritism or political advantage.

The financial structure of the program has generated additional criticism.

Reports indicate that nonprofit partners and administrative organizations collected millions of dollars in management fees while distributing taxpayer-funded benefits. Although state officials have defended those expenses as allowable under grant rules, opponents question whether taxpayers are receiving sufficient accountability for the large sums being spent on administration instead of direct assistance.

Legislative Republicans have also criticized how funding for the program dramatically increased during budget negotiations, arguing that lawmakers received little opportunity to fully examine the expansion before approving hundreds of millions in additional spending.

Meanwhile, the advisory circle itself has become another focal point.

Publicly available information identifies advisors connected to organizations that advocate for guaranteed income programs, progressive political causes, labor activism, immigration policy reforms, voting initiatives and other left-leaning organizations.

Membership on an advisory board does not establish wrongdoing, nor does affiliation with advocacy organizations imply illegal conduct. Nevertheless, critics argue the concentration of politically aligned organizations surrounding a taxpayer-funded program expanding during a gubernatorial election cycle warrants far greater public transparency.

Friedrichs' own background has also drawn attention.

Before joining Related Companies as a vice president, he served in Detroit city government and previously worked as a lobbyist. More recently, he has been involved in efforts supporting a large proposed data center development in Saline Township, another project that has generated significant public controversy.

Taken individually, none of these facts prove corruption.

Collectively, however, opponents argue they present a troubling picture of overlapping political influence, taxpayer funding, election-year expansion and family connections involving one of Michigan's most powerful elected officials.

For many observers, the issue is no longer whether Rx Kids helps families.

The larger question is whether a statewide elected official should be allowed to seek higher office while her spouse serves in a leadership role for a taxpayer-funded program whose expansion could indirectly influence political participation in communities likely to support that candidate.

Those questions become even more important because public trust in elections depends upon citizens believing government programs are administered solely for public benefit—not for potential political gain.

As the 2026 campaign continues, lawmakers may face increasing pressure to examine the program's governance, financial oversight, advisory structure and safeguards against conflicts of interest.

Regardless of the outcome, Michigan voters deserve complete transparency regarding how taxpayer dollars are spent, who influences those decisions, and whether sufficient ethical protections exist to preserve public confidence in both government spending and the state's electoral process.

Michigan Revokes Antrim County Clerk’s Access to Voter Roll Amid Escalating Election Integrity Dispute

ANTRIM COUNTY, MI - A growing dispute between state election officials and Antrim County Clerk Victoria Bishop reached a new level this week when the Michigan Bureau of Elections suspended Bishop’s access to the state’s Qualified Voter File (QVF), citing what officials described as repeated violations of Michigan election law.

The move follows months of controversy surrounding Bishop’s efforts to review and alter voter registration records in Antrim County, a county that became nationally known after the 2020 presidential election due to claims of election fraud.

In a letter sent Friday, Michigan Director of Elections Jonathan Brater informed Bishop that her access to the statewide voter registration database was being revoked after a state review found she had taken actions that "do not comply with Michigan Election Law and fall outside the scope of your statutory authority."

Under Michigan law, responsibility for maintaining voter registration records belongs primarily to city and township clerks. County clerks have limited authority to access the system and may only make certain changes under specific circumstances, such as reporting deceased voters.

State officials allege Bishop exceeded that authority by directly altering voter records and sending registration notices to voters without proper authorization.

State Alleges Unauthorized Voter Registration Changes

The conflict dates back to March, when Bishop mailed notices to approximately 1,800 Antrim County voters asking them to verify their registration information. The county has roughly 25,000 residents, meaning the notices reached a significant portion of registered voters.

The Bureau of Elections contends those mailings should have been handled by local township and city clerks, not the county clerk's office.

According to reporting by Interlochen Public Radio and Votebeat, Bishop also changed the voter registration status of several residents to "cancel" within the Qualified Voter File. Journalists reviewing state records identified at least six voters whose registrations were changed to canceled status, while additional reports suggested more than a dozen modifications may have occurred.

Bishop has denied wrongdoing and has argued that she was elected with a mandate to clean up Antrim County's voter rolls.

Throughout her campaign for county clerk, Bishop frequently claimed the county's voter rolls contained deceased individuals and voters who no longer lived in the county. She promised to restore election integrity and remove ineligible registrations.

However, local clerks have challenged her claims.

Banks Township Clerk Julie Chellis previously questioned the methodology used to identify the voters targeted by Bishop's review, noting that some individuals on the list were active voters, including younger residents and absentee voters who were legally registered.

"The list doesn't make sense to me," Chellis said in earlier reporting. "There are people that are voting absentee, as we speak."

State Warned Bishop of Possible Criminal Consequences

The Bureau of Elections first formally warned Bishop in April that her actions were outside her legal authority.

In a strongly worded letter, Brater told Bishop that elected officials do not possess unlimited authority simply because they won office.

"You do not have unlimited authority to conduct any action you see fit simply because you were elected to office," Brater wrote.

The state demanded that Bishop stop altering voter records and provide explanations regarding changes that had already occurred.

According to reports, Bishop initially failed to properly respond to the state's inquiries. Election officials said responses were either incomplete or sent to incorrect email addresses and failed to answer key questions regarding which voter records had been modified and why.

The latest suspension order requires Bishop to complete election training, demonstrate compliance with Michigan election law, and fully answer the state's questions before her access to the Qualified Voter File can be restored.

Investigation Also Involves Husband's Access to Clerk's Office

The controversy has expanded beyond voter registration changes.

Michigan State Police have been investigating an incident involving Bishop's husband, Randy Bishop, a conservative radio host known throughout Northern Michigan as "Trucker Randy."

According to a state police report obtained through public records requests, a county employee observed Randy Bishop alone inside a secure section of the clerk's office on February 19 while Victoria Bishop attended a county commission meeting elsewhere in the building.

Investigators reported that Randy Bishop was using Victoria Bishop's office computer to watch a livestream of the public meeting.

The clerk's office contains access to election-related systems, including the Qualified Voter File.

The Bishops told investigators that Randy was merely waiting for an important phone call and wanted a quiet place to watch the meeting. Both denied that he accessed voter registration records or other sensitive election data.

Victoria Bishop told investigators that her husband did not know her login credentials and had not independently accessed her computer.

The Michigan Attorney General's Office has confirmed that the investigation remains ongoing.

No criminal charges have been filed against either Victoria or Randy Bishop.

Political and Legal Tensions Continue to Escalate

The dispute has become increasingly political.

Randy Bishop has used his radio program to defend his wife and criticize Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and state election officials. During several broadcasts, he denied that Victoria Bishop improperly removed voters from the registration rolls and promoted efforts to raise money for potential legal action against the state.

At one point, fundraising efforts were launched to support a lawsuit against Benson and election officials, though no lawsuit ultimately appears to have been filed.

Reports indicate only a few hundred dollars were raised before the fundraising effort was removed.

No Expected Impact on Upcoming Elections

Despite the suspension, election officials say voters should not experience disruptions ahead of Michigan's August primary elections.

Antrim County Deputy Clerk Annette Marcus continues to have access to the Qualified Voter File, and most voter registration maintenance is performed by township and city clerks rather than county officials.

State officials also say they have worked with local clerks to restore any voter registrations that may have been improperly altered.

Still, the dispute has intensified scrutiny of election administration in Antrim County, a jurisdiction that has remained at the center of election integrity debates since 2020.

With investigations ongoing and state officials continuing to review Bishop's actions, the controversy is likely to remain a major issue heading into the 2026 election cycle.

Cox Calls for Investigation, Transparency Into Benson’s Ties to Southern Poverty Law Center

LIVONIA, Mich. — April 27, 2026 — Former Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox is calling for an investigation and expanded public disclosure regarding Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and her past affiliation with the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Cox, who previously served as attorney general and spent more than two decades as a prosecutor, announced Monday that he has filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records of communications between Benson, the Michigan Department of State, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, often referred to as the SPLC.

The request, according to Cox, seeks emails, internal communications, and other records connected to Benson’s tenure on the organization’s board. Cox also urged Benson to voluntarily release additional materials beyond the scope of the request, including notes, calendars, and other documentation tied to her time with the group.

Cox’s call comes amid claims that the SPLC is facing a federal indictment tied to alleged financial misconduct, including accusations of fraud, false statements, and money laundering. He pointed to the overlap between the timeframe referenced in the alleged indictment and Benson’s service on the organization’s board as a basis for further scrutiny.

“As a former attorney general, I know the difference between political noise and serious public corruption concerns. This is serious,” Cox said in a statement. “This federal indictment raises obvious questions: What did Jocelyn Benson know? When did she know it? And did her relationship with SPLC continue into her work as Michigan Secretary of State?”

Cox added that, in his view, full transparency is necessary to address public concerns.

“The public deserves full transparency into her time on the board and her time running Michigan’s elections,” he said. “If there is nothing to hide, release the records.”

Benson’s office has not yet publicly responded to Cox’s request or the allegations referenced in his statement.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit known for tracking hate groups and litigating civil rights cases, has not issued a public statement addressing the claims of a federal indictment referenced by Cox.

As of Monday, no independent confirmation of the alleged indictment had been immediately verified through publicly available federal court records.

The situation remains developing.

Michigan Secretary of State Admits Another Noncitizen Vote — But Stonewalls Accountability Questions

 

LANSING, Mich. — Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson has now acknowledged another confirmed case of noncitizen voting in Michigan — while declining to answer basic questions about how often it has happened, how many illegal ballots were cast, or what concrete steps her office is taking to stop it from happening again.

The admission came Thursday after the Department of State reviewed records flagged by Macomb County Clerk Anthony Forlini, whose office uncovered evidence that noncitizens had appeared in jury pools and, in several cases, were registered to vote and had cast ballots.

Speaking at a livestreamed press conference, Benson confirmed that one of the individuals identified in Forlini’s data review was a noncitizen who voted in a Michigan election. She also acknowledged that her office canceled that individual’s voter registration — but refused to disclose how many times the person voted, whether additional illegal ballots were cast, or whether similar cases were previously missed by state reviews.

That refusal has become a pattern.

A Pattern of Admissions — and Evasions

Forlini’s office reported that between September 2025 and January 2026, 239 individuals selected for jury duty in Macomb County self-identified as noncitizens. Cross-checking those names against voter rolls revealed 14 individuals who had registered to vote at some point, including 10 still listed as qualified voters. At least three showed voting histories, and one had voted multiple times before removal.

Under Michigan law, noncitizens are barred from both jury service and voting.

Yet Michigan’s automatic voter registration system — tied to driver’s license transactions — relies on self-attestation of citizenship, not verification against a federal database. The state does not systematically confirm citizenship status before adding individuals to the voter rolls.

Benson has repeatedly insisted that “only U.S. citizens can register to vote or cast ballots in our elections.” The evidence emerging from Macomb County directly contradicts that claim.

Numbers Don’t Add Up

The scope of the issue becomes more troubling when viewed statewide.

When Benson took office, Michigan had approximately 7.5 million registered voters — about 300,000 fewer than the voting-age population. By 2022, the state reported roughly 8.2 million registered voters for a voting-age population of about 7.9 million, following an expansion of automatic registration programs.

Despite those figures, Benson has refused to provide a clear accounting of how many noncitizens have been identified and removed from the voter rolls during her tenure. When pressed by reporters Thursday, she could not — or would not — answer.

Instead, she alleged without documentation that her office has removed more than 1.1 million “out-of-date” registrations, a figure unrelated to the narrower and more serious question of illegal voting by noncitizens.

Prior Testimony, Now Undercut

This is not the first time Benson’s public statements have been undermined by later disclosures.

In September 2024, Benson testified before Congress that there was “no evidence that noncitizens are voting.” One month later, she acknowledged that a Chinese national — a University of Michigan student — illegally cast a ballot in the 2024 election that could not be retrieved once counted.

By April 2025, Benson admitted at least 15 additional illegal ballots were likely cast in that same election. Republican lawmakers later suggested the true number could be significantly higher.

Now, with another confirmed noncitizen vote emerging from Forlini’s findings, Benson again downplayed the significance — while warning that scrutiny itself could harm “faith in elections.”

Shifting Blame, Avoiding Fixes

Rather than outlining corrective measures, Benson has focused her criticism on those who uncovered the problem.

She accused Forlini and federal investigators of attempting to “intimidate” state officials and suggested that efforts to tighten election safeguards are politically motivated. At the same time, she continues to campaign against proposals requiring proof of citizenship or photo identification to vote — measures supporters argue would directly address the vulnerabilities now on display.

Despite promising in 2025 to work with lawmakers on legislation to prevent illegal voting, no such bill has materialized from her office. Instead, Benson proposed a slate of election rule changes critics say would make challenges to illegal votes more difficult.

She also declined to specify what steps, if any, her office is taking to prevent noncitizen voting going forward.

The Core Question Remains

At issue is not rhetoric, but responsibility.

Michigan law is clear. Voting by noncitizens is illegal. Each confirmed case represents not just a clerical error, but a breakdown in election administration. Yet Benson — now overseeing the state’s election system while campaigning for higher office — has offered assurances instead of answers, narratives instead of numbers.

Forlini’s findings suggest the problem may not be isolated. Benson’s unwillingness to fully account for it has only intensified scrutiny.

As one confirmed noncitizen vote becomes two, then sixteen, then potentially dozens, the question facing Michigan voters is simple: how many more went undetected — and why does the state’s chief election official still refuse to say?