The following is an editorial written by Rep. Fox of Michigan's 101st District. This includes opinions regarding the integrity of voting and elections.

 

The 2020 election was called the most secure in US history by officials, but confidence in election integrity has never been lower. Now, headed into November, Michigan promises to produce still more skeptics with upcoming changes to our election laws.

I have heard from many of you about Senate Bills 603 and 604, which would modify the recount process during elections for both candidates and ballot proposals, and voted NO on them, along with every Republican in the House. Overall, the politically motivated bills will diminish the strength of election verification processes in our state and will discourage earnest inquiries into election wrongdoing.

If a candidate loses a close election, but has a reasonable suspicion that fraud was conducted in sufficient numbers to overturn the result, then a recount request would be denied. This also applies to ballot questions like millages and proposals to amend Michigan’s Constitution.

Moreover, the cost to initiate a recount will double per precinct, which consists of up to 5000 voters. This means a recount of Newaygo, Grant, White Cloud and Fremont alone could cost over $1000.  Clearly, this does more than deter frivolous recount requests – it creates unnecessary barriers to issue a reasonable recount.

The Secretary of State made headlines recently for issuing guidance to local election officials during the February presidential primary, specifically by instructing them to assume the validity of signatures submitted online for absent voter ballots, and not check the submissions with existing voter signatures in the QVF – the practice prescribed by the state constitution. The Michigan Court of Claims ruled that the SOS’ guidance was unlawful and upheld election integrity in doing so. This ruling proves that voters have a right to be skeptical about election processes, for even Michigan’s top election official needed help adhering to election law in this case.

Perceptions matter. With less measures of accountability for elections, voters are right to perceive these bills as risky and receive them with skepticism. Earnest attempts to investigate wrongdoing in elections should not be discouraged using steeper fees, and fraud must never be excluded from consideration in starting a recount.

I’m in the business of shining light on crucial issues, not gaslighting you about them.The 2020 election was called the most secure in US history by officials, but confidence in election integrity has never been lower. Now, headed into November, Michigan promises to produce still more skeptics with upcoming changes to our election laws.

I have heard from many of you about Senate Bills 603 and 604, which would modify the recount process during elections for both candidates and ballot proposals, and voted NO on them, along with every Republican in the House. Overall, the politically motivated bills will diminish the strength of election verification processes in our state and will discourage earnest inquiries into election wrongdoing.

If a candidate loses a close election, but has a reasonable suspicion that fraud was conducted in sufficient numbers to overturn the result, then a recount request would be denied. This also applies to ballot questions like millages and proposals to amend Michigan’s Constitution.

Moreover, the cost to initiate a recount will double per precinct, which consists of up to 5000 voters. This means a recount of Newaygo, Grant, White Cloud and Fremont alone could cost over $1000. Clearly, this does more than deter frivolous recount requests – it creates unnecessary barriers to issue a reasonable recount.

The Secretary of State made headlines recently for issuing guidance to local election officials during the February presidential primary, specifically by instructing them to assume the validity of signatures submitted online for absent voter ballots, and not check the submissions with existing voter signatures in the QVF – the practice prescribed by the state constitution. The Michigan Court of Claims ruled that the SOS’ guidance was unlawful and upheld election integrity in doing so. This ruling proves that voters have a right to be skeptical about election processes, for even Michigan’s top election official needed help adhering to election law in this case.

Perceptions matter. With less measures of accountability for elections, voters are right to perceive these bills as risky and receive them with skepticism. Earnest attempts to investigate wrongdoing in elections should not be discouraged using steeper fees, and fraud must never be excluded from consideration in starting a recount.

I’m in the business of shining light on crucial issues, not gaslighting you about them.