Battle lines drawn in fight over Michigan voter citizenship proposal

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Michigan’s free newsletter here.

LANSING — A Michigan House committee’s first hearing on a proposal to require that voters prove their U.S. citizenship devolved into a partisan clash Tuesday.

Republicans framed the proposed amendment to the state constitution as a safeguard against fraud, while Democrats condemned it as an unnecessary barrier to voting. The House Election Integrity Committee took no action on the resolution, which would require new registrants to provide proof of citizenship and mandate ongoing checks of Michigan’s voter rolls.

Rep. Matt Koleszar of Plymouth and other Democrats asked about the specific documentation required and whether the cost associated with documents such as a passport — which is often more than $150 per person — could be considered a poll tax. Deputy Secretary of State Aghogho Edevbie, who is running for secretary of state as a Democrat, said that was a reasonable assessment.

The author of the resolution and House majority floor leader called that suggestion “offensive.”

“The fact that a member of this body would actually assume that I would be, in any way, shape or form, looking to institute a poll tax — and yes, I’m looking at you, because that is extremely offensive,” Rep. Bryan Posthumus, a Republican from Rockford, said to Koleszar. “I would say it’s just an outright lie meant to derail my effort and impugn my character.”

Related:

• Republicans launch Michigan 'election integrity' panel
• 2020 election skeptic to head Michigan House election integrity committee
• Potential ballot proposal seeks proof of citizenship for Michigan voters

Much of the back and forth concerned the proposal’s lack of specificity. Posthumus’ bill does not list which documents would be required from voters. It says the state would have to “use all reasonable efforts” to verify someone’s citizenship, although those efforts are also left undefined.

Posthumus testified Tuesday that he deliberately left those decisions open to a future legislature to decide. He added that he wouldn’t support any legislation that didn’t allow married women who had changed their name to easily prove their citizenship, a key concern among critics of the proposal.

Supporters say the constitutional amendment would prevent noncitizens — such as the University of Michigan student who allegedly cast a ballot last year despite being a Chinese citizen — from voting. Opponents have said the bill would disenfranchise even eligible voters and make it difficult for people to register if they don’t have immediate access to their personal documents.

But the uncertainty over the details of the proposal is what has Democrats and voting rights activists particularly concerned.

“I don’t think we should amend something into the Constitution that would give the Legislature the chance to purge our voter rolls,” Rep. Stephen Wooden, a Democrat from Grand Rapids and the minority vice chair of the committee, told Votebeat after the meeting. “Given how politicized we have become, I’m concerned about how the proposed amendment clearly gives the secretary of state power to individually check the citizenship of voters and could absolutely be used to politically purge our voters.”

Most of those who testified at the hearing were opposed to it. That included testimony from Edevbie, Promote the Vote, Voters Not Politicians, and others who all suggested that requiring proof of citizenship would not prevent noncitizen voting, which is already illegal, but would instead disenfranchise eligible voters.

“There have been many efforts over the years looking at noncitizen participation in elections and have all come up with the same conclusion: Cases are isolated and extremely rare,” Kyle Zawacki, legislative director for the ACLU of Michigan, testified Tuesday.

Committee Chair Rep. Rachelle Smit, a Republican from Martin, also read comment cards from more than a dozen other groups and individuals opposed to the bill.

Among those who testified in support of the measure was Shelly Lake, deputy clerk in Barry County’s Irving Township, who once sued fellow clerks around the state for access to qualified voter lists. The argument that requiring proof of citizenship is too onerous is a “slap in the face to our veterans,” she said.

The bill is still likely to move forward to the full House. Each Republican member of the Election Integrity Committee has signed on as a co-sponsor, as have nearly 40 other House Republicans.

After that, its prospects are less clear. To make it to the 2026 ballot through the legislative route, it would need the approval of two-thirds of the House, which Republicans control by a narrow margin, as well as two-thirds of the Senate, where Democrats have the edge.

Otherwise, the bill will likely head to a signature-gathering initiative from a group named Prove It Michigan, which is run by the Committee to Protect Voters' Rights.

Hayley Harding is a reporter for Votebeat based in Michigan. Contact Hayley at hharding@votebeat.org.