Opinion: Michigan elections don’t need federal oversight because of Benson run
This op-ed original appeared in Bridge Michigan.
In 2026, 20 secretaries of state, including Jocelyn Benson in Michigan, will be candidates in elections they oversee, either for re-election or for other offices, including governor. Michigan Republicans have statements on this issue that vastly overstate the potential risks of this situation. Sitting secretaries of state in many states often run for office without significant electoral problems.
That said, the appearance of a conflict of interest is a problem that election officials in any state should take seriously, especially when there are unfortunate doubts and suspicions in America about elections.
We encourage the office of the Secretary of State in Michigan to assess and publicly address the topic of potential conflicts of interest for Benson when she runs for governor and for Deputy Secretary of State Aghogho Edevbie when he runs for secretary of state. This assessment should evaluate what decisions or actions either candidate will take that could create a conflict of interest, or could reasonably appear to do so and what options are available, consistent with state law, for managing any of them.
We offer this same recommendation to all secretaries of state who have filed to run for office in 2026, in keeping with guidelines published last year by Election Reformers Network (ERN).
Republican lawmakers have called for the Department of Justice to monitor Michigan elections. The Department of Justice has monitored elections in Michigan before – in Grand Rapids in 2024, for example – and has historically ensured that voting rights are respected in line with federal laws like the Voting Rights Act, Help America Vote Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. By law, Justice Department monitors are only allowed to enter polling stations if requested by the state, or by court order enforcing the voting rights. This status reflects that the Constitution gives responsibility for elections to the states and Congress, not the executive branch.
Just as today’s hyperpolarized environment raises new considerations and concerns for secretaries of state, it would be of concern for the Department of Justice to depart from historic precedent and to mobilize in response to a partisan request.
Michigan state law already allows for election procedures to be robustly monitored, including by those who have the most at stake: the competing parties. Political parties can receive credentials to monitor all key phases of the election, including important steps such as the testing of election equipment immediately before the balloting as well as the review of provisional ballots.
It is also likely that The Carter Center, with the cooperation of the Ford Presidential Foundation, will field nonpartisan observers to monitor elections in Michigan, as the Carter Center has done recently in other states.
Remedies exist to address perceptions of conflicts of interest in the administration of elections. Some state legislators are considering legislation to address this problem.
A 2020 Election Reformers Network study found that secretaries of state have taken actions to try to help themselves win elections, but this has occurred very rarely, in part because secretaries have little direct impact on most election procedures.
In Michigan, Benson has no role in some election phases that have created concerns in other states, such as oversight of ballot initiative language, certifying results and certifying ballot access.
However, most voters don’t understand election laws well enough to know the many constraints on the role of secretaries of state in elections. This is why we recommend proactive public action, including transparency planning, to address potential concerns.
We also discourage politicians from statements that risk sowing doubt unnecessarily among voters.
