Michigan has a rule that should govern every person in public office: you are not allowed to referee your own game.
Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson is running for governor, and right now, she is pushing a fourth round of election rule changes that expand her office’s authority in ways the Legislature never authorized, all ahead of an election where she will likely be listed at the top of the ballot.
This is not a technicality. It is a constitutional crisis in slow motion.
I chair the House Election Integrity Committee. We have spent the past year tracking what the Michigan Department of State (MDOS) has done through the rulemaking process. Last year, Benson’s MDOS submitted three election rule changes containing 40 provisions, many of which appear to violate federal law, state law and the Michigan Constitution.
The Michigan Fair Elections Institute documented this in its 195-page report, “Compromised Checkpoints,” released this month. Now, a fourth, Rule Set 2025-63 ST, has arrived with a public hearing on May 22, but with no explanation as to why its eight new rules are necessary.
That last point matters. Michigan law requires every rulemaking agency to publish an annual regulatory plan each year on July 1. Each plan is to report on issues and identify rules the agency intends to advocate for in the coming year (MCL 24.253). But the Department of State’s annual plan makes no mention of issues related to its newest proposal. No need was identified. No problem was announced. They just dropped this new rule set nine months past deadline with an expectation it be adopted right before the election.
When a rule set appears without explanation or justification, one question is reasonable: what is driving this change? A careful reading of the text makes the answer clear.
The new rules expand the Secretary of State’s authority beyond what state law allows. Rule 168.55(2) lets Bureau of Elections staff perform duties assigned to the Board of State Canvassers, even though the Board was created as an independent constitutional body and the Bureau director was intentionally made only a “non-member” secretary.
Rules 168.56 and 168.57 similarly reach into the internal operations of county and local clerks’ offices, even though state law gives the secretary of state authority to supervise clerk performance, not dictate office structure.
Rule 168.58 adds unnecessary definitions from unrelated laws, seemingly setting the stage for future rule changes before the public has a fair chance to weigh in. Together, these rules shift power away from independent election officials and toward a secretary of state with a clear conflict of interest.
This is how incremental regulatory expansion and executive branch overreach work.Most rule changes are routine things. There is nothing routine about this. When looked at together, this is a clear attempt by Benson to expand her own control without legislative approval.
These rules were never passed by the Legislature. But the Michigan Constitution gives lawmaking power over elections to the Legislature (Art. IV, Sec. 1) and requires executive offices to be created by law (Art. V, Sec. 2). Administrative rules are meant to carry out laws, not create new powers. When bureaucrats use rulemaking to expand authority, they bypass the public accountability the Constitution requires.
Michigan’s rulemaking oversight process is broken, and Benson is taking advantage of it. The Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules reviews executive branch rules like these but was itself created by executive order, with no fixed terms, Senate confirmation or removal protections for its leaders. In other words, the office is meant to provide oversight answers to the same branch it is supposed to check. Michigan Fair Elections Institute’s comparative research found that 23 other states with similar review offices have independent protections, while Michigan provides none.
A rule-review office that the governor can restructure or abolish at will does not provide independent oversight. It provides the appearance of oversight.
And overseeing all of it is Benson, who is actively running for governor, with no statute requiring her recusal from the election rulemaking that will govern her own race.
The public hearing is May 22. Written comments to Elections-PublicComment@Michigan.gov can be submitted by 5 p.m. that day. What enters Michigan’s Administrative Code in the coming weeks will govern the November 2026 election. Make your voice part of the record.Rep. Rachelle Smit represents Michigan’s 43rd House District and chairs the House Election Integrity Committee.
This article originally appeared on The Detroit News: Michigan’s Secretary of State is writing her own voting laws. That should alarm every voter. | Opinion
Reporting by Rep. Rachelle Smit / The Detroit News
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
