State Issues

I SUPPORT HB 6320–6322: Protecting Michigan Seniors

When families entrust the care of a parent or grandparent to an assisted-living facility, they deserve to know their loved one is safe, respected, and properly cared for.

HB 6320–6322 is being considered as lawmakers examine oversight and protections in assisted living. The House has heard from state regulators, assisted-living providers, senior-care organizations, the Alzheimer’s Association, and advocates for Theresa’s Law.

I support stronger protections for older and vulnerable Michiganders—and meaningful accountability when the system fails them.

This is personal to me. My family cared for my grandmother-in-law in our home for 25 years, including through hospice. I know what it means to entrust someone you love to caregivers, and I know how vulnerable families can feel when someone they love can no longer advocate fully for themselves.

Good elder-care policy should protect residents, support responsible caregivers and providers, and give families confidence that there is meaningful oversight when something goes wrong.

Care isn't just a policy issue. It's about how we treat one another.

That means protecting all of us.

Research sources: Source 1 · Source 2

I SUPPORT HB 6156: We need more health-care professionals—and we need people willing to train them.

Michigan can educate more nurses and advanced-practice providers only if students have qualified professionals willing to supervise their required clinical training.

HB 6156 would provide a Michigan income-tax credit for eligible advanced-practice registered nurses who serve as clinical preceptors.

I support it.

We talk a lot about health-care workforce shortages, especially when people struggle to find a provider or wait months for an appointment. One practical part of the solution is making sure students can actually complete the clinical training required to enter the workforce.

As a bioethics professor, I've spent years educating students headed into health-care careers. I've also helped students find clinical placements. I know that education doesn't stop in the classroom—and experienced professionals who teach the next generation are providing a valuable public service.

Let's remove bottlenecks, strengthen Michigan's health-care workforce, and expand access to care.

Care. Class. Costs.

This one touches all three.

Research sources: Source 1 · Source 2

I SUPPORT HB 5488–5489: Give young people a pathway into emergency medicine.

Michigan communities need EMTs and medical first responders. At the same time, we have high school students looking for meaningful careers and hands-on opportunities.

HB 5488–5489 would allow qualified 17-year-olds to become licensed as EMTs or medical first responders with parental or guardian consent.

I support this bipartisan proposal.

This isn't about lowering standards. It's about allowing young people who complete the required education and training to put those skills to work—and giving Michigan another tool to address shortages in emergency medical services.

It also creates something I strongly believe in: a clearer connection between education and an actual career.

We should be expanding career and technical education, building partnerships between schools and employers, and giving students multiple pathways to successful careers—not telling every student that a four-year degree is the only route to success.

When Democrats and Republicans find a practical solution that strengthens our workforce and creates opportunities for young people, we should work together and get it done.

That's what governing should look like.

Research sources: Source 1 · Source 2

I SUPPORT HB 6159–6160: Keep batteries out of our trash—and make recycling easier.

We use batteries every day. But when lithium-ion and other batteries end up in ordinary trash and recycling, they can create fires, threaten workers, and waste materials that could be recovered and reused.

HB 6159–6160 would create a statewide battery stewardship program and put responsibility for managing batteries at the end of their useful lives on the producers who put them into the marketplace.

I support this bipartisan effort.

Consumers shouldn't have to wonder what to do with an old battery or drive across the state looking for somewhere to recycle it. We need convenient, accessible collection throughout Michigan.

And there's a basic principle here that makes sense to me:

If a company profits from selling a product, it should share responsibility for safely managing that product when we're finished with it—not simply leave taxpayers and local governments with the bill.

That's good environmental policy, but it's also good public-safety policy. Improperly discarded batteries can ignite in garbage trucks, recycling facilities and landfills, putting workers and firefighters at risk.

Protect our environment. Protect our workers. Recover valuable materials. And make responsible disposal easier for Michigan families.

That's a practical solution I can support.

Research sources: Source 1 · Source 2

HB 6247–6249: Carbon capture could become part of Michigan's energy future—but I need more Michigan data before deciding whether this is the right regulatory framework.

These bills would establish rules for capturing carbon dioxide and storing it underground in Michigan.

I understand the potential argument: if carbon capture can safely reduce emissions from industries that are difficult to decarbonize, Michigan needs strong rules in place before projects begin.

But underground carbon storage also raises questions that deserve answers before we commit to a statewide framework.

I want Michigan-specific data on:

• Where carbon could actually be stored in Michigan and how much geological storage capacity we have.

• How close potential storage sites and pipelines would be to homes, farms, drinking-water sources, and communities.

• The risk of leaks, groundwater contamination, pipeline accidents, and long-term migration of stored CO₂.

• Who is financially responsible if something goes wrong 10, 30, or 50 years from now.

• How much insurance, bonding, or other financial assurance operators would have to maintain.

• Whether Michigan could become a storage destination for carbon captured in other states.

• Whether the proposed fees are sufficient to pay for monitoring and long-term oversight.

• And most importantly: how much net greenhouse-gas reduction these projects would actually achieve after accounting for the energy required to capture, transport, and store the carbon.

I also want local communities to have a meaningful voice when pipelines or storage sites affect them.

If you work in energy, manufacturing, geology, environmental protection, emergency response, agriculture, or live in an area where carbon-storage infrastructure could be proposed, I want to hear from you.

Climate policy should be based on measurable results.

And environmental protection requires asking what happens not just when a project begins—but decades after everyone who approved it is gone.

On HB 6247–6249, I need the Michigan data, strong safeguards, and constituent input before taking a final position.

Research sources: Source 1 · Source 2

HB 6281: Could year-round E15 lower fuel costs and support Michigan agriculture without compromising air quality? I need the data before deciding.

HB 6281 would change Michigan's motor-fuel rules, including provisions affecting year-round sale of E15 gasoline and summer fuel standards.

There are reasonable arguments for expanding E15. More ethanol could support farmers and domestic fuel production, potentially increase fuel supply, and provide another option at the pump.

But Michigan also has real air-quality concerns.

EGLE reports that parts of West Michigan—including areas of Allegan, Berrien, and Muskegon counties—are classified as serious ozone nonattainment areas. Gasoline evaporation contributes volatile organic compounds that can help form ground-level ozone.

Before changing our summer fuel standards, I want Michigan-specific answers:

• What would HB 6281 actually do to gasoline prices?

• How much would consumers realistically save per gallon?

• What would year-round E15 mean for Michigan corn growers and ethanol producers?

• What does EGLE's modeling show about ozone and other air-quality effects?

• Would the impact differ in West Michigan's ozone-nonattainment areas?

• Which vehicles and engines can safely use E15—and how clear will consumer labeling be?

• How would the change affect small engines, boats, motorcycles, and older vehicles?

• And are we solving a genuine fuel-supply problem or making a permanent statutory change in response to temporary market conditions?

Affordable fuel matters. Michigan agriculture matters. Clean air matters.

I want the data that shows how HB 6281 affects all three before taking a final position—and I want to hear from constituents who work in farming, fuel retail, transportation, vehicle repair, and environmental protection.

Research sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

I SUPPORT THE PRINCIPLE BEHIND HB 5968—with one important question still to resolve.

No elected official should be responsible for supervising an election in which they are also a candidate.

HB 5968 would require Michigan's Secretary of State to step away from supervising or administering an election when the Secretary is running for another elected office.

I support establishing that safeguard in Michigan law.

This shouldn't depend on which party holds the office. A good conflict-of-interest rule should apply equally to Democrats, Republicans and everyone who comes after them.

But I am not yet convinced that automatically transferring those responsibilities to the Deputy Secretary of State is the best answer.

Before voting for the final legislation, I would want to know:

Who should serve as the independent election authority? What happens if that person also has a conflict? What safeguards ensure genuine independence? And who steps in if the designated successor cannot serve?

Those are questions we should answer before writing the final law.

I support the principle. Now let's make sure we get the details right.

Election integrity shouldn't be partisan. The same rules should apply no matter who is in office.

Research sources: Source 1

HB 6105: I haven't decided yet—and I want to hear from you.

Not every bill should get an automatic yes or no.

HB 6105 deals with lake-level assessments on state-owned DNR property and how those costs interact with payments the state makes to local governments in lieu of property taxes.

The principle behind the bill makes sense to me: if the State of Michigan owns property that benefits from maintaining a lake level, the state should pay its fair share rather than shifting that obligation onto local governments.

But before taking a final position, I have questions.

Where will the DNR get the money to pay these assessments separately? What will the statewide cost be? Are there unintended consequences for local governments, property owners, or the DNR budget? And how would this affect communities here in West Michigan?

That's where representation matters.

I want to hear from the people who actually deal with this.

If you're a lakefront property owner, township or county official, lake-board member, conservation advocate, or someone who has experience with special assessments or PILT payments, tell me what I'm missing.

What would HB 6105 mean for your community?

Good legislators shouldn't pretend to know everything. They should ask questions, listen to the people affected, examine the evidence—and then make a decision.

So on HB 6105, I'm listening. What do you think?

Research sources: Source 1

HB 6143 — Les Cheneaux crib docks: I want the science and the local experience before changing Great Lakes permitting rules.

HB 6143 addresses traditional timber-and-stone crib docks in the Les Cheneaux Islands and would change the standard EGLE uses when reviewing certain permits.

I understand why residents want to preserve a structure that is part of the history and character of their community. I also respect the bill's unusual local-control component: Clark Township voters would ultimately have a voice.

But the Great Lakes belong to all of us, and Michigan has a responsibility to protect their bottomlands and public trust.

Before taking a position, I want actual data:

• How many crib-dock permits has EGLE denied or significantly restricted—and why?

• Are existing historic docks creating documented environmental problems?

• What scientific research exists on sediment movement, fish habitat, shoreline processes, and water circulation around these structures?

• Should rebuilding an existing historic dock be treated differently from constructing a brand-new one?

• Can the permitting process be improved without restricting EGLE's ability to prevent environmental harm?

• And what do Les Cheneaux residents, tribal communities, scientists, boaters, property owners, and Great Lakes advocates think?

Local traditions matter.

Local control matters.

And protecting the Great Lakes matters.

Before changing the environmental-review standard, I want the evidence and I want to hear from the people who live with these decisions.

On HB 6143, I'm listening.

Research sources: Source 1 · Source 2

HB 6242 — Bear-bait barrels: I need wildlife data and hunter input before changing the rules.

Michigan already permits bear baiting under detailed DNR regulations. Current rules limit hunters to three bait stations and allow manufactured containers such as metal barrels on private land, while prohibiting them on public and Commercial Forest lands.

HB 6242 would create a separate bear-bait-barrel permit.

Before supporting or opposing that change, I want to understand what problem we're trying to solve.

I want Michigan DNR data on:

• How many bait barrels are currently being used.

• How often barrels are abandoned or improperly maintained.

• Whether bears or other wildlife are being injured or trapped by existing containers.

• Whether a permit system would improve enforcement and accountability.

• Whether HB 6242 changes where barrels may legally be used.

• What the permit fee would pay for.

• And why these requirements should be written into statute rather than managed through DNR wildlife regulations.

Michigan has already changed barrel-opening rules in the past because of concerns about bears and non-target wildlife becoming trapped or injured. That tells me wildlife-safety data should be part of this discussion.

And I especially want to hear from bear hunters, wildlife biologists, conservation officers, private landowners, animal-welfare advocates, and people who participate in Michigan's Bear Forum.

Wildlife policy should be based on sound management—not assumptions from either side.

On HB 6242, I need the data and I want constituent input before taking a final position.

Research sources: Source 1 · Source 2

HB 6259–6263: These are serious crimes—and serious policy decisions. I need to hear more before taking a final position.

This package would significantly change Michigan's criminal sexual conduct sentencing laws, including new mandatory minimum sentences, higher potential maximum sentences for some offenses, and changing fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct from a misdemeanor to a felony.

I believe survivors of sexual assault deserve justice, accountability, and a criminal justice system that takes these offenses seriously.

I also believe that when the Legislature changes criminal penalties—particularly by imposing mandatory minimum sentences—we have an obligation to understand exactly how those changes will work in real cases.

These bills raise questions I want answered.

How would the mandatory minimums affect survivors and prosecutions? When should judges retain discretion based on the facts of an individual case? Are there circumstances where a mandatory sentence could produce an unintended result? Should fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct be classified as a felony even though the maximum incarceration period would remain two years? And would these changes actually improve public safety and justice for survivors?

Before taking a final position, I want to listen.

I want to hear from survivors and victim advocates. I want to hear from prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, law enforcement, sentencing experts, and families who have experienced the criminal justice system.

And most importantly, I want to hear from the people I hope to represent.

If you have experience with Michigan's criminal sexual conduct laws—or simply have a perspective you think lawmakers should consider—please share it.

Being a legislator shouldn't mean arriving in Lansing already convinced you know every answer.

Sometimes responsible representation means saying:

This matters. I need to learn more. And I'm listening.

Research sources: Source 1 · Source 2

HB 5920–5921: I SUPPORT stronger prison oversight—but I have some questions I want answered.

Michigan already has a Legislative Corrections Ombudsman responsible for investigating concerns within our prison system. HB 5920–5921 would strengthen that office by expanding access to the complaint process, increasing transparency, allowing greater use of outside experts, and strengthening protections for people who report problems.

I support those goals.

Accountability shouldn't stop at the prison door.

People who are incarcerated remain entitled to humane treatment. Families deserve a meaningful way to raise serious concerns. Corrections officers and other employees should be able to report unsafe conditions without fearing retaliation. And taxpayers deserve to know whether a system they fund is operating safely and responsibly.

But supporting the goal doesn't mean we stop asking questions.

Before final passage, I want to make sure:

• The Ombudsman's office has enough independence to investigate MDOC without political interference.

• Medical and mental-health information remains appropriately protected, particularly when outside experts become involved.

• The office has sufficient staffing and resources to handle its expanded responsibilities rather than simply creating a larger backlog.

• Corrections employees as well as incarcerated people have meaningful protection when they report legitimate problems.

My position: support—with attention to independence, privacy, resources, and implementation.

Oversight isn't about being “for” prisoners or “against” corrections officers.

It's about making sure government institutions are accountable to all of us.

Research sources: Source 1 · Source 2

I OPPOSE HB 5211–5213: Child custody decisions should begin with the child—not a mathematical formula.

I believe children benefit when they can have safe, healthy and meaningful relationships with both parents.

But I do not support HB 5211–5213, which would create a presumption in favor of equal or approximately equal parenting time and require clear and convincing evidence to overcome that presumption.

I agree with the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan: custody decisions should remain centered on the individual best interests of each child.

As an attorney who has worked in family law, I know that families do not arrive in court with identical circumstances.

Parents may live far apart. Work schedules may be dramatically different. A child may have medical, educational or developmental needs. There may be domestic violence, coercive control, substance abuse, instability, or other circumstances that require particularly careful consideration.

A 50/50 arrangement may be an excellent solution for many families.

But the question should be:

What arrangement is best for this child?

Not:

Why shouldn't this child be placed into a predetermined arrangement?

Judges should consider meaningful relationships with both parents as part of the best-interest analysis. But they also need enough discretion to evaluate the evidence, listen to families, consider safety, and make decisions based on the circumstances of the individual child before them.

Family court is difficult enough without replacing individualized judgment with a statutory presumption.

Children deserve decisions built around their needs—not around a one-size-fits-all formula.

Research sources: Source 1 · Source 2

I SUPPORT HB 5120–5121: A protection order should provide protection—not another obstacle for a survivor to overcome.

When someone has gone to court and convinced a judge that a Personal Protection Order is necessary, that person should not then have to worry about how to find the respondent, arrange for service, or come up with the money to have the order served.

HB 5120–5121 would strengthen Michigan's PPO process by placing greater responsibility for service with law enforcement and eliminating service costs for petitioners through a state-funded system.

I support these bills.

There is also an accountability piece I appreciate: unsuccessful service isn't simply the end of the process. The legislation establishes procedures for additional attempts and documentation when an order cannot initially be served.

For someone experiencing domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault, getting a court order can already require tremendous courage. We shouldn't put another financial or logistical barrier between that person and the protection a judge has ordered.

I do want Michigan to make sure the PPO service fund is adequately and consistently funded so that local law-enforcement agencies have the resources to do this work. A protection on paper isn't enough if the state doesn't provide the resources necessary to implement it.

Protect survivors. Support the professionals responsible for serving these orders. And make sure our laws work in the real world.

That's care—and that's a policy I support.

Research sources: Source 1 · Source 2

HB 5770: I support the goal—but I still have questions before I support the bill as written.

Patients shouldn't receive a surprise extra charge simply because the doctor's office they have always visited is now owned by a hospital system.

HB 5770 is intended to address hospital “facility fees”—additional charges that can be added to outpatient care. Research shows that the same routine services can cost substantially more when billed through a hospital outpatient department rather than a physician's office. The bill would also require patients to be told in advance when an allowable facility fee will be charged and how much it will be.

I support transparency. I support lowering unnecessary health-care costs. And I support the principle that patients shouldn't pay substantially more for essentially the same routine care simply because ownership changed.

But I am not ready to say the current language gets every detail right.

Before a final vote, I want Michigan-specific answers:

How much are Michigan patients actually paying in facility fees?

Which services are generating those charges?

How much would patients actually save under HB 5770?

Could we target routine services that can safely be performed in a doctor's office while preserving appropriate reimbursement for complicated outpatient care that genuinely requires hospital staff, equipment and infrastructure?

And are exemptions based on the right things—such as rural access and financial vulnerability—or simply on who owns the hospital?

I also want to know whether lower provider payments will actually translate into lower premiums and out-of-pocket costs for Michigan families.

Hospitals have raised concerns that outpatient revenue helps support emergency departments, specialized staff and other services that must remain available even when they aren't profitable on their own. Those access concerns deserve serious consideration too.

My position right now: protect patients from unjustified fees, require real price transparency, and get the Michigan data before writing the final rule.

Health-care affordability matters too much to settle for either surprise bills or unintended reductions in access to care.

Care and Costs—we have to get both right.

Research sources: Source 1 · Source 2

HB 5943–5944: I SUPPORT the idea—but there are important questions that must be answered.

Someone experiencing a mental-health crisis should not automatically need a police car or an ambulance simply because Michigan lacks another safe transportation option.

HB 5943–5944 would create licensed behavioral-health transportation services for medically stable patients and establish Medicaid reimbursement for those services. Supporters argue that this could provide more appropriate transportation for people in crisis while keeping ambulances available for medical emergencies.

I support that goal.

But when we're transporting someone during a behavioral-health crisis, getting the details right is essential.

Before final passage, I want clear answers:

• Who determines that a patient is medically stable enough for this type of transport?

• What training will staff receive in mental-health crises, suicide risk, trauma-informed care, de-escalation and recognizing a medical emergency?

• What happens if someone's medical or psychiatric condition deteriorates during the trip?

• What happens if a patient becomes a danger to themselves or someone else while being transported?

• How will the rights, privacy and dignity of people being transported involuntarily be protected?

• Will Medicaid reimbursement actually cover the cost of providing safe transportation, particularly in rural communities where trips may be long?

• And how do we guarantee that behavioral-health transportation is used only when appropriate—not simply because it is cheaper than an ambulance?

That's a problem worth solving.

My position: support the concept, but require strong clinical standards, meaningful training, sustainable funding and clear patient protections before we call the job finished.

Mental-health care is health care.

And people in crisis deserve transportation designed around care, safety and dignity.

Research sources: Source 1 · Source 2

HB 6116–6119: Health-care costs are a real problem. But I need more information before deciding whether these bills are the right solution.

This package tackles several major issues at once: hospital prices, oversight of hospital mergers and acquisitions, financial support for struggling hospitals, and physician noncompete agreements.

Those are important issues—but they are also complicated ones.

HB 6116 would create a Hospital Cost Review Board and impose significant new requirements on nonprofit hospitals. HB 6118 would create new state oversight of certain hospital mergers and acquisitions. HB 6119 would restrict physician noncompete agreements involving very large employers.

Before taking a final position, I want answers.

On hospital prices:

Would mandated price reductions actually lower premiums and out-of-pocket costs for patients—or could they lead to cuts in staffing, services or access?

On rural and community hospitals:

What happens to a hospital already operating on a thin or negative margin? Are the proposed safeguards enough to prevent communities from losing care?

On hospital consolidation:

What evidence supports the specific market-share limits and transaction assessments in the bills? How do we prevent anticompetitive consolidation without blocking a merger that might be the only realistic way to keep a struggling hospital open?

On physician noncompetes:

I understand the argument that doctors should have greater freedom to change employers or practice independently. But why does HB 6119 apply specifically to employers with more than $2 billion in annual revenue, and what would that threshold mean for patients and physician practices across Michigan?

And there is one question I keep coming back to:

If we reduce what hospitals and health systems are paid, how do we make sure the savings actually reach patients?

I want to hear from patients, physicians, nurses, hospital employees, employers who purchase health insurance, independent practices, rural communities, and the health systems themselves.

We absolutely need to address the cost of health care.

But a major restructuring of how Michigan hospitals are paid, regulated and allowed to consolidate deserves more than a slogan.

My position right now: I need the data, I need the details, and I need to hear from the people who will actually be affected before I vote yes or no.

Research sources: Source 1 · Source 2

HB 5123: I need more information—and I want to hear from you.

HB 5123 would change Michigan law so that streaming services and direct-to-home satellite services are not treated the same way as traditional cable providers for local video-franchise fees.

The argument for the bill is understandable: companies that do not own physical cable infrastructure in public rights-of-way should not automatically be treated like the companies that do.

But local governments have raised a different concern.

As more people move from traditional cable to streaming, franchise-fee revenue can decline. Those dollars can support local government communications, public-access programming, school programming, and coverage of local meetings.

That raises some important questions for me:

• How much revenue would cities and townships actually lose under HB 5123?

• Does the bill adequately prevent existing cable providers from reclassifying services in ways that reduce what they owe local communities?

• How should we fund public, educational, and governmental programming as traditional cable continues to decline?

• Should a streaming company that does not own the wires in the public right-of-way owe the same fee as the company that physically maintains infrastructure there?

• And will any savings actually reach consumers?

I am not ready to take a final position until I understand the real impact on both consumers and local governments.

I want to hear from constituents.

If you serve in local government, work with community media, understand franchise agreements, or simply rely on local public-access programming, tell me what HB 5123 would mean in practice.

Technology changes. Our laws have to change too.

But modernization should not create unintended consequences for the communities we are trying to serve.

So on HB 5123, I'm listening.

Research sources: Source 1 · Source 2

HB 4721–4722: I need more information—and I want to hear from you.

These bills would create refundable Michigan tax credits for biodiesel retailers and producers through 2030. Depending on the blend, retailers could receive between 2 and 7 cents per gallon, while Michigan biodiesel producers could receive a separate production credit.

Together, the programs could cost the state up to $18 million per year.

I support looking seriously at cleaner transportation fuels, reducing dependence on petroleum, and supporting Michigan agriculture and domestic energy production.

But before committing millions of taxpayer dollars, I want to know what Michigan is getting in return.

Would these credits actually increase biodiesel use—or simply subsidize fuel that would have been sold anyway?

Would consumers see lower prices at the pump?

How many Michigan jobs, farms, and businesses would directly benefit?

Should all biodiesel feedstocks receive the same credit, even if their environmental impacts differ?

Would it make more sense to tie incentives to measurable reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions?

And what happens when the credits expire in 2030?

Michigan winters also matter. Higher biodiesel blends can raise practical questions about cold-weather performance, storage, and vehicle compatibility.

I want to hear from constituents before taking a final position.

If you are a farmer, trucker, fuel retailer, environmental advocate, biodiesel producer, fleet operator, or simply someone concerned about fuel prices and taxes, tell me what you think.

A tax incentive should have a clear public return.

So on HB 4721–4722, I need the data—and I'm listening.

Research sources: Source 1 · Source 2

HB 4765: Only eligible U.S. citizens should vote. But protecting election integrity should not mean creating unnecessary barriers for eligible citizens.

I wanted Michigan-specific data before taking a position on this bill.

A Michigan Department of State review of the 2024 general election found that identified instances of noncitizen voting amounted to approximately 0.00028% of more than 5.7 million ballots cast. Any illegal vote matters and should be investigated—but the Michigan data also tells us something important about the size of the problem.

There is another important piece of Michigan evidence: citizenship information contained in driver records cannot always be relied upon by itself to determine whether someone is eligible to vote. Some people whose records initially appeared to identify them as noncitizens were actually U.S. citizens after further investigation.

That matters to me.

Only U.S. citizens should be voting in Michigan elections.

But I also do not want us to create a system where an eligible citizen loses their ability to vote because they cannot quickly produce another document, because government databases don't match, or because a name changed through marriage, adoption, naturalization, or another ordinary life event.

So before supporting additional documentary requirements, I want answers:

• How many actual cases would this requirement prevent in Michigan?

• How many eligible citizens could be delayed because their records don't match?

• Can the state verify citizenship through reliable databases without requiring most voters to produce additional paperwork?

• What happens when the government's information is wrong?

• Is there a simple, fast process for an eligible voter to correct an error—especially close to Election Day?

• What will these requirements cost local clerks to administer?

Election security and voter access do not have to be competing goals.

We should make sure only eligible citizens vote—and make equally sure that eligible citizens are not unnecessarily prevented from voting.

I want Michigan policy based on Michigan facts, with safeguards for both.

Research sources: Source 1 · Source 2