As the countdown to Election Day continues, social media platforms are abuzz with claims regarding Michigan’s voter registration figures. Specifically, some posts assert that the state has an excess of 500,000 registered voters compared to the number of individuals eligible to cast a ballot, insinuating potential voter fraud. However, this assertion misinterprets Michigan’s registration statistics by incorporating inactive voters into the count, thereby creating an illusion of discrepancies in this important swing state.
Examining this claim further reveals that the context is essential. While it is true that Michigan has a higher number of registered voters than those eligible, this total encompasses individuals who are no longer active but remain on the rolls due to federal and state regulations. The figure of active voters is significantly lower than the eligible population, and experts assert that there is no evidence to suggest that this situation could lead to widespread electoral fraud.
Despite this, social media users, including high-profile figures like Elon Musk, have implied that these statistics signify malign intent by Michigan’s election officials ahead of the 2024 election. Musk, who has notably supported former President Donald Trump with substantial financial backing, criticized Michigan’s Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, for what he termed as deceitful practices. He accused her of planning to remove ineligible voters only after the election, which he believes indicates an inflated registered voter count.
Benson responded directly to Musk’s claims, stating, “Let’s be clear: @elonmusk is spreading dangerous disinformation.” She clarified the numbers, revealing there are approximately 7.2 million active registered voters compared to 7.9 million citizens of voting age in Michigan. She pointed out that Musk’s figures included inactive registrations, which total around 1.2 million, and are scheduled for removal according to legal procedures.
As of July 1, 2023, the state had about 7.9 million eligible voters, while the total number of registered voters stood at approximately 8.4 million. The discrepancy arises from the inclusion of inactive voters—those who have not participated in elections for six consecutive years or failed to confirm their residency after receiving notification. Though inactive, these voters remain eligible to vote until legally removed from the rolls.
The removal process for voters in Michigan is strict, requiring multiple notifications and a waiting period to ensure that no one is erroneously disenfranchised after failing to vote. This stringent protocol is why the tally of registered voters surpasses that of eligible voters in the state.
In fact, over 339,000 registrations are expected to be canceled in 2025, with an additional 257,000 targeted for cancellation in 2027. Since 2019, Michigan has removed more than 800,000 voter registrations, including over 532,000 due to confirmed deaths and more than 273,000 for suspected residency changes.
However, Michigan is not unique in facing challenges with inactive voter registrations. Federal law mandates that all states, save for a few exceptions, must conduct regular maintenance of their voter rolls, which includes sending notifications to inactive voters. This legal requirement ensures that all states maintain clean and accurate voter registration lists.
David Becker, an expert on election integrity, noted that having a significant number of inactive voters actually reflects effective list management practices. He emphasized that states must actively engage in maintaining their voter lists to ensure accuracy.
States utilize various techniques to manage and update voter registrations. For example, in Michigan, the surrender of a state-issued driver’s license in another state can signal a change of residence, prompting updates to the voter rolls. Additionally, returned election mail may indicate a voter has moved or passed away.
Election authorities encounter difficulties in securing accurate voter data, especially for individuals who change their residency across state lines, as there is no comprehensive federal database. However, the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) exists to facilitate data sharing among states, aiding in the upkeep of accurate voter records and helping to identify instances of suspected fraud. Participation in ERIC is optional, with Michigan being one of the 24 participating states.
Experts consistently express that instances of double voting—where individuals attempt to cast ballots in more than one state—are exceedingly rare. Becker remarked that the mechanisms established, such as those provided by ERIC, serve as reliable safeguards against fraudulent voting practices.
Christopher Thomas, who previously directed Michigan’s elections for several decades, elaborated further, stating that the notion of individuals engaging in double voting would likely deter them due to the associated legal repercussions. He expressed confidence in the integrity of the electoral system, asserting that historical data does not support claims of widespread electoral fraud.
In summary, while misinformation regarding Michigan’s voter registration numbers continues to circulate, a thorough examination reveals that the state’s processes comply with legal standards designed to uphold the democratic process and ensure voter integrity.