2025 House Resolution 118

Whereas, Article XI, Section 7 of the Michigan Constitution states, in part:

The house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeaching civil officers for

corrupt conduct in office or for crimes or misdemeanors, but a majority of the

members elected thereto and serving therein shall be necessary to direct an

impeachment.

; and

Whereas, Jocelyn Benson has repeatedly exceeded her authority, acted with insufficient transparency, and abused her position as Secretary of State. She has issued guidance and taken actions in violation of Michigan statute and the Michigan Constitution, failed to adequately respond to the public’s concerns about the accuracy, security, and integrity of our elections, and refused to engage with those who question or criticize her practices. An entity associated with Secretary Benson corruptly contributed to the campaign of a Justice on the Michigan Supreme Court during the pendency of a case challenging Secretary Benson’s instructions, and several aspects of the manner in which Secretary Benson administers elections may violate state and federal law; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, That Jocelyn Benson, Secretary of State of the state of Michigan, is impeached for corrupt conduct in office and for crimes and misdemeanors. The following Articles of Impeachment are adopted by the House of Representatives and shall be exhibited to the Senate:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE NAME OF

ITSELF AND OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AGAINST

JOCELYN BENSON, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HER

FOR CORRUPT CONDUCT IN OFFICE AND FOR CRIMES AND

MISDEMEANORS.

ARTICLE I

Jocelyn Benson, Secretary of State of the state of Michigan, has repeatedly

exceeded the scope of authority delegated to her by Michigan statute, and even

infringed on the Michigan Constitution, and has exhibited corrupt conduct when these

actions were challenged. Through these actions, she has demonstrated her contempt

for her oath of office and the rule of law.

Article III, Section 2 of the Michigan Constitution provides: “The powers of

government are divided into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. No

person exercising powers of one branch shall exercise powers properly belonging to

another branch except as expressly provided in this constitution.” Under Article IV,

Section 1, “the legislative power of the State of Michigan is vested in a senate and a

house of representatives.”

Article XI, Section 1 of the Michigan Constitution provides, in part: “All officers,

legislative, executive and judicial, before entering upon the duties of their respective

offices, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly

swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the

constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of

.......... according to the best of my ability.”

Secretary Benson’s actions in administering Michigan’s elections have intruded on

the legislative power and violated the Michigan Constitution, and she has not fulfilled

her oath to faithfully discharge the duties of her office.

Secretary Benson’s disrespect for the constitutional separation of powers was

evident over the course of the O’Halloran v. Benson lawsuit. Plaintiffs in this case

challenged various provisions of a manual published by Secretary Benson, titled “The

Appointment, Rights, and Duties of Election Challengers and Poll Watchers,”

alleging that they were contrary to the provisions of the Michigan Election Law,

1954 PA 116, MCL 168.1 et seq., and that they constituted “rules” that were not

properly promulgated under the Administrative Procedures Act of 1969 (APA),

1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 et seq.

On October 3, 2023, legal counsel for Secretary Benson stated before the Michigan

Court of Appeals that it was her client’s position that the Secretary of State is not

bound to promulgate rules pursuant to the APA. Rather, she argued that the Secretary

has the authority under the Michigan Election Law to simply issue instructions, even

on subjects that would qualify as a “rule” under the definitions of the APA, ignoring

the procedural requirements imposed by the Legislature in that statute. She also

argued that, if the Legislature enacted a statute requiring the Secretary to promulgate

rules in accordance with the APA on a particular subject, the Secretary might choose

to ignore the statute and continue to use instructions and guidance if the Secretary felt

it was a bad idea to promulgate rules on that subject.

On October 19, 2023, the Court of Appeals issued a unanimous three-to-zero decision

in O’Halloran, Docket No. 363503, striking down the challenged provisions of

Secretary Benson’s manual on election challengers. Despite this, Secretary Benson

filed an appeal on November 30, 2023, prolonging the legal dispute.

On April 26, 2024, while the appeal in O’Halloran was pending before the

Michigan Supreme Court, a political action committee launched by and affiliated with

Secretary Benson, known as Michigan Legacy PAC, made a contribution of $82,5000

to the Keep Kyra Harris Bolden for Justice committee, Justice Bolden’s candidate

committee. One month later, on May 29, 2024, the Court ordered oral argument in

O’Halloran, scheduled less than three weeks later, on June 18, 2024. Subsequently,

on August 28, 2024, Justice Bolden authored the majority opinion in O’Halloran,

Docket. No. 166424, overturning nearly all of the lower courts’ rulings against

Secretary Benson’s manual. This created at least the appearance of corruption and

could even be construed as a violation of Section 117 of the Michigan Penal Code,

MCL 750.117, bribery of a public officer.

Though the Michigan Supreme Court ultimately upheld many, though not all,

aspects of the guidance challenged in O’Halloran, several other directives issued by

Secretary Benson have been struck down by the courts. For instance, the Court of

Claims in O’Halloran invalidated the Secretary’s ban on appointing election

challengers on election day, an issue that was not appealed in that case. In 2020, the

Court of Claims also held in Davis v. Benson, Docket No. 20-000207-MZ, that

plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their APA challenge to a directive

from Secretary Benson directing local election officials to prohibit the open carry on

election day in polling places, the clerk’s office, and absent voter counting boards, and

within 100 feet of those locations.

Furthermore, Secretary Benson has repeatedly attempted to establish a standard for

verifying signatures on absent voter ballot applications and absent voter ballots that

included a presumption of validity, and been repeatedly rebuffed by the courts. In

Genetski v. Benson, Docket No. 20-000216-MM, the Court of Claims held that the

signature verification standards published by the Secretary constituted “rules” under

the APA that were not properly promulgated. After this 2021 ruling, the Department

of State began the APA rulemaking process and eventually promulgated rules on this

subject, receiving significant pushback on the idea of using an initial presumption of

validity during the public comment period. The presumption was ultimately excluded

from the text of the rules adopted but was somehow retained in the catch line to

one rule. Secretary Benson then issued updated guidance on signature verification

that again stated that signatures were entitled to an initial presumption of validity. The

rules and guidance were challenged in Republican National Committee v. Benson,

Docket No. 24-00041-MZ, and the Court of Claims held in 2024 that the initial

presumption of validity violated the constitutional and statutory requirements to

verify the identity of absentee voters.

The Bureau of Elections, which operates under the Department of State, also

arguably exceeded its authority when it recommended that the Board of State

Canvassers certify the results of the November 3, 2020, general election, despite the

fact that they had been made aware of allegations that the Wayne County Board of

Canvassers never properly certified the results. At the November 17, 2020, meeting of

the Wayne County Board of Canvassers, the board initially deadlocked on

certification, with the two Democratic members voting in favor of the motion to

approve the certification and the two Republican members voting against it. This vote

did not satisfy Section 24e of the Michigan Election Law, MCL 168.24e(1), which

requires one member of each political party to concur in any action. Later that day, the

board unanimously adopted a motion “for certification of the November 3, 2020

General Election,” but the board had never moved to reconsider the earlier vote. Thus,

it could be argued that the Wayne County election results were not properly certified,

such that the election records should have been delivered to the Board of State

Canvassers for certification under Section 822 of the Michigan Election Law,

MCL 168.822(2), as amended by 2018 PA 614. This did not occur. Instead, the Board

of State Canvassers certified the result of the November 2020 general election, as

recommended by the Bureau of Elections, on November 23, 2020. This was arguably

in contravention of Section 842 of the Michigan Election Law, MCL 168.842(1), as

amended by 2018 PA 382, which provided that the Board of State Canvassers may

“canvass the returns for any office for which the complete returns have been

received.” If the complete returns for offices voted for in Wayne County were never

received by the Board of State Canvassers, it may not have had the authority to

canvass the returns for those offices and certify the result.

Wherefore, Jocelyn Benson, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and

removal from office.

ARTICLE II

The Secretary of State is the chief election officer of this state. In this role, the

Secretary is responsible for both administering our elections in a secure manner and

responding appropriately when questions are raised about election security, so as to

maintain the public trust in our representative system of government. However,

Jocelyn Benson has failed to adequately respond to the concerns of the people, and

thus has failed to fulfill her role as chief election officer.

Allegations have been made that the electronic and paper copies of the Qualified

Voter File and Electronic Poll Book records differ, but this has been difficult to

investigate. The electronic records are only made available by the Department of

State, not local clerks, due to concerns about revealing sensitive information about the

software design and redacting confidential information. Some are concerned about the

centralization of these records and their inability to independently verify whether the

records held by the Department of State are the same as those at the local level.

There are also concerns about the regular deletion of Electronic Poll Book data

following elections. Following the 2020 and 2022 November general elections,

Secretary Benson issued a directive ordering the deletion of the Electronic Poll Book

software and associated files “by the seventh calendar day following the final canvass

and certification of the election,” with certain exceptions for recounts, audits, and

court orders. While Section 799a of the Michigan Election Law, MCL 168.799a(4),

provides that sealed materials, including programs, may be released from their

original seal seven days after the final determination of the board of canvassers, it also

provides that the released materials are to be secured and preserved as required by that

act. Furthermore, federal statute requires every officer of election to retain and

preserve, for a period of 22 months from the date of any election for a federal office,

“all records and papers which come into his possession relating to any application,

registration, payment of poll tax, or other act requisite to voting in such election.”

Willfully failing to comply with this requirement, or willfully destroying any record

required to be retained by this law, creates criminal liability. The deletion of the

Electronic Poll Book software and associated files arguably violates both of these

laws. While a paper copy of the poll book contents is printed for retention as the

official record, “all” records of the election are not maintained. This also does not

suffice to satisfy those who worry that the electronic record may be altered before the

paper copy is produced.

Secretary Benson’s efforts to verify the accuracy and digital security of election

machinery have also been inadequate. Some have concerns about the security protocols

provided for in the Department of State’s rules for Electronic Voting Systems, and they

have doubts about the rigor and scope of testing these systems undergo. Many have also

called for more intensive audits of our elections, a matter that has been almost entirely

delegated to the Secretary of State. Secretary Benson has the power to create stricter and

more thorough audit procedures, but she has failed to do so.

Michiganders have been asking questions and expressing concerns about the

security and integrity of our elections for years, but they do not feel that their voices

are being heard. Secretary Benson’s failure to adequately address these issues, and her

potential violation of state and federal requiring the retention of election records, is

grounds for her impeachment.

Wherefore, Jocelyn Benson, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and

removal from office.

ARTICLE III

Transparency and communication should be a priority for any elected official, who

is responsible to and derives her power from the people. But Jocelyn Benson has not

demonstrated her commitment to these ideals during her time as Secretary of State.

Instead, the people have felt ignored, belittled, and disrespected.

Secretary Benson allegedly blocks people on her social media pages, insulating herself

from opinions she does not want to hear, questions she does not want to answer, and

problems she does not want to address. She has also threatened local boards of

canvassers, stating in a video posted on social media in August 2024: “If someone were

to violate the law and not certify the election at the local level, we will come for you.”

Secretary Benson has demonstrated her willingness to follow through on threats of

this nature, as the Director of the Bureau of Elections ordered Stephanie Scott, the

Adams Township Clerk, to refrain from any election administration activities in

October 2021. Clerk Scott was officially removed because she would not confirm that

she would sign certificates confirming that Public Accuracy Testing had been

performed, refused to agree to allow preventative maintenance on her township’s

voting equipment, and would not say that she would continue using that equipment.

However, Clerk Scott indicated that her reluctance was due to her questions about the

sufficiency of the accuracy testing and the potential vulnerability of her township’s

tabulators to hacking. It is the Secretary of State’s responsibility to ensure that such

questions are answered and both election officials and the public are informed about

the operations of Michigan’s elections, so the people can trust the results.

Wherefore, Jocelyn Benson, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and

removal from office.

; and be it further

Resolved, That in accordance with Article XI, Section 7 of the Michigan Constitution, the House of Representatives will proceed with the election of three members from its own body whose duty it shall be to prosecute such impeachment and that these members are authorized and empowered to prepare and present the Articles of Impeachment adopted by this resolution.