This article originally appeared in The Detroit News March 31, 2026.
The ideal election policy is easy to state and hard to achieve. Elections should be well-run and secure while remaining accessible to every eligible voter. Votes should be counted accurately, and the process should inspire confidence. Even if your candidate didn’t win, you should know the election was conducted fairly.
“Elections are the heart of democracy,” wrote former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III in a 2005 report. When elections are defective, the legitimacy of representative government itself is at risk.
Election reform in Michigan feels daunting. Voters have lived through multiple cycles of election drama, from Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein’s 2016 recount to the bitter disputes of the 2020 presidential race. Overwrought rhetoric can crowd out good-faith debate, whether through undocumented claims of voter fraud or blind insistence that fraud never occurs. Each political party analyzes proposals based on how the proposal helps one side or disadvantages the other side.
No wonder these debates are so difficult.
A useful way to think about election policy is a quadrant — let’s call it the Election Reform Matrix.
The vertical axis shows which level of government has the authority to act. At the top of the spectrum, some election policy is shaped at the national level by Congress and federal courts. The U.S. Constitution gives the states significant power to administrate elections, which is the middle of the spectrum. At the lower end, local election officials oversee voter-facing interactions.
The horizontal axis asks what a proposal aims to do. On one end of the spectrum are policies focused on election security — preventing illegal votes, requiring photo identification and restricting ballot harvesting. On the other end are policies aimed at ease and access — same-day registration, early voting and ballot drop boxes. These two goals, security and access, are often in tension.
Nearly every election policy can be plotted on this quadrant.
The Michigan Legislature is deadlocked on voting reforms, so advocates have gone straight to the voters. Voters approved a citizen redistricting commission in 2018, then altered term limits and expanded voting access in 2022. This November, voters may be asked to approve a citizenship verification requirement. Governing elections through ballot initiatives risks a policy seesaw, with election rules swinging back and forth.
So, what is actually possible?
Any election reform effort should start with guiding principles. Reforms should be forward-facing, not an attempt to relitigate past elections. Given Michigan’s divided government, policymakers should focus on potential common ground rather than the most aggressive options on the Election Reform Matrix. Practical, narrowly focused reforms are more likely to inspire broad confidence. Ideally this includes a serious, bipartisan legislative conversation, informed by county clerks, advocacy groups and the public.
One possible starting point is the accuracy of state voter rolls. Inaccurate voter lists create downstream problems, from Election Day confusion to opportunities for fraud. Maintaining up-to-date voter rolls is defensible policy where the twin aims of security and access overlap. We can aim for competence, transparency and accuracy.
Another opportunity: Michigan has enacted major election law changes in recent years. Before layering on more changes, policymakers should examine whether those recent reforms are working or if they have created unintended consequences.
The next time you see an election proposal, ask yourself, “Where does this idea fall on the Election Reform Matrix?” Does the proposal strengthen election integrity without disenfranchising voters? Does it increase the risk of errors?
Michigan’s leaders can choose to fight the last election, but it would be better to enact reforms that build confidence no matter who wins the next one.
