Michigan Counties Ranked for Responsiveness to Election Information Requests: 18 score highest rating; 26 score 0; and 7 deny FOIA request entirely.
By Kristine Christlieb, MFEI Senior Correspondent | January 28, 2025
On Monday, Michigan election data analysts completed a comprehensive ranking of how all 83 Michigan counties responded to the analysts’ request for election data, required by law to be publicly available.
The Michigan Data Team (MDT), a group of volunteer data analysts, compiled the county-by-county ranking in connection with their efforts to audit Michigan’s results from the Nov. 5, 2024, Presidential election.
“This auditing project has revealed a host of issues with how Michigan elections are administered. We’ll be highlighting the problems at the conclusion of our investigation, but in the process of simply gathering the data, we’ve also learned which counties are following the law and supplying requested election data and which ones are not,” said Tim Vetter, the team’s spokesperson.
Since 1967, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has provided the public the right to request and receive access to government records. It is often described as the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government. Elections, administered by the state and local government, are federal; and federal agencies are required to disclose any information requested under the FOIA unless it falls under one of nine exemptions that protect interests like personal privacy, national security, and law enforcement.
How the Counties Became Involved
Every month since early 2021, the Michigan Data Team and Check My Vote, another Michigan-based election integrity organization, have requested and received what is called the Qualified Voter File (QVF) from Secretary Jocelyn Benson’s Department of State. This file contains voter history information from the last five years’ elections. Each month’s QVF contains new data from the prior month.
Based on their 30-plus months of prior experience, the Michigan Data Team and Check My Vote fully expected December’s state-supplied monthly QVF to include November’s election information. But it didn’t. It included some updates, but no election information.
After reviewing the state’s December 2024 QVF and finding it lacking publicly available information, Phani Mantravadi, founder of Check My Vote, submitted an official inquiry via email on December 2 to Sherri Hines, FOIA coordinator for the Michigan Department of State. “Why was the Nov. 5, 2024, voting information missing?” he asked.
Hines replied on December 2: “The complete voter history for the 11/5/2024 election is not in this file as information is still being uploaded by the clerks.”
“This was odd,” Mantravadi told Michigan Fair Elections Institute. “How could the state have certified the election if it had not received election results from the clerks?” He wondered, “How and why would local or county clerks withhold election data from the state?”
On December 4, the Michigan Data Team emailed FOIA requests to each of Michigan’s 83 counties. The FOIAs requested the November voter history files, and results began to flow in at once. MDT volunteers began to compile the information county-by-county.
Then the responses slowed to a trickle. Some counties failed to respond, and others tried to levy charges. Seven went so far as to deny the FOIA request in its entirety.
What the Data Reveal about County Election Transparency
After seven weeks, the analysts had compiled what amounted to a performance record from each Michigan county. The table accessed below shows three key measurements, scoring counties from most to least responsive to the legally requested public information (FOIA) requests.
Counties were eligible to earn a point for each of the following criteria and earn up to three points total. Denials and failures to respond earned zero points.
Provided data within five business days.
Provided data without charge.
Willing to provide data but required payment.
In this way, each score provides a glimpse into a county’s efficiency and transparency. As the table shows: 18 provided data within five business days, 26 failed to respond after seven weeks with multiple prompting, 7 denied the request altogether, and 15 were willing to make the data accessible for a fee.
Check your county's score and response HERE.
The counties that did not respond to the data request may not have done so deliberately. Even if not deliberate, a failure to respond suggests the county needs to improve its responsiveness to requests for publicly available election data, which the county is legally required to provide.
Of the counties that denied the FOIA request, some changed their minds and promised to respond but then never sent the files. Several said the state had issued a “security hold” that prevented them from responding.
“I’d like to see this security hold,” Vetter stated.
Kalamazoo County denied the FOIA, claiming, “the records sought are exempt from disclosure by statute. Under authority of MCL 48.101.(3), documents that may constitute an abstract, list, copy or statement are records outside of the FOIA process and subject to disclosure pursuant to the responsibilities of the Office of the Clerk.”
No other county denying the FOIA request used this statute as a reason for denial.
In the course of its investigation and as MFEI reported in Data Watchdogs Spot County’s Ballot Discrepancy. Numbers way off!, the Michigan Data Team spotted a discrepancy of nearly 4,000 votes in Kalamazoo County compared with the state’s official vote totals. Thanks to the data team’s work, Kalamazoo updated its numbers to match the state’s.
County fees for fulfilling the FOIA request ranged from Newaygo’s $12.41 to Eaton’s $655.15. Vetter filed a lawsuit on January 15 claiming Eaton County’s charges were excessive.
Data Highlights
Top Performer -- Mecosta County provided its data on the same day requested with no charge.
18 counties (22%) earned the top score of 3.
50 counties (60%) were willing to provide the data.
35 counties (42%) provided data free.
7 counties (8%) denied the FOIA request.
15 counties (18%) required a fee for the data.
26 counties (31%) failed to respond.
“Nearly half of Michigan counties provided election information. That’s a big positive. Voters in those counties can have greater confidence in their county’s election results because their election officials are allowing citizens to examine the numbers,” Vetter observed.
Patrice Johnson, Michigan Fair Elections Institute’s Founder and Chair, expressed a similar view. “The legal system empowers Michigan citizens to trust and verify that their government is serving the will of the people. The law protects the rights of citizens to government transparency, and this sunshine is the best disinfectant. It’s fundamental to the checks and balance that our republic’s founders put in place to stop government officials from acting like tyrants.”
Kristine Christlieb serves as senior correspondent on MFEI's communications team. She publishes Trust but Verify on Substack: https://open.substack.com/pub/trustbutverifyreport/p/voter-registration-blitzkrieg?r=2haa2x&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Learn how We The People can win back and secure OUR Future.
Join us Thursday, January 30, at 12 PM for
the weekly Coalition Task Force Meeting
To attend this meeting, use the Registration link below . It changes weekly.
After registering, you will receive an email with details on how to join the meeting.
Note: No representatives of the media are allowed in our meetings.
Important Notes and Disclaimers for Election Integrity Network National Working Groups and coalition calls
We operate under strict 501 (c)(4) non-profit, non-partisan guidelines. Please do not make any comments during the call or in the chat that are directly related to any campaign or candidate running for office or could be considered an endorsement or opposition of that candidate.
All calls are “off the record.” This means that no members of the media are allowed on our calls and this rule also applies to participants. No comment or presentation can be shared outside of the call without the express permission of the speaker. No recording can be made of the call without express permission from the moderator- this includes closed captioning.
We always welcome new participants but ask that all newcomers register with their own registration link. Please do not forward your personal link to another participant.
For the security of the call, if you join by phone, you may be asked to unmute and provide your name.
This meeting is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or instruction to lobby on behalf of any issue or organization.
Please donate to Michigan Fair Elections Institute
MFE is a fiercely independent, tax-exempt 501(c)3 charity. We rely on voluntary contributions to fund our important, and sometimes costly, work. Legal claims are sometimes essential to improve the government and protect citizen rights, and they can be expensive. MFE accepts no government funding.
Please support MFE's investigative research, honest journalism, and litigative actions to defend We the People's inalienable rights as protected in the U.S. Constitution. Donate today to assist our educational efforts to protect the principles of individual liberty in America.
Mark your calendars to attend Election Integrity Network's outstanding National Working Groups. Consider also serving as liaison to report to the Task Force Coalition on our Thursday News@Noon meetings.
A link to the full list of National Working Group Meetings is HERE (All meetings are noted in Eastern time.)
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Michigan Fair Elections Institute. Every article written by an MFEI author or guest author is generated by the author or editor alone. However, links or images embedded within the article, may have been generated by artificial intelligence.