Non-Citizen Voting Scandal Sparks Federal Showdown in Michigan

Paul Riverbank, 2/11/2026Michigan's non-citizen voting uproar ignites national debate over election integrity, legal battles, and voter rights.

In a few sentences, the familiar lines of a national debate reemerged, with the House Oversight Committee chair, Rep. James Comer, pushing for answers. Alongside Michigan Republican John James, he penned a pointed letter asking whether officials—right up to Attorney General Pam Bondi—were dragging their heels on federal election inquiries. Their concern, they insisted, went beyond one corner of Michigan: if it could happen here, who’s to say it isn’t happening anywhere else?

Forlini’s worry opened a broader can of worms. He cited instances suggesting non-citizens on the rolls may have actually cast votes—including one case where, if proven, the outcome could be criminal charges. Predictably, this sent ripples through the committee, stirring calls for the Department of Justice to get involved.

Yet, in Lansing, the state’s elections chief was having none of it. Sharp words came from Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, who denounced the claims as “reckless”—not just wrong, but dangerous. She argued that naming names had already put innocent voters under stress, even kicking off a criminal investigation into a Michigan resident who, she maintains, did nothing wrong. At least two other legal voters could lose their registrations without ever being notified.

Behind the sniping and pointed statements runs a more technical, and less headline-grabbing, legal fight—one that’s dragged through the courts under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The Justice Department, pressing states across the map for access to voter data, has run into hard judicial walls. Federal judges, including U.S. District Judge Hala Jarbou, have made it clear: Congress only allows the feds to see voter applications, not the master lists of who’s registered. “A pedantic distinction,” as Jarbou wrote, but Congress’s prerogative all the same.

Ironically, despite the fierce arguments, no one has proved non-citizen votes ever tipped a federal contest. Still, just the whiff of risk—as Republicans argue illegal border crossings are on the rise—has energized lawmakers to clamp down. The SAVE America Act, set for a vote soon, is designed to make it even harder for non-citizens to get near a ballot. Even so, the practical fights rage on: who should have access to the state’s voter files, and precisely how to keep the lists up-to-date in an era of rapid population shifts?

If the Michigan case clarifies anything, it’s the fragility and complexity of trust in the electoral process. The same rules that shield legitimate voters are sometimes the ones that cause suspicion to metastasize—with each side convinced it’s defending democracy itself. Are concerned officials raising justifiable alarms, or are they, as Benson warns, risking innocent people’s standing at the polls?

With another presidential election coming into view, the uneasy balance between policing against fraud and safeguarding citizens’ rights won’t be settled any time soon. The legal fights, the new bills, and the scrutiny will only sharpen as November approaches. Michigan’s story, as untidy and unresolved as it remains, stands as proof: the fight over election integrity is far from finished, and the solution—whatever that may be—won’t come from the courts alone.

When a local Michigan clerk flagged something unusual about his jury lists this spring, it didn’t take long for the rest of the country to pay attention. In Macomb County, Anthony Forlini combed through records and set off tremors when he said he'd uncovered 239 non-citizens in the county’s jury pool over just four months. Digging a little deeper, he discovered that at least 14 of those individuals were at some point registered to vote—numbers that set off alarms in Washington.In a few sentences, the familiar lines of a national debate reemerged, with the House Oversight Committee chair, Rep. James Comer, pushing for answers. Alongside Michigan Republican John James, he penned a pointed letter asking whether officials—right up to Attorney General Pam Bondi—were dragging their heels on federal election inquiries. Their concern, they insisted, went beyond one corner of Michigan: if it could happen here, who’s to say it isn’t happening anywhere else?Forlini’s worry opened a broader can of worms. He cited instances suggesting non-citizens on the rolls may have actually cast votes—including one case where, if proven, the outcome could be criminal charges. Predictably, this sent ripples through the committee, stirring calls for the Department of Justice to get involved.Yet, in Lansing, the state’s elections chief was having none of it. Sharp words came from Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, who denounced the claims as “reckless”—not just wrong, but dangerous. She argued that naming names had already put innocent voters under stress, even kicking off a criminal investigation into a Michigan resident who, she maintains, did nothing wrong. At least two other legal voters could lose their registrations without ever being notified.Behind the sniping and pointed statements runs a more technical, and less headline-grabbing, legal fight—one that’s dragged through the courts under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The Justice Department, pressing states across the map for access to voter data, has run into hard judicial walls. Federal judges, including U.S. District Judge Hala Jarbou, have made it clear: Congress only allows the feds to see voter applications, not the master lists of who’s registered. “A pedantic distinction,” as Jarbou wrote, but Congress’s prerogative all the same.Ironically, despite the fierce arguments, no one has proved non-citizen votes ever tipped a federal contest. Still, just the whiff of risk—as Republicans argue illegal border crossings are on the rise—has energized lawmakers to clamp down. The SAVE America Act, set for a vote soon, is designed to make it even harder for non-citizens to get near a ballot. Even so, the practical fights rage on: who should have access to the state’s voter files, and precisely how to keep the lists up-to-date in an era of rapid population shifts?If the Michigan case clarifies anything, it’s the fragility and complexity of trust in the electoral process. The same rules that shield legitimate voters are sometimes the ones that cause suspicion to metastasize—with each side convinced it’s defending democracy itself. Are concerned officials raising justifiable alarms, or are they, as Benson warns, risking innocent people’s standing at the polls?With another presidential election coming into view, the uneasy balance between policing against fraud and safeguarding citizens’ rights won’t be settled any time soon. The legal fights, the new bills, and the scrutiny will only sharpen as November approaches. Michigan’s story, as untidy and unresolved as it remains, stands as proof: the fight over election integrity is far from finished, and the solution—whatever that may be—won’t come from the courts alone.