LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – A Michigan judge recently ruled that state election officials cannot broadly withhold certain voter data, marking a significant win for transparency in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dispute involving the state’s Qualified Voter File (QVF). The data didn’t just disappear from the Department of State’s files – it was redacted.
The case centers on a FOIA lawsuit filed after the Michigan Bureau of Elections removed a key column from the QVF in March 2024 showing how voters cast their ballots – whether by absentee ballot, early voting, or Election Day voting. The Bureau of Elections operates under the Michigan Department of State, led by Democrat Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, who is currently running for governor.
From public record to “protected” information.
MORE NEWS: Macomb County Woman Arrested for OWI, Fleeing Police in Ogemaw County
For years, that information had been publicly available. Then, suddenly, it wasn’t. State officials argued the change was necessary to protect the constitutional right to a secret ballot. Critics said the move amounted to a blanket blackout of data that had long been public.
According to a report from The Gateway Pundit, Michigan Court of Claims Judge Christopher P. Yates ruled on May 4 that most of the voting-method data must be released, rejecting the state’s broad redactions. The court found that only limited, case-specific redactions may be justified in rare situations – not a statewide removal of the data.
In his opinion, Yates said that the court concluded that the defendant “cannot rely on any constitutional theory or any FOIA exemption to redact voting-type information except in very limited circumstances.” He also pointed out “Defendant does not argue that public disclosure of voting-type information in and of itself deprives any elector of the ballot secrecy that our constitution demands. Instead, defendant contends that, in some limited circumstances, public disclosure of an elector’s voting-type information could be used in combination with other publicly available information to discover how the elector voted.”
Public oversight sought.
The lawsuit was brought by election integrity advocate Phani Mantravadi, founder of Check My Vote, who said the information is critical for public oversight and reconciliation of election records.
In an interview with Michigan News Source, Mantravadi explained that the voting-method field had always been available prior to March 2024 and was used by everyday citizens to review their own voting history.
Transparency fight focuses on accuracy – not political choices.
“People were able to see that prior to March 2024,” Mantravadi said, adding that some voters contacted him after noticing discrepancies between how they believed they voted and what the state’s records showed. He said the purpose of obtaining the data is not to identify how anyone voted politically, but to reconcile records and ensure election reporting is accurate.
MORE NEWS: St. Ignace Man Charged With Embezzling More Than $20K From Animal Shelter
“It’s all about the election data transparency and making sure things are accurate and reconcilable,” he said. Mantravadi also acknowledged the state raised legitimate concerns about protecting voter privacy in very small precincts.
State’s argument.
The Michigan Bureau of Elections argued that releasing voting-method data could, in some situations, allow individuals to determine how certain voters cast ballots when combined with precinct-level results – potentially violating secret ballot protections. The state also argued that separating protected records from releasable ones across millions of voter entries would be difficult, costly, and unreliable, making broader suppression necessary to avoid constitutional problems.
“The defense had a strong argument,” Mantravadi said. “You don’t want to violate anybody’s constitutional right (to secret ballot).”
However, Mantravadi also argued that government agencies cannot simply redact all data because filtering small exceptions may be difficult.
“They chose to redact the entire thing because they said they had no way to redact partially,” Mantravadi said.
The case is expected to continue in an upcoming hearing as both sides will debate where the legal line should be drawn for small precincts and limited redactions moving forward.
