- Chamber
- senate
- Context text
- I rise today in support of Senate Bill No. 285 to deter and avoid election fraud by doing something that most of us do to buy cold medicine, to buy alcohol if we look young enough, that of course is showing our ID. Fundamental changes happened in 2018 when the voters approved Proposal 3 which included no-reason absentee voting. This, combined with the effects of the pandemic, resulted in record absentee voting in 2020. This historic shift from in-person voting to by-mail or to drop boxes requires us to review the process and to ensure it’s secure and reliable.
One glaring loophole is that current law does not require proof of identity to request an absentee ballot via the mail. Although it’s important to note our Secretary of State does require both ID and the last four digits of your Social Security number in order to request that ballot online. And yes, she does have access to that. With the convenience of online services and the increased use of mail-in applications due to the Secretary of State’s mass mailing of ballot applications, it is now possible for an individual to register to vote, to apply for a ballot, to receive the ballot, to fill it out, and to send the ballot back without ever seeing the inside of a clerk’s office or a voting location.
Senate Bill No. 285 simply requires the voter to provide reasonable proof of identity when completing their absentee ballot applications. This could be a driver’s license, it could be a Social Security number—the last four digits—copy of a state ID, and I must say I absolutely love the idea of having a photo on our voter registration card and providing that at no cost to our voters. An individual could also present proper identification for election purposes in-person as has already been mentioned to their local clerk as they turn in their absentee ballot application. Requiring identification verification is a simple but critical step to ensure the integrity of our election process moving forward. It’s not creating a personal security risk, it’s not voter suppression, it’s not an undue burden. As a matter of fact, across the globe ID is required to vote, in many, many countries—including nearly all African and Latin countries. The last four digits of the Social Security number is already available to our Secretary of State by law in order to verify identity, and this bill actually makes that a point making it allowable to our clerks so that they can use it for ID.
You’re right, it is overwhelmingly popular among our voters that they should, in fact, verify their identification before they vote. It’s required as we said for the rights of things like a marriage license, to register property, to purchase alcohol, to open a bank account, and to buy a house or rent an apartment. I’ve even had to use my ID for access to social media. You need an ID to adopt a pet, and then as I said cold medications. Scare tactics and misrepresentations of this bill won’t convince the more-than 70 percent of voters who believe that we should in fact be showing our ID in order to exercise this right for one man, one vote.
Mr. President, I ask for support of this simple bill that treats absentee voters the same as in-person voters while helping us to ensure the integrity of our election process for years to come.
Senator Bayer’s statement is as follows:
Just one simple comment in rebuttal actually, the current law does validate absentee voters. It works perfectly fine, that’s why we have such a low record of fraud in Michigan. I know this for a fact because when my husband changed—after a stroke, he could no longer sign his absentee ballot application request, the way he signed it in the past. His signature no longer matched the signature on file with the clerk. The process that the clerks have used all these years and will continue to use is checking the signature on the application to see if it matches the signature on the ballot. My husband’s signature did not match and they called the signature on record and said the signature on record does not match the signature on the application, and we went in and had to change it in person and show who he was to make sure it matched. That proves that the system we have in place today works. Clerks notice when there’s something wrong and they take care of it. That simple.
The following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 303, entitled
A bill to amend 1954 PA 116, entitled “Michigan election law,” by amending sections 523, 813, and 829 (MCL 168.523, 168.813, and 168.829), section 523 as amended by 2018 PA 129 and sections 813 and 829 as amended by 2018 PA 603.
The question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
- Excused
- 1
- Motion text
- The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
- Nays
- 16
- Not voting
- 0
- Result
- passed
- Vote date
- 2021-06-16
- Vote number
- 275
- Yeas
- 19