The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy Michigan Public Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy >> University of Michigan Policy Survey October 2020 Michigan local leaders Key Findings expect increased challenges • When asked in the spring of 2020 to look ahead at potential problems with election administration in the November 2020 election, township and city for the 2020 election, officials indicate they are more concerned about potential problems this but are confident about year compared to what they experienced in 2016. » Nearly half of township and city officials statewide (45%) predict they administering accurate will have problems with recruiting poll workers with the necessary skills and with recruiting enough poll workers at all, regardless of skill elections level (up from 29% and 27%, respectively in 2016). In addition, 41% ex- pect the cost of the election administration on the jurisdiction’s budget By Natalie Fitzpatrick, Debra Horner, and Thomas Ivacko to be a problem in the 2020 election (up from 25% in 2016). This report presents the opinions of Michigan’s » Township and city clerks—the officials who run elections in township and city officials on issues related to elec- Michigan—are more likely than other local leaders—such as supervi- sors, mayors, or managers—to predict local problems with poll worker tion administration in their jurisdictions, including recruitment, costs, long wait times, and other issues. expected challenges and confidence in election secu- rity. Data from a parallel survey of Michigan County » The state’s largest townships and cities (those with more than 30,000 Clerks is included as well. These findings are based residents) are more likely than smaller jurisdictions to predict a range on statewide surveys of local government leaders in of election-related problems, including over 70% who are concerned the Spring 2020 wave of the Michigan Public Policy about poll worker recruitment. Survey (MPPS), conducted between March 30 and • Regarding election security issues, large majorities are “very confident” June 1, 2020—prior to the August 2020 primary. It that final vote results (76%), voting machines (70%), and voter rolls (68%) also contains comparisons to opinions expressed in will not be compromised in the November 2020 election, with most re- the Spring 2017 MPPS wave. maining officials “somewhat” confident and very few outright “not very” confident or “not at all” confident. When looking across all three aspects of security combined, the percentage who are “very” confident drops to >> The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS) is a census survey 63%. In all cases, though, clerks tend to be more confident than other of all 1,856 general purpose local governments in Michigan types of officials. conducted by the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP) at the University of Michigan in partnership with the » Local officials, including clerks, are less confident that they would Michigan Municipal League, Michigan Townships Association, know if their local election security was compromised, with only 54% and Michigan Association of Counties. The MPPS investigates very confident that their jurisdiction would know prior to or during local officials’ opinions and perspectives on a variety of the election that their voting machines, voter rolls, or vote tallies/re- important public policy issues. Respondents for the Spring 2020 wave of the MPPS include county administrators, board chairs, sults had been compromised, and 58% very confident they would know and clerks; city mayors, managers, and clerks; village presidents, after the election if their election systems had been compromised. managers, and clerks; and township supervisors, managers, and • clerks from 1,342 jurisdictions across the state. Despite these concerns regarding potential administrative problems and security, confidence in running accurate elections among local leaders For more information, please contact: [email protected]/ remains very high. Statewide, 87% of township and city officials are “very (734) 647-4091. You can also follow us on Twitter @closup confident” in their jurisdiction’s ability to administer an accurate election in November (down slightly from 91% who said the same after the 2016 election). Furthermore, 75% are very confident that their county clerk could conduct an accurate recount, if one is necessary (again down from 80% after the previous election). » A parallel survey of county clerks shows county officials are also quite confident both in a range of election security issues, and in the abil- ity of local jurisdictions within their county to administer accurate elections. www.closup.umich.edu The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy Background In 2016, Michigan ended up as a key swing state in determining the outcome of the presidential election, when President Donald Trump won the state by less than 11,000 votes out of a total of 4.5 million votes cast.1 The 2020 general election again features Michigan as a battleground state,2 with candidates, media, and political observers across the nation turn- ing significant attention on Michigan voters, and, by extension, Michigan’s election administration. Running the state’s elections has become particularly complicated in 2020 as a result of a number of extraordinary circumstances—from 2018’s constitutional expansion of voter registration and absentee ballot access3 to safety concerns for in-person voters and poll workers during the COVID-19 pandemic4 to an expected record-breaking surge in voter turnout.5 The August 2020 primary election constituted a trial run to see how Michigan’s cities and townships—the local gov- ernments that administer elections in the state— would respond to these challenges.6 One critical concern for election administration identified during the August primary has been addressed by the Michigan Legislature, when it passed legislation in September revising restrictions on early steps prior to Election Day to prepare absentee ballots for process- ing in larger jurisdictions.7 However, other potential concerns, such as the ability to conduct successful recounts in some jurisdictions8 and the smooth functioning of the US Postal Service in delivering and returning the expected increase in absentee ballots9—remain, even as voters begin submitting their general election ballots. Election security also continues to be a key concern for the 2020 election, not just in Michigan, but across the country. As early as March 2019, the Michigan Secretary of State’s office had formed a bipartisan Election Security Commission to develop and implement a variety of election security best practices across the state.10 And while some reports express concerns about the vulnerability of Michigan election equipment to hacking or other threats to integrity,11 state election leaders express confidence going into election season that Michigan’s voting equipment is secure, and warn voters to be more wary regarding the spread of deliberate misinformation about voting.12 To get a sense of how officials at the local level across the state are assessing an array of election challenges, the MPPS surveyed local leaders in spring 2020 from each of Michigan’s counties (which also play a role in elections), cities and townships with a series of questions regarding election administration in their jurisdictions. The spring 2020 survey was launched just weeks after local governments had conducted the March 2020 primary during the initial emergence of COVID-19 cases in Michigan. Because county, township and city clerks are the local officials who are in charge of the various practical aspects of administering the elections, the MPPS also sent surveys to the clerks who are not typically included in the standard MPPS survey sample, to be able to compare local election administrators’ views with those of others such as township supervisors and managers or city mayors and administrators. In the following report, “statewide” data contain combined responses from both clerks and non-clerks, but then are also broken out by jurisdiction type and by the local officials’ position, in order to help identify important differences of opinion. 2 www.closup.umich.edu Michigan Public Policy Survey Local officials expect more problems with administering the November 2020 election compared to what they experienced in the November 2016 election Figure 1 In April and May 2020, the MPPS asked local officials about Local officials’ assessments of problems with election administration in their township or city, 2016 experiences vs. 2020 expectations their expectations regarding a number of potential election administration problems in their jurisdictions during the upcoming November 2020 election. These questionnaire items mirrored questions asked retrospectively in spring 2017, looking back at problems local officials may have experienced in the 2016 election.13 This year, the Spring 2020 MPPS found that Michigan local officials statewide are more concerned about potential problems in 2020 compared to what they experienced in 2016. In particular, as shown in Figure 1, almost half of city and township officials expressed concern in 2020 about their ability to recruit poll workers and other election staff with necessary skills (45%) and their ability to recruit enough poll workers regardless of skills (45%) for the November election. These concerns are significantly higher than the 27-29% who N/A reported problems with recruitment during the 2016 election. Just over