Oct. 18, 2024 | This Week in Government: Benson Announces New Election Dashboard

Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson announced a new state dashboard to view voting information, with a focus on absentee ballots and early voting usage, ahead of the Nov. 5 general election.

The updated data released Wednesday showed more than 10% of registered voters have already cast ballots before in-person voting begins.

“For every statewide election since 2020, we have regularly released public mail-in voting information in the weeks leading up to Election Day. These early snapshots provide valuable information to voters, media, candidates and elected officials about how Michigan citizens are engaging in our democracy,” Benson said in a Wednesday press conference. “This dashboard will allow anyone to see how many Michigan citizens are casting ballots ahead of Election Day. It includes views for county and municipality level data and allows users to compare trends across different geographic areas of the state.”

About 10.8% of registered voters have already cast ballots via mail, with 781,534 received of the 2,136,907 absentee ballots received by voters so far. The dashboard will be updated daily and will also include data on early in-person voting once polls open on Oct. 26.

Benson emphasized that the dashboard will not replace the websites of county clerks, which will still post unofficial results beginning on election night. The dashboard itself does not contain any information other than how many ballots have been cast and where they’re coming from.

Benson said having an easily accessible, user-friendly apparatus for displaying voter information is helpful in combatting misinformation about elections and can ultimately bolster election security.

“Placing numbers in context of the laws and procedures that govern our elections, understanding is one of the most important tools to fighting misinformation, and we’ve all seen the ways that data taken out of context and can be used to distort the truth that will escalate in the weeks ahead,” Benson said. “We know that, as it does, voters will become more and more frustrated as election misinformation becomes increasingly noisier. We also know that official sources of information are more important than ever to help center our conversation on facts and the rule of law on the truth and the security of our elections.”

Future iterations of the dashboard, being designed in partnership with the University of Michigan’s School of Information, will include election results and information about voter registration alongside ballot numbers.

Election officials praised the new dashboard as a way for voters to receive key information from an accurate source.

“It’s important that voters are able to distinguish a trusted source by providing a look under the hood like this tool does in the ballot request, ballot returns, early voting, and turnout statewide,” Canton Township Clerk Michael Siegrist said in a statement. “Most importantly, the information is provided by legal members and is distributed through the department’s trusted dashboard. It is trusted, reliable information that anyone can see how their community is, and the public will have a better understanding of how elections work.”

Justice Richard Bernstein has long held that a person’s day in court was a sacrosanct aspect of a functioning democracy and its legal system and this month he publicly restated his opinion that courts should proceed in-person rather virtually on settings like Zoom.

But Bernstein, who has discussed his opinion on Zoom court proceedings in the past, and most recently in an editorial piece published by The Detroit News, recently told Gongwer News Service in an interview that decisions on streaming and holding virtual hearings are part of a local judge’s discretion, and should remain so without a mandate from the high court bench.

“I don’t have an objection at all to Zoom, and when necessary, I think it’s a wonderful tool that should be used,” Bernstein said. “My perspective is this: it comes down to what is the baseline? The baseline should be in person, but if there’s a reason to go on Zoom, then you should do it. That should be liberally constructed.”

Bernstein spoke with Gongwer to clarify his stance after The Detroit News published an opinion piece authored by himself, Justice David Viviano, U.S. District Judge Sean Cox of the Eastern District of Michigan, and Wayne Circuit Judge Patricia Fresard. The crux of the opinion stated that although Zoom court has a place, the courts should endeavor to return to in-person proceedings – much like the businesses and corporations across the nation who have ended remote work for in person office work throughout the week.

Much like the question of remote office work and the productivity that comes with it, the question of how often courts should use Zoom or other virtual settings to hold proceedings – like motion hearings or even preliminary examinations – has been debated since the COVID-19 pandemic waned in severity.

What was initially an agreed upon, systemwide quasi-mandate from the Supreme Court bench to hold virtual proceedings and stream them on services like YouTube or other social media whenever possible has fallen to the wayside in some jurisdictions.

Some courts that had regularly streamed their sessions during the pandemic have since stopped, or limited streaming’s and Zoom’s use in their court rooms.

Bernstein, who is legally blind, previously discussed the challenges that he and other people with disabilities faced during the pandemic in an interview with Gongwer in early 2020 (See Gongwer Michigan Report, May 18, 2020). He cited the barriers of separation the pandemic created between people with disabilities and the environments they thrive in. Although he understood the necessity of that separation, he said that some people like him simply couldn’t thrive in a hyper virtual world.

He and Viviano reupped that opinion in their jointly written editorial piece published earlier this month in The News. They said holding virtual hearings is not always as efficient and can erode trust in the system.

Bernstein clarified his stance on Zoom proceedings when asked by Gongwer to elaborate on the article.

In speaking to Gongwer last week, Bernstein softened his stance a bit to say that Zoom court does have a place and should be used in certain circumstances but shouldn’t be the default option.

“Your baseline is, the assumption should be, that we’re going to have everything in person, that we’re in person. … The way it is now in a lot of courts is, we’re on Zoom unless we make an attempt to go in person,” Bernstein said. “All I’m saying is, it shouldn’t be that we’re just saying, ‘OK … we’re going to be on Zoom unless one of the parties requests in person.’ I just want to go the opposite way, which is, ‘we’re going to be in person unless one of the parties is opting to go on to Zoom.’”

Still, Bernstein’s call to do so did not come with a call from the high court bench to push through a mandate calling on all courts to proceed on that baseline.

“You need to let judges who know their court system (make those decisions),” Bernstein said. “You always want to defer to the individual judge because they know their community. It’s their court room. They know how best to administer both their administrative and judicial proceedings.”

What he was hoping for with his article, Bernstein said, was a spark of inspiration maybe for more judges to see in-person as the better starting point.

“Remember what it was like to do all these things in person, and why there was a benefit to it,” he said. “Why you became a judge, to preside in a real court room and not a virtual one.”

On what’s lost when courts proceed virtually at baseline, Bernstein said the experience of appearing in person matters.

“People wait for years to have their day in court,” he said. “If you wait years to have your story told, especially in the civil context. It’s something you’ve been striving and working toward, and you’ve gone through so much for that it should be your day. It also means doing that in person. There’s something about going to court, there’s a certain grandeur to it. There’s a certain regalness to the notion that you’re going to go into … all these beautifully constructed buildings so that justice can be done.”

The idea that the spaces between the pillars of justice would remain empty during those proceedings concerned him, Bernstein added.

“What is lost is that human connectivity that you have with a judge or a with a jury,” he said. “There’s a community, and there’s also a legal community, and it’s important that when you go to court, you see friends. Communities get built around the court and around the courthouse. There’s a wonderful camaraderie that develops among lawyers. It allows the proceedings to have a personal component that I believe is essential.”

As to what proceedings would be best for Zoom or virtual settings, Bernstein said things like scheduling orders or status conferences, things where it would be onerous for parties and their attorneys to travel long distances, fit the bill.

“I’d argue that anything could go forward on Zoom that was non-substantive, which would be more housekeeping,” he said. “Once you enter into kind of a substantive discussion of law or something that can really impact the case, and like a summary disposition motion, can definitely impact the case, that is the kind of thing that should be done in person. The case can end right there. Those are the kind so things where the in person (component) really matters.”

Addressing members of the One Fair Wage movement on Tuesday, Lt. Governor Garlin Gilchrist II appeared to support the increase in Michigan’s minimum wage but did not specifically address the controversial possible elimination of the tipped wage credit, which Democratic leaders and members of the Legislature have remained mum about as restaurant groups lobby for its retention.

In a speech that some groups considered a tacit endorsement of eliminating the lower minimum wage for tipped workers, while others hoped his ambiguity represented room for further discussion, Gilchrist thanked members of the One Fair Wage coalition for their work to raise the statewide minimum wage and celebrated the recent Michigan Supreme Court ruling that provided for the implementation of the wage increase.

Gilchrist was vague on the tipped wage itself. The minimum wage increase that will take effect in February under the Supreme Court ruling will also phase out the lower minimum wage workers who receive tips can be paid. It is currently 38% of the regular minimum wage and by 2030, they will make the same minimum wage as other workers.

“It’s all of our responsibilities and leaders to make sure we find the opportunities to put money in people’s pockets while working to make things less expensive, and certainly in the state of Michigan, under the leadership of my partner, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, and myself, with the allyship of the first Democratic trifecta more than 40 years, we have worked to make sure that more people could have more resources to deal with this challenging economic time,” Gilchrist said in his speech. “We are here to celebrate the fact that action has been taken to raise wages for almost 2 million people in the state of Michigan.”

Gilchrist left shortly after his speech and did not take questions from reporters at the event. A spokesperson for the Executive Office, when asked about Gilchrist’s position, pointed to comments made by Whitmer last week that she will work with the Legislature on any potential amendments.

“I am proud and appreciative for the values represented in this fight and the energy that is brought to it every single day, and I want you to continue to keep that same kind of energy in finding ways to fight for working people, because that is what I will continue to do,” Gilchrist continued in his speech. “That is what Governor Whitmer will continue to do. That is what Democrats in Michigan will continue to do, and that is what we must press for Democrats to do, all up and down the ballot every elected office.”

Whitmer has said she will work with the Legislature on determining any amendments to the minimum wage law but has not indicated what, if anything, she believes needs to change. House Speaker Joe Tate (D-Detroit) and Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids) haven’t taken a firm position either, both saying conversations are continuing.

Given the noncommittal public positions of Whitmer, Brinks and Tate, Gilchrist’s appearance at an event billed by One Fair Wage as “a celebration of Michigan’s historic victory for workers, uplifting the significance of Michigan’s leadership on wage reform and the importance of wage equity in this year’s Presidential election” appeared a potential signal on where Democratic leaders have landed.

Several top unions – and key allies of Democratic elected officials – recently called for no changes to the minimum wage law set to take effect in February. It would be a significant break in the Democratic coalition if the governor and Democratic legislative majorities were to cross them.

Business groups and restaurants specifically are calling on lawmakers to preserve the tip credit.

Oakland County Commissioner David Woodward, a former House member and top Democrat in Oakland, said Gilchrist has been a staunch supporter of the movement since its inception in Michigan.

“From the very beginning, he has stood in the shoes of a server, where he understands the work that’s required. He understands the need for wages to raise to a level necessary to not just meet people’s needs but be able to thrive.” Woodward said. “He’s been on the side of working families from the very first day that he was elected our lieutenant governor, and so him being here shows he stands in solidarity with workers who’ve been fighting this particular fight for six years.”

As for other Democrats who have yet to step out in support of the tipped wage elimination, Woodward, who served in the House from 1999-2004, indicated confidence that they’ll allow the wage changes to go into effect unaltered from their original form.

“As a former Democratic state legislator, this is what I know about the Democrats in Michigan. We support raising the minimum wage,” he said. “We fight for working families, and I have confidence that our Democratic leaders in the state are going to protect and make certain that wages go up for workers at the very bottom rung of the economy come February of next year.”

The conservative Michigan Freedom Fund said Gilchrist’s presence at the event marked an endorsement of the tipped wage elimination, but took an opposite view of its implications, saying the appearance “added insult to injury” of Michigan Democrats’ “damning inaction to save the restaurant industry.”

“Democrats cannot have their cake and eat it too. They cannot gaslight tipped workers into thinking there’s a ‘chance’ they save livelihoods, while simultaneously dancing on the grave of an entire industry,” Freedom Fund spokesperson Zach Rudat said in a statement. “It’s time for Lansing Democrats to stop speaking out of both sides of their mouths and be honest: are they going to step up, get to work, and save Michigan jobs, or will they take marching orders from their progressive handlers and send Michigan workers to the unemployment line?”

For Save MI Tips, an organization that’s been lobbying for the retention of the tip credit, Gilchrist’s appearance at the event was a disappointment, but not an indication that the fight is over.

“It’s deeply concerning that Lt. Gov. Gilchrist appeared with One Fair Wage, which wants to end the ability of servers and bartenders to earn more than minimum wage,” John Sellek, the group’s spokesperson, said. “But we take hope in the fact that he did not specifically address the issue. We believe he and Gov. Whitmer are hearing the thousands of Michigan tipped workers who do not want to be turned into minimum wage workers against their will.”

Save MI Tips has hosted advocacy days and brought restaurant workers to the Capitol to lobby lawmakers in favor of modifying the wage increase to save the tip credit, actions Sellek said are more representative of Michigan than the figures present at the OFW event.

“Today’s sparsely populated event seemed to feature more out-of-state politicians than Michigan tipped workers, and that’s because servers and bartenders want to keep the current tipping system,” Sellek said. “If you want to see what a real rally looks like, just watch the video of hundreds of tipped workers on the Capitol steps, pleading with the governor and legislature to save their tips.”

The event included Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison as a live speaker and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who provided a recorded message, both of whom discussed the success of One Fair Wage movements in their state. Woodward said Minnesota’s success in eliminating its tipped wage credit without major consequences to businesses disproves the narrative Michigan restaurant organizations are presenting in opposition to the policy here.

“I challenge you to go to a Buffalo Wild Wings in rural Michigan and a Buffalo Wild Wings in Minneapolis – the menus are basically the same. The difference is, the workers in Minnesota make more money,” Woodward said. “Tipped wage has been equal to the minimum wage there for decades. People go out to eat. Restaurants are thriving in Minnesota. They’re going to thrive here. And when the wages of servers go up, what do they do with it? They’re going to go to restaurants. Probably the most loyal restaurant attendee is a restaurant worker.”

Woodward said he thinks many of the restaurant workers participating in Save MI Tips lobbying efforts aren’t aware of how the policy would impact their wages. He said many seem to believe tipping would become outlawed if the new minimum wage policy is implemented, largely as a result of messaging from large restaurant chains.

“It’s a straw man argument that they’re putting up there,” he said. “This fear tactic, telling servers that their tips are going away, it’s just completely lost. This is about raising the minimum wage with tips on top. Michigan’s a tipping state.”

Sen. Kristen McDonald Rivet on Thursday laid out the dire situation of child care in Michigan: prices so high and waiting lists so long that her staff joke about signing up for daycare the day after a good first date.

The loss in capacity of Michigan’s child care industry, worsened by the pandemic, doesn’t show signs of improving on its own, she told the Senate Housing and Human Services Committee. McDonald Rivet (D-Bay City), herself a mother of six, said the high costs and low accessibility are creating barriers for growth in the state.

“The lack of child care is one of the leading reasons Michigan has dropped to 39th in the nation to work for workforce participation,” she said. “The lack of child care is the number one reason young workers are choosing not to enter the workforce and finding a solution is now ranked as the number one concern for employers.”

Still, solutions are possible. McDonald Rivet cited family tax credits and operational grants for child care businesses as options for lowering costs and helping restore the child care workforce that was depleted by COVID-19.

“We’ve lost 20% of our child care capacity nationally in the last 10 years, but here in Michigan, that number is 40%,” McDonald Rivet said. “The reason for that has to do with a steady decline and loss of our child care businesses that have really hard time making it, and when COVID hit, it took a huge swath of our child care businesses out that never reopened. There are a lot of things that we can do, and there are many things that we must do immediately, and that includes getting more money back in the pockets of young families and being able to support our providers with operational stabilization grants.”

Lou Glazer, president of Michigan Future, an organization that’s helped form a coalition of groups supporting a tax credit for working families, told the committee that a policy that meshes with the Earned Income Tax Credit to put money directly back into the hands of families is the best approach.

“One of the lessons that we learned from the pandemic was that these low wage workers are living with paycheck to paycheck not because they’re irresponsibly buying unnecessary luxuries, but because they have lower wage jobs that means they struggle to pay for the necessities,” Glazer said. “The reality is that most are struggling economically in good times and bad like us, (and they) get up every day and work hard on a living. We believe the best way to help these hard-working Michiganders is with income, not programs.”

On the program front, however, McDonald Rivet believes investing in more operational grants for child care centers would help lower costs from the other end of the equation.

“What the operational grants would have done, and my proposal is for infants and toddlers, is take the amount of what the cost it is to provide those slots and offer operational grants to providers that fill the delta of what’s possible for parents to pay and what it actually costs in order to provide care for those kids, particularly our babies and toddlers,” she said.

Some operational grants were included in the budget for the Department of Lifelong Education, Achievement and Potential for the 2024-25 fiscal year, but McDonald Rivet said they’re nowhere near what’s needed to widely address the issue. Plus, implementing the grants and determining eligibility throws up logistical and administrative obstacles that can prevent families from getting care when they need it.

“Red tape is a really big problem. Frankly, it’s a big problem with everything that comes out of Washington,” McDonald Rivet said. “But when you heard some of the examples of it taking 45 days to determine eligibility, well, if you have a job and you need child care on day one of that job, you can’t wait 45 days. There are a lot of things that are like that. They require a lot of minute detail with a whole lot of paperwork, both for the providers and for the parents.”

Operational grants in Michigan have recently been funded by one-time American Rescue Plan dollars left over from the pandemic. To keep them up and make them functional, McDonald Rivet said, would require partnership and reform at the state and federal levels.

“Some of that red tape we can get rid of at a state level. We can do things like presumptive eligibility, meaning you’re telling us this is what your job pays, and we assume that you’re eligible. We’re going to provide care for you on your first day of work,” she said. “Others, we need to actually reform at the federal level, which is something I’m hoping to work on when it comes to the grants.”

The child care question is taking priority for businesses, too.

Leah Robinson, of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, told committee members a recent report concluded that the state loses out on $2.88 billion annually due to the child care crisis, largely due to employee absenteeism and turnover.

“A family problem is inherently an employer concern,” Robinson said. “We have members in every sector of business in all 83 counties of the state, and they all agree this is the number one issue impacting our workforce.”

The lone Republican on the Senate Labor Committee said he was willing work with members and the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity to strengthen penalties for those who would violate the tenets of child labor legislation but wanted to make sure they weren’t too punitive.

The bills – SB 963, SB 964, and SB 965 – were reported by the committee on Wednesday. Collectively, the legislation would create a registration system under LEO and increase penalties for violations of the Youth Employment Standards Act (See Gongwer Michigan Report, Oct. 8, 2024).

SB 964 and SB 965 were moved forward with adopted substitutes.

Committee Chair Sen. John Cherry (D-Flint) said the substitute for SB 964 removes Subsection E of Section 40, which required businesses to share with LEO the names of minors they have employed. Cherry said that was flagged by stakeholders because it was an open-ended provision. LEO supported the subsection’s removal.

The substitute to SB 965 fixes a drafting error, removing Section 20 in both SB 965 because it conflicted with SB 964, which also includes the same section.

Committee members unanimously adopted the SB 964 substitute, but Sen. Thomas Albert (R-Lowell), the committee’s sole Republican, voted against adopting the substitute to SB 965.

On the votes to report, Albert voted against moving SB 963 and SB 964 but passed on SB 965.

Albert said he sent a proposed change to SB 965 to Cherry’s office, and hoped they could work together with LEO to find “a landing spot on the penalties.”

“I agree they can be improved, but don’t want to make them overly punitive that will prohibit employers from hiring minors at all,” Albert said. “So, I appreciate your consideration. I hope we can work on something for the floor.”

Jacob Manning from the Small Business Association of Michigan was opposed to SB 963 and SB 965  but did not wish to speak. Amy Drumm with Michigan Retailers Association and Leah Robinson with the Michigan Chamber of Commerce were both neutral on SB 964 but were opposed to SB 965. Neither Drumm nor Robinson wished to speak.