LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – An October 10th letter from the State of Michigan Department of Attorney General’s Office gives law enforcement officials guidance for Election Day and the early voting leading up to it.

In the AG’s letter, it describes scenarios that law enforcement might encounter including situations that concern poll watchers and election challengers – and disruptions at early voting sites and polling places. In the guidance, it says that although the watchers and challengers are there to “ensure that election processes are conducted in accordance with the law and fairly,” that their right to be present or and challenge voters is not “absolute.”

MORE NEWS: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Asks SCOTUS to Remove His Name from Michigan’s Ballot

An election site or poll supervisor has the right to ask the challenger to leave and if they refuse to do so, that supervisor is instructed to contact law enforcement. This is done if the poll watcher or challenger is “disruptive.”

Challenger etiquette – proof, not prejudice.

The AG’s letter defines the challenger as acting in an “inappropriate” way if their challenges are based on an “impression” that a voter is ineligible to vote due to things like their ethnic background, how they dress, if they can’t speak or write in English or the fact that they don’t have an acceptable picture ID and sign an “Affidavit of Voter Not in Possession of Picture ID.”

In the AG’s letter, and in the secretary of state’s rules, it says an election challenger must have “good reason to believe” that the voter is not eligible to vote in the precinct.

In the secretary of state’s October 2024 document titled “The Appointment, Rights and Duties of Election Challengers and Poll Watchers,” it says that challenges must be made to a challenger liaison who will decide if the challenge is permissible.

The document goes on to say, “A challenger may make a challenge to a voter’s eligibility to cast a ballot only if the challenger has a good reason to believe that the person in question is not a registered voter.”

This directive is based on challenges that have to do with four things: the person is not registered to vote; the person is less than 18 years of age on Election Day; the person is not a United States citizen; or the person has not lived in the city or township in which they are attempting to vote for 30 or more days prior to the election.

MORE NEWS: Grand Valley State is New No. 1 in NCAA Division II; Ferris Stats is No. 4

When an election challenger makes the challenge, they are required to “explain the reason the challenger holds that belief.” If the challenger doesn’t cite one of the four listed “permissible” reasons that the challenger believes the person is not a registered voter, their challenge is deemed impermissible.

Voter challenges must be handled professionally, not punitively.

Even if the challenge is permissible, the challenger may only make the challenge to the liaison or the liaison’s designee – and in a discrete manner, not intended to embarrass the challenged voter, intimidate other voters or disrupt the election process.

If the challenge is made at an in-person voting place, the voter being challenged is sworn in and promises to answer all questions truthfully concerning their qualifications as a voter. An election inspector asks the voter to confirm that they meet the criteria to be eligible to cast a ballot.

If, after questioning under oath, the voter confirms they are eligible to vote, the challenge is rejected and the voter is permitted to vote a challenged ballot. If the voter does not confirm they are eligible to vote after questioning under oath, the challenge is accepted, and voter is not allowed to cast a ballot.

Guidance or gray area?

The AG’s guidance and Secretary Benson’s rules suggest a clear intent to keep challenges to voter eligibility professional and based on specific, verifiable criteria. However, the ambiguity in how these rules apply to voters’ immigration status leaves election challengers in a precarious position.

While the guidelines emphasize due process and preventing voter intimidation, they also create confusion over whether certain challenges are permissible at all. As Election Day looms, it’s worth asking whether this lack of clarity is simply oversight or a deliberate strategy to deter challenges altogether.

In part 1, we take a look at how constitutional rights appear to be an afterthought in Michigan AG’s Election Day letter to law enforcement.