An Improved Metric for Evaluating Election Official Preparedness: A Case Study of Michigan’s Election Officials
May 7, 2025
-
Our Mission
To train the next generation of lawyers in the law and practice of voting rights, ballot access, campaign finance, election administration, and democracy protection.
-
By Sharon Dolente
May 7, 2025, 9:55 AM
The COVID-19 pandemic revealed to the American public that election administration and civic participation vary tremendously by region, state, and community. This commentary describes an example of these variations, comparing turnover rates of election officials in Michigan with turnover rates of election officials nationwide.
Growing Concern about Election Official Turnover
The effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election by then-candidate Donald Trump and his supporters led to a campaign of threats, harassment and intimidation targeting election officials.[1]
Even as time passed and the 2020 election and its aftermath began to recede in our collective national memory, there was a growing concern that election officials would leave the profession in droves because of the harassment and threats they had experienced. Some of the earliest reports on election official turnover were shocking. In the Fall of 2023, for example, Issue One published a report on election official turnover in Western States, which stated that more than 50% of election officials in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah left their positions after the 2020 presidential election.
Michigan, a perennial battleground state, had also been fertile ground for harassment and anti-election behavior.[2]Advocates working to protect and defend ballot access in Michigan, myself included, grew concerned about the high turnover of election officials in the state. If Michigan’s turnover rate was as high as reported in other parts of the country, it might necessitate additional state training, technical assistance or other supports to ensure elections were administered properly. If Michigan’s turnover rate was lower, as I suspected, based on my knowledge and relationships with Michigan election officials, it could be valuable to document and celebrate it. If Michigan had better retention of election officials than other states, it would be worthwhile to understand why. I decided to get the data, analyze it, and find answers.
Michigan’s Election Administration System
Michigan is among a small number of states that administers elections at the municipal rather than the county level. While this distinction may seem minor, it has a significant impact on election administration practices and the voter experience.[3] Michigan is the most populous state to place primary responsibility for administering elections with municipal clerks rather than county clerks.[4]
The Methodology
To compare and contrast turnover and retention for all of Michigan’s local election officials , I began by reviewing data already published on election official turnover nationwide. In 2024, the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) released the most comprehensive report to date on election official turnover across the country.[5] BPC analyzed more than two decades of data including more than 14,000 election officials in more than 6,000 jurisdictions. The BPC report found 65% of local election officials nationwide had prior experience administering a presidential election, meaning a turnover rate of 35% since the 2020 election.[6]
Unfortunately, the BPC report was of limited use for Michigan, because the report only analyzed Michigan’s county clerks – not the city and township clerks, who have the primary responsibility for election administration. This meant the BPC report analyzed just 6% of Michigan’s local election officials. As a result of the limited data set, I decided to analyze data on all of Michigan’s election officials to determine the true rate of election official turnover rate in Michigan. I obtained an up to date, statewide, election official contact lists from the Michigan Bureau of Elections (MBOS) and compared it to past lists. I also used newspaper articles, municipal websites, and social media to research the professional background of election officials in Michigan’s election jurisdictions with more than 100,000 residents.
Analysis of Turnover of Michigan Election Officials Shows Similarities and Differences as Compared to Election Officials Nationally
According to my analysis, turnover of all local election officials in Michigan was slightly higher than the nationwide rate of 35% documented in the BPC report. My analysis of all of Michigan’s local election officials found that 63% had experience administering a presidential election, meaning a turnover rate of 37% since the 2020 election.
According to my analysis, turnover of local election officials in Michigan’s large jurisdictions was significantly lower than the nationwide rate as documented in the BPC report. The BPC report found that nationwide election official turnover in large election jurisdictions, defined as jurisdictions with more than 100,000 residents, was much higher than the rate for all election jurisdictions combined.[7] The BPC report found that the turnover rate of election officials in large jurisdictions nationwide was 46% for the four-year period from 2018 to 2022.[8] Michigan has seven large election jurisdictions, and only one large election jurisdiction had a new election official during the six-year period from 2018 to 2024. Michigan had 14% turnover in large election jurisdictions compared to 46% across the rest of the country.
Election officials in large jurisdictions in Michigan also have more years of experience and years in the role compared to similar officials around the country. The BPC report found election officials in large jurisdictions across the country have an average of 16 years of experience and 5 years in the role. According to my analysis, Michigan election officials in large jurisdictions have an average of 19 years of experience and 11 years in the role.
A Better Metric for Assessing Election Official Preparedness
My analysis of election official turnover in Michigan also led me to question the commonly used metric for evaluating an official’s preparedness for a presidential election. Presidential contests were long seen as an outlier in terms of election administration due to the increased turnout and heightened attention. An election official was thought to be prepared to administer an upcoming presidential election only if the official had previously administered a presidential election. This metric is outdated because midterm elections in Michigan, and presumably elsewhere, have very high voter turnout and heightened attention. For example, voter turnout in Michigan’s November 2022 midterm election was 93% of the voter turnout in the November 2016 presidential election.[9]
A better metric for evaluating election official preparedness for an upcoming presidential election is the official’s experience administering a high turnout federal election. Using this metric, Michigan’s election officials were exceptionally prepared for the November 2024 election:
It takes accurate information to combat misinformation. Using the wrong metric could have underestimated Michigan election officials’ level of preparedness for the November 2024 and could have been used to undermine confidence in election officials and election results. This independent analysis was needed to provide accurate information on how well-prepared Michigan’s election officials actually were for the 2024 presidential election.
Still, Michigan election officials face real challenges, both old and new, that state and local policy makers will need to address if the state wants to continue to recruit and retain exemplary local election officials in the future. Michigan’s local election officials face a persistent lack of adequate funding for election administration, inadequate compensation, and a consistently increasing workload without increasing the official’s budget.[10] Newer challenges include intimidation, harassment and threats of physical harm. Record breaking turnout in election after election also in Michigan has also presented challenges for election administrators, especially given limited resources and staff.[11] Finally, local election officials in Michigan have had to administer elections with many new voting rights adopted between 2018 and 2024.
Conclusion
More state and local analysis of election administration and civic participation is needed because the laws, rules, processes and voting behavior vary greatly from state to state and from community to community. This analysis highlighted important similarities and differences in turnover of Michigan election officials compared to election officials across the country. In the absence of more localized analysis, stakeholders may expend time and resources addressing the wrong issue. Without local analysis, stakeholders may miss identifying what is and isn’t working. By doing a state level analysis and utilizing a better metric for preparedness, this analysis found Michigan election officials were extraordinarily well prepared for the November 2024 election. We should take this seriously as we prepare for the 2028 cycle.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Sharon Dolente is an expert on voting and elections law and policy with twenty years of experience in Michigan. She developed and passed two amendments to the Michigan Constitution to expand access to the ballot in 2018 and 2022. She managed Michigan’s nonpartisan election protection program in 2020 through the implementation of numerous new voting rights and the Covid-19 pandemic. She served on Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s Election Modernization Advisory Committee in 2019-2020 and as the Michigan Voter Protection Director for President Obama’s re- election campaign in 2012.
Sharon also has a decade of experiencing litigating employment and civil rights matters, and experience in criminal and capital defense. Sharon has a law degree from the University of Michigan Law School, a master’s degree from Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, and a Bachelor of Arts from Vassar College.
[1] See, Campaign of Fear: The Trump World’s Assault on Election Workers, Reuters (last viewed April 28, 2025)..
[2] See, Neil Vigdor, “Michigan GOP Installs Kristina Karamo, an Election Denier as Leader”, New York Times, Feb 8, 2023; Jon King, “Report classifies one-fifth of Michigan Legislature as ‘election deniers’”, Michigan Advance, Mar 7, 2024. Isabella Volmert, “Prominent 2020 election denier seeks GOP nod for Michigan Supreme Court race”, Associated Press, Aug 16, 2024; Hayley Harding “New Michigan House Elections Chair is an Election Denier”, Governing (Votebeat), Feb, 7 2025..
[3] National Conference of State Legislatures website, (last viewed Aug 8, 2024).
[4] MIT Election Lab, (last viewed Aug 8, 2024).
[5] Joshua Ferrer, Daniel M. Thompson, and Rachel Orey for the Bipartisan Policy Center, “Election Official Turnover Rates from 2000 to 2024”, (2024).
[6] Ferrer at 14 (Figure 4).
[7] U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places of 20,000 or More, Ranked by July 1, 2023 Population: April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2023.
[8] Ferrer at 16.
[9] Michigan Department of State, Election Results and Data website (last viewed April 28, 2025).
[10] Ferrer at 6.
[11] Paul Egan, “Voter turnout shatters recent records for Michigan primary elections”, Detroit Free Press, Aug 8, 2018; Kaye LaFond, “Michigan midterm turnout soars to 56 year high. Which counties stood out?”, NPR, Nov 9, 2018; Julie Mack, “Turnout for Michigan’s August primary shatters records. What does that mean for November?”, MLive, Aug 6, 2020; Beth LeBlanc, “Michigan smashes election turnout record as vote counting continues”, The Detroit News, Nov 4, 2020; Jon King, “After Michigan shatters midterm election turnout record, canvas of results begins”, Michigan Advance, Nov 10, 2022; Michael Arney, “Michigan voter turnout at record-breaking 78.1%”, WTVB.com, Nov 7, 2024.
Related