July 11, 2025 | This Week in Government: Canvassers Rescind Invest in MI Kids Summary Approval; Approve Americans for Citizen Voting Proposal

Canvassers rescinded its previous approval of the Invest in MI Kids ballot proposal summary after complaints the group changed its language at the last minute while it also approved the second ballot initiative for Americans for Citizen Voting during its Thursday meeting.

The Board of State Canvassers  opened the meeting with public comment that expressed concern about the validity of the language the board approved for Invest in MI Kids during its June meeting.

Invest in MI Kids seeks to place a 5% income tax surcharge on the highest earners in Michigan and use those funds in public schools.

Daniel Ziegler, a lawyer on behalf of The Coalition to Stop the Business and Family Tax Hike, claimed the petition language for Invest in MI Kids had “substantive changes.” Therefore, the board had approved language that had not received public comment.

He claimed seven hours before public comment closed, they filed an amended petition, not alerting the Bureau of Elections, which he said would result in not receiving proper analysis.

Ziegler also cited the Open Meetings Act, saying the decision was made “in a hurry to finish a very lengthy agenda,” not allowing some individuals to speak on an agenda item.

“The board prides itself on being a board of precedent,” Ziegler said. “There’s one rule that applies to everybody, and if the board holds today that a petition proponent may submit a petition and then seven hours before public comment closes, and without alerting the director of elections, swap the petition, that’s something that all the lawyers will take notice of, and that’s going to be a precedent going forward.”

Eric Doster, speaking on behalf of Small Businesses for Better Michigan, explained the change in the summary that the original language said, “local public school district classrooms” and the new version removes the term “public.” He said in front of the board that this was a meaningful change because he had specific issues with the “exclusivity” of the word “public” when it comes to schools.

Only in the middle of the June meeting, he said, was it stated by Invest in MI Kids that there was a change in the language, and the general reaction of the board seemed to prove they had not been aware of the change.

He said if it was not a substantive change, then why would organizers make the change in the first place, and that their “actions speak louder than words.” He said the group has the right to pull their initiative and resubmit before the board and that the board should “remove the dark clouds” that have formed over the initiative.

The board then went into closed session to discuss the matter for around half an hour.

Acting Director of Elections Adam Fracassi clarified the bureau did not catch this change because petitions are reviewed for form not content. He also confirmed that the petition language submitted on June 16 was different from the first on June 10, but that the new submission was posted on the website for public comment on June 24.

Olivia Flower, attorney for Invest in MI Kids, argued the reason the meeting went so long was that everyone was participating “fully” in the discussion of the summary that did lead to the change in omitting the word “public.” She said part of the reason is that “local school district” is how the term appears in all Michigan law, not including the word “public.”

She said the opportunity to “comment on something that doesn’t exist” would not help the board in deliberations of the summary.

“We believe it’s improper to rescind that sort of approval,” Flower said. “This optional approval as to form process is something that encourages direct democracy participation, and I think that applicants should have full faith in that process, and that they certainly pulled out from under them later.”

Right after, the board voted unanimously to rescind the approval of the summary language and moved the approval form to another meeting.

Invest in MI Kids did not respond to a request for further comment on Thursday.

Brian Calley, president and chief executive officer of the Small Business Association of Michigan, released a statement following the recission of the summary language that criticized the proposal, saying it would double taxes on thousands of small businesses, and that if it was eventually approved, it would hurt “those with the greatest positive impact on the foundation of Michigan’s economy and future prosperity.”

He said today was a small, but temporary victory.

“The Board of Canvassers recognized that the process for receiving public comments did not follow proper procedures under the law,” Calley said in a press release. “SBAM will continue to vigorously oppose the prejudicial language of this proposal because voters deserve an honest and transparent description of just how damaging it would be to small businesses across the state who are just trying to survive and create a better future for their families, their employees, and all of Michigan.”

The Americans for Citizen Voting Michigan, which came back before the board because of a typo in its language their first time before the board, put two versions of a ballot proposal before canvassers with the intent to choose which one they will move forward with at a later date.

The proposals, which are very similar, generally would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and would require verification efforts through a statewide program. It would require the removal of noncitizens from the voter roll after a 45-day rebuttal period and would also eliminate the affidavit alternatives for voters without photo-ID.

Violation of this would result in $1,000 fine and up to five years imprisonment.

With the approval of both of the group’s petitions, there could be three different proposals in circulation to require proof of citizenship to vote. Another group, Committee to Protect Voters’ Rights, has also received approval from the board.

Canvassers and opponents criticized the group for seeking approval for two different ballot proposals.

Paul Jacob, the groups chair, said under the law, they could file as many as they would like, but would stop at two and are looking to choose one before the end of the month, most likely the language approved in the second version.

Mark Brewer, legal counsel to Promote the Vote Action, said he had been litigating in front of this board since the 1980’s, and has not seen a proposal like this in front of the board before where a prior proposal was not withdrawn.

“What’s going on here is we’ll be hiding the ball from the public,” Brewer said.

Jacob told reporters after the meeting that what his group did was “totally legitimate.” He added that he doesn’t think it will change precedent to have people come and propose a bunch of initiatives because they don’t want to sit through these meetings that many times.

Another issue in the language for Canvasser Heather Cummings, a Democrat, was the length of the buffer period before a person would be removed from the Qualified Voter File, believing it was too short for people to respond to through a mail request from the secretary of state within 45 days. She explained it was too stiff of a timeline when it comes to the right to vote, calling the regulation “Draconian.”

“I know a lot of people who have moved a lot, who get kicked out of places, who still have a right to vote, and to me, it’s not enough time,” Cummings said.

Jacob, when asked about the criticism on the time frame, said there must be a cutoff somewhere because “these are elections (and) things have to happen.”

Based on public comment and questions from the board, Fracassi amended the language to add in an acknowledgement in the timeframe someone had to respond about their citizenship in the 100-word summary as well as the removal of the Secretary of State being the delegated of this statewide program, as this would happen at the local clerk level.

Fracassi also added that the eligibility of both local, state and federal elections has to be tracked separately.

Jacob said that while the committee lost some summer months to collect signatures, it will launch before the end of the month. He said there will be a mix of paid and volunteer signature collectors.

Chair Richard Houskamp, a Republican, chastised the group before calling for a motion to approve the form of the second ballot proposal, saying he did not think it was a practice that should even come in from the board.

He asked if organizers would remove one of the proposals today in front of the board, and Jacob answered, “not today.” It was approved anyway.

“We don’t want to become the Walmart of petitions,” Houskamp said.

Tudor Dixon will not run for U.S. Senate or for governor, the 2022 Republican gubernatorial nominee announced Wednesday.

“President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance are saving America. From securing the border at rapid speed and removing dangerous criminal illegal aliens from our communities, to bringing manufacturing jobs home and lowering taxes, President Trump’s America first policies are already having positive effects or Americans,” Dixon said in a statement. “My focus is protecting and advancing those policies, and as such, I will not be a candidate for the Republican nomination for Michigan governor or U.S. Senate in 2026. I will continue traveling our great state to support Trump polices and the candidates authentically embracing them.”

Dixon said it was critical for Republicans to win in Michigan in 2026. She criticized Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination.

“Gretchen Whitmer has been a disaster for our state,” she said. “Jocelyn Benson, a conniving career far-left agitator, will be dangerous and infinitely worse. Michigan voters must fire her, and, with the right alternative, they will.”

Dixon said she would be fighting to that end.

“I have met countless Michiganders from Macomb to Menominee to Muskegon over the last four years who care about saving our state,” she said. “I will be fighting right beside them.”

Following the 2022 election, Dixon has been a regular media presence with “The Tudor Dixon Podcast” and serving as a commentator on various programs.

Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel responded to Dixon’s announcement in a statement released Wednesday.

“Tudor Dixon may not be on the ballot next year, but she’s recently launched broadsides at both John James and Tom Leonard, and she will continue to influence Michigan Republicans and push them to stake out the most extreme positions possible,” he said.

Hertel went on to highlight Dixon’s recent attacks against Republican gubernatorial candidates former House Speaker Tom Leonard and U.S. Rep. John James (R-Sterling Heights) on Fox News Radio and on her podcast.

In March, Dixon said she was considering bids for the either the U.S. Senate or governor. Since then, the Republican field has built out in the governor’s race, including James, Leonard, Sen. Aric Nesbitt (R-Porter Township), and former Attorney General Mike Cox. In the U.S. Senate race, institutional support has rallied around former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers though U.S. Rep. Bill Huizenga of Zeeland is considering a run.

Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan announced Thursday what his first act would be if he’s elected governor: calling for a law to suspend the salaries of members of the Legislature if they fail to pass a budget by July 1.

“We are just six weeks from the start of the school year and none of Michigan’s 4,000 public schools has a real budget,” Duggan, who is running without party affiliation, said in a statement. “Principals and teachers can’t properly hire or plan for their school’s opening without knowing their budget and it’s always our children who pay the price for this chaos. It’s about time Lansing had accountability.”

Taking aim at lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, who he said have failed in their duty to provide a budget before the July 1 deadline, Duggan touted the on-time budgets the city of Detroit has passed in his 12 years as mayor. He said his proposal would apply to the governor, the lieutenant governor and all Senate and House members.

“We need to change politics as usual in Lansing,” said Duggan. “If you don’t do your job, you don’t get paid.”

Duggan emphasized his status as a newly-minted independent, saying it means he would be able to “do what no partisan governor can: put children’s education above party politics.”

“Instead of addressing the crisis in the schools, Lansing has made it worse by failing to pass a schools budget,” Duggan said. “I promise you this: If we hold up salaries, we’ll get a school budget approved immediately. If there’s one issue that Democratic and Republican legislators agree on, it’s that they all want their paychecks.”

States are preparing for major changes to health care delivery under the budget reconciliation bill President Trump signed Friday — changes that affect all residents, not only Medicaid recipients.

The biggest budget impact of the law, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, comes from new Medicaid restrictions, which analysts say could lead to millions losing coverage, though the effects will vary by state. The legislation is structured so the brunt of the federal budget cuts will fall on the 40 states that expanded Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

States will be forced to find new Medicaid funding or cut approved services. The law is also expected to strain hospitals and health care workers — especially in rural areas — with consequences reaching well beyond low-income populations. States such as Connecticut and New Mexico have already indicated they may call special legislative sessions this summer to address the fallout.

Democratic state leaders almost universally denounced the law over the weekend as a giveaway for the rich that will make poor people sicker.

“There isn’t a single state in the nation that will have the ability to backfill these massive cuts,” Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D) said in a statement Friday. “Kicking people off their health insurance, defunding hospitals and nursing homes, and eliminating food and nutrition assistance is going to have a ripple effect throughout the country, causing workers to lose their jobs and premiums to go up.”

Some conservative lawmakers and analysts applauded the law as a long-overdue step toward reform. It includes a first-ever federal work requirement for Medicaid recipients and a ban on provider taxes, which critics say allow states to manipulate the system to receive more federal funds.

“The impact likely need not be as catastrophic as state leaders and industry officials have portrayed,” Bill Hammond, senior fellow for healthy policy at the free-market New York think tank Empire Center, wrote Friday.

Here’s how the law’s major health care provisions could affect the states:

Work Requirements

The law’s largest savings — estimated at $317 billion — are projected to come from requiring by 2026 certain adults to work as a condition of Medicaid eligibility. These savings are expected primarily from coverage losses.

More than a dozen Republican-led states have asked the Trump administration for permission to introduce their own work requirements, reviving policies previously approved under Trump but rescinded during the Biden administration before they were implemented. Conservatives say the policy incentivizes employment and promotes self-sufficiency.

“By requiring able bodied adults to work, volunteer, or train as a condition of receiving benefits, the bill reinforces the dignity of work,” Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) wrote in an X post praising the legislation.

Only Georgia and Arkansas have implemented Medicaid work requirements. In Arkansas, more than 18,000 lost coverage before a federal judge revoked the program. In Georgia, enrollment remains well below state projections.

Democratic state leaders said implementing similar requirements on a national scale will force millions of eligible people to lose Medicaid coverage. Adding to the stress on state budgets, states will be forced to reckon with increases in their uninsured population due to new requirements for people who enroll in Affordable Care Act marketplaces and the loss of enhanced premium tax credits for marketplace enrollees that are set to expire at the end of 2025.

New Mexico House Democrats called the law “the most cruel and backwards legislation we have seen in our lifetimes.”

“Republicans are kicking folks off their health care, shuttering rural hospitals, letting children and seniors go hungry, and raising costs for all working people,” they said in a statement.

Provider Taxes

Nearly all states rely on provider taxes to help finance Medicaid. The law caps the rate at which states can tax health care providers — funds that are typically funneled back to hospitals through increased Medicaid payments that trigger federal matching dollars.

The law freezes current state provider taxes in states that have not expanded Medicaid and, starting in 2028, gradually lowers the allowed rates in expansion states from 6% to 3.5%.

Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson (D) said the new limits would amount to at least $1.5 billion in lost hospital reimbursements by 2031.

Some states, including Connecticut, Kansas, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin rushed to extend provider taxes before the bill was signed. It remains unclear which of those laws will withstand the new federal restrictions.

States such as California, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania are evaluating whether to restructure or replace their provider tax mechanisms.

State-directed Payments

The law caps how much states can require Medicaid managed care plans to pay providers — particularly hospitals serving large Medicaid populations — through “state-directed payments.” These payments, linked to quality and access goals, help offset the gap between Medicaid reimbursement and actual care costs.

The cap is set at 100% of Medicare rates for expansion states and 110% for non-expansion states.

Several states rushed to approve new payment arrangements ahead of the bill’s passage. Georgia’s Department of Community Health held an emergency meeting on June 27 to authorize three new hospital-directed payments, including support for rural and pediatric hospitals.

The law allows some newly approved payments to be “grandfathered” in. U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) took credit for that clause, writing in a memo to state officials: “It’s a small change with huge consequences.”

Medicaid Expansion

The law eliminates a key incentive for Medicaid expansion: the 90% federal match for the expansion population, which will sunset on Jan. 1, 2026.

This change will likely halt Medicaid expansion efforts in the 10 remaining non-expansion states. Several of them, including Kansas, Mississippi, and Georgia, had recently debated expansion legislation.

It also casts uncertainty over expansion in states with “trigger” laws that automatically repeal expansion if federal funding falls below a set threshold.

In North Carolina, 2023 legislation tied Medicaid expansion to the state’s ability to fund its share of the program. Lawmakers have raised concerns about the impact of the federal funding rollback.

State Senate President Phil Berger (R) wrote on X in June that he supported the bill and the legislature would “work through any implementation issues.”

Administrative Changes

The law imposes new administrative burdens on states, including requirements for monthly work reporting, quarterly death record checks, and semiannual Medicaid eligibility reviews.

In North Carolina, where eligibility checks are conducted by county agencies, the new rules could double workloads at a time when the Medicaid agency is already facing staff shortages.

“Honestly, I’m very worried,” said Kody Kinsley, former North Carolina Secretary of Health and Human Services. “These are not work requirements. These are paperwork requirements.”

As Michigan observes continued unemployment rate increases and deviation from national unemployment metrics, questions among policymakers and the public are surfacing about why – and the answer from economists is a resounding “we’re not sure.”

Although Michigan’s payroll employment has increased in recent months, household employment hasn’t. Most recent unemployment data from the Department of Technology, Management and Budget showed all 18 of the state’s labor market areas saw unemployment rate gains from May 2024, with a median rate increase of 1.2 percentage points.

For several months, Michigan has had one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. It currently stands second only to Nevada. It’s posed a challenge for Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. For much of 2023 and in early 2024, when DTMB released the monthly unemployment rate with news of decreases and historically low numbers, Whitmer would issue a statement saying it was evidence her economic policies were working. For the last 18 months, however, Michigan’s unemployment rate has ticked upward. The statements from Whitmer about the unemployment rate stopped.

Michigan Economic Development Corporation spokesperson Otie McKinley defended the organization’s job creation strategy.

“The MEDC remains steadfast in our Make it in Michigan economic development strategy that simultaneously supports our people, cultivates places, and wins projects of all sizes that create jobs with family-sustaining wages. In fiscal year 2024, MEDC-supported investment projects resulted in nearly 13,000 projected jobs,” McKinley said in a statement. “We remain committed to being partners with the bipartisan state legislature and our federal delegation on commonalities in that vision so residents past, present, and future can thrive in Michigan for generations to come because of the seeds – or investments – we planted now.”

The state’s unemployment rate of 5.4% in May exceeds the national rate of 4.2% by 1.2 percentage points. The state’s jobless rate is rising faster than the national rate, which rose by 0.4 percentage points since March 2024, while Michigan’s rate advanced by 1.3 percentage points. Going back to February 2024, the state’s rate has risen 1.5 percentage points.

Gongwer News Service spoke to three economists – Gabriel Ehrlich, director of the University of Michigan’s Research Seminar in Quantitative Economics, David Zin of the Senate Fiscal Agency, and Mark Skidmore, Morris Chair in State and Local Government Finance and Policy at Michigan State University – to better understand the current state of Michigan’s unemployment landscape.

Although each expert could name several possibilities as to why Michigan’s household unemployment rate has been growing farther apart from the national average since early 2024, all three agreed there is no definitive answer.

A laundry list of factors make Michigan susceptible to unemployment increases: sensitivity to interest rates, a workforce that relies more on heavy industry and manufacturing than many other states, proximity to the northern border making the state feel federal trade policies more acutely, and, of course, the ongoing population stagnancy and a dearth of highly skilled, educated workers.

“Michigan’s economy is more interest rate-sensitive than the national economy, and obviously the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to try to get inflation under control. When you think back to 2022, the Fed looked at the labor market and thought the labor market was overheated, and it raised interest rates to try to get inflation under control,” Ehrlich said. “We saw short-term and long-term interest rates rise, and so when you think about things like the auto industry, and (Michigan’s) pretty sizable mortgage industry, those are all (affected) and we think that that is part of why we’ve been seeing Michigan’s unemployment rate rise relative to the nation’s.”

Some of what the state is seeing in unemployment rates since early 2024 is the delayed, but natural reaction to changes in Federal Reserve policy.

“In a lot of ways, Michigan’s economy is kind of where the rubber meets the road, in some sense, for how Federal Reserve policy and interest rates affect the national economy,” Ehrlich said. “I think a lot of what we’ve seen is part of that.”

The state’s economy and workforce are uniquely situated among its counterparts around the country to feel heartburn over employment challenges when others might not – a phenomenon that derives from Michigan’s early dominance in manufacturing and an ensuing reliance on heavy industry as other states diversified during the boom of globalization.

“As a long-term strategy, the more skilled workers we have, the more resilient we’ll be, that’s one layer. And then the other layer is a diversified economy is a more resilient economy,” Skidmore said. “Historically, Michigan has always been a very strong manufacturing state, which isn’t a bad thing. But as we globalize, we’ve seen a lot of those manufacturing jobs go away, but we’re still reliant on manufacturing, and it’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it may lead to greater disparities.”

Michigan has more low-skill workers, Skidmore said, a sector of employment that’s more vulnerable to job losses. Many of those workers are in manufacturing fields that are especially tumultuous under current political and economic conditions.

“There are certain jobs that are more sensitive to a slowdown than others, and there are certain types of workers who are more sensitive,” Skidmore said.

Uncertainty is rampant in today’s economy – all three economists cited it as a significant contributing factor to hiring and investment decisions that can shape a statewide unemployment rate.

Tariffs – or lack thereof – are a big part of that uncertainty, as President Donald Trump shifts his policy month-to-month and it continues to be difficult to project what position the U.S. will have on trade for the remainder of his presidency.

“The uncertainty around the tariffs is, at this point, a really big part of the story, kind of distinct from the tariffs themselves,” Ehrlich said.

Public perception that the economy is teetering on the edge of a recession – “we’re kind of due,” Skidmore said – doesn’t help, either. Employers looking to make long-term hires may be waiting for signs of a more stable economy to emerge before pulling the trigger on staffing expansions or replacements.

Michigan’s manufacturing economy can also put employment at the whims of consumers who make their perceptions of the economy based on their own personal finances, Zin said.

“When things kind of slow down or get a little bit tight, the first things that get put off are these big durable goods purchases. Maybe you need a new refrigerator, but maybe we can squeeze another year out of it. What is Michigan big at making? Furniture, appliances, automobiles; we are very heavily concentrated in that durable goods manufacturing,” Zin said. “When times get good and everybody says, ‘Well, I’ve been putting off that car or that appliance purchase or whatnot,’ and they go out and buy this stuff … everything is good and great. But when things start to slow down, because maybe people are anxious about the economy, then we’re the first to bear the brunt of it.”

Michigan Chamber Vice President Wendy Block said anecdotally, members have been dealing with an uptick in hiring difficulties, which could stem from several causes.

“Our members, across all industries and all regions of the state, continue to report that they’re struggling to find qualified workers for the jobs that they have available, and that may have to do with people not having the right degree or credential available that’s needed for that job,” she said. “But in other cases, employers are still reporting that they’re getting job applicants, and then when they make the phone call to schedule the interview, they’re getting ghosted. Or when they schedule the job interview, no one shows up.”

To address that issue, Block hopes the Legislature will pass HB 4516 , which would allow employers to report a prospective employee to the Unemployment Insurance Agency if they miss a scheduled job interview without notice. If that prospective employee was receiving benefits under the Michigan Employment Security Act, they would be disqualified.

New employees could also be reported and disqualified from benefits after two consecutive days of unexplained absence, rather than the current three-day threshold.

Despite the current outlook, there is hope for Michigan’s unemployment rate over the next few years, Ehrlich said.

“We do expect Michigan’s economy to keep adding payroll jobs. And the reason is what we call the non-cyclical industries in Michigan … things like education, health care, leisure and hospitality, government,” Ehrlich said. “Those are parts of the economy that still have some momentum in our estimation, and we expect those to really support the state economy, even as a cyclical industry (like) manufacturing, professional and business services, construction and (things like that) kind of face a more flat outlook over the next couple of years.”

Although there aren’t many lessons or methods of economic insulation Michigan can take from the 2008 recession, Skidmore said dealing with the long-term health and diversity of the state’s workforce and economy must remain a priority.

“We can always prepare ahead of time. There are rainy day funds for state that can help weather the storm or any kind of recession,” Skidmore said. “We’ve done those things to some degree, that will help, and then I don’t know that there’s a whole lot that at the state level we can do other than to continue to diversify our economy, which is a long run strategy.”

As for when Michiganders might have a more comprehensive idea of why the employment economy looks the way it does currently, concrete answers are unlikely to come for a while. The available data is in its infancy, and many observed phenomena can only be backed up anecdotally for the moment. Hard data, Zin said, can come months or years after a period of perceived economic hardship – economists don’t know what’s happening right now, but that doesn’t mean they never will.

“Things look weird right now,” he said. “The frustrating thing about economists is when we’re not saying, ‘On the other hand,’ they’re saying, ‘Well, we really don’t know.’”