Columns

The opening statement is crucial in labor arbitration cases. The opening statement gives advocates the opportunity to successfully put forth their client’s case in the most favorable light to the arbitrator at the very beginning of the arbitration hearing.

Introduction

The opening statement is crucial in labor arbitration cases. The opening statement gives advocates the opportunity to successfully put forth their client’s case in the most favorable light to the arbitrator at the very beginning of the arbitration hearing.

An opening statement is a brief and general outline of what the dispute is about and what the advocate intends to prove. Even if the advocate prepares a written opening statement, it should be presented orally. 

Furthermore, “[t]he opening statements set the stage for the testimony to come. … They should explain to the arbitrator what each party’s case is about.”        

The Opening Statement serves a unique function 

In a labor arbitration case, the opening statement is given in a unique adjudicative environment. This environment differs from court litigation or employment arbitration where the parties will have provided information, including pleadings and briefing, to the adjudicator prior to the evidentiary hearing. Presentation of information generally is not provided prior to a labor arbitration. The labor arbitrator will usually know little, if anything, about the case. At best, the arbitrator only will know whether the case is a discipline or a contract interpretation case and will learn the issue moments before the opening statement. This lack of prior knowledge highlights the extreme importance of the opening statement in a labor arbitration case.    

An effective opening statement is carefully prepared and practiced ahead of time before it is given to the arbitrator. 

Opening statements should be carefully thought out, and not be unduly argumentative, in order to accomplish their purpose to succinctly apprise the arbitrator of the party's theory of the case and what evidence that party intends to use to prove its case.  

In a discipline case, the employer gives its opening statement first. In a contract interpretation case, the union gives its opening statement first. This is based on both tradition as well as which party has the burden of proof.   If an advocate plans to ask for a burden of proof other than the preponderance of the evidence in their post-hearing argument, the advocate should consider giving the arbitrator notice of that in the opening statement.

To overcome the hurdle of the arbitrator’s lack of prior knowledge of the facts, the advocate must effectively promote the interests of their client, whether the employer or the union. The advocate should not overpromise and should remember that what is said during the opening statement is not evidence.

The Opening Statement describes the issues 

The opening statement tells the arbitrator the issues in the case, including both the substantive and procedural issues. The opening statement must clearly inform the arbitrator of the applicable sections of the pertinent documents, including the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), employment manual, established policies, and other operative documents as well as the page numbers in the documents where those sections can be found. It is extremely important that the arbitrator know exactly where in these documents, including page numbers, the arbitrator can go to better understand the case and the parties’ viewpoints.

The advocate should pay attention to whether the arbitrator is taking notes during the opening statement. The pace with which the opening statement is delivered should be adjusted by paying careful attention to the arbitrator’s speed and depth of note taking. The advocate’s goal is to make the arbitrator’s job easier. Sometimes the pace at which the advocate delivers the opening statement, including pauses, can be helpful. The arbitrator’s hearing notes might ultimately be the record upon which the arbitrator’s memory of the hearing will largely be based.

The Opening Statement outlines the facts 

The opening statement should, in a concise, clear fashion, outline the “who, what, where, how, and when” of the case. Once the opening statement is completed, the arbitrator should have a clear understanding of who the main actors are, what happened to give rise to the grievance, where the situation occurred, how the situation unfolded, and the timeline of the situation.

The opening statement should also address unfavorable aspects of the case. The arbitrator should not hear these unfavorable aspects for the first time during the other side’s opening statement. The advocate should use this opportunity to present adverse facts in the best light. 

The second opening statement (for example, the union’s opening statement in a discipline case) should usually respond to issues raised in the first opening statement rather than waiting for the evidentiary portion of the hearing. For example, if the employer argues for the first time ever in its opening statement that the grievance or demand for arbitration is untimely, the union should tell the arbitrator, if true, during its opening statement that this issue was never previously raised by the employer. The arbitrator should be told about these procedural issues before the end of the opening statements. By careful planning of the opening statement, including the use of the grievance procedure, the advocate should anticipate the other side’s arguments and effectively respond to them.

The opening statement should be a careful, nonargumentative presentation of the case in a professional and courteous fashion. It will summarize in a convincing manner the advocate’s main arguments, including the facts and precisely what the advocate intends to prove.

The Opening statement specifies the relief sought

The opening statement should also spell out the relief that the party is seeking. If the arbitrator knows what remedy the party is seeking, it is easier for the arbitrator to understand the evidence as it comes in.

In discipline cases, the union will occasionally refrain from making its opening statement until after the employer offers its evidence and rests. Some believe this approach prevents the arbitrator from having a balanced or full understanding of the case at the start. On the other hand, others believe that the union advocate can better serve the interests of the grievant by not playing the advocate’s hand until after hearing all the employer’s evidence. Deciding to delay one’s opening is an important strategic decision that should not be made lightly. One risk of delaying one’s opening statement is that such delay might give the other side the advantage of the primacy effect. The rule of primacy means that the side heard first will be more persuasive than the side that is heard later. One possible benefit of delaying one’s opening is to hold back on one’s presentation until after the other side has played its cards. 

The Opening Statement in a virtual hearing

In a virtual arbitration hearing via Zoom or other platform, the advocate must consider the different methods and characteristics of communication during a virtual arbitration. Depending on the settings of the observer’s monitor, the screen might display the advocate’s face on the entire screen. In addition, there might be a short delay between the advocate’s speaking and when the speaking is heard by the arbitrator. It is important that the advocate speak more slowly. 

The advocate should also consider using Share Screen to help emphasize the relevant CBA provisions and other key documents. Share Screen is a tool available on the Zoom platform, which allows the user to share the user’s documents on the monitor to be seen by other participants in the hearing. As with other portions of the opening statement, the advocate should prepare and practice the Share Screen procedure ahead of time. The hearing is not the place to try Share Screen for the first time.

Pre-sharing of exhibits occurs much more frequently in virtual arbitration than in in-person arbitration. By using Share Screen, the arbitrator can see the relevant exhibit and the advocates at the same time. In addition, PowerPoint slides and exhibits can be displayed in the arbitration via Share Screen during the opening statement.

In all arbitrations, cooperation, professionalism, and mutual respect should be paramount. The mantra for virtual arbitrations is “be kind.”

Conclusion

An effective opening statement tells the arbitrator in a concise, courteous, fashion exactly what the facts in the case are, what the issues are, how the advocate wants the arbitrator to rule, and exactly what relief is being requested. In addition, with virtual arbitration, the advocate’s effective use of Share Screen during a Zoom arbitration can create a powerful opening statement.

____________________

Lee Hornberger is a member of  the Professional Resolution Experts of Michigan, LLC (PREMi), an invitation-only group of Michigan’s top mediators, a member of the National Academy of Arbitrators, and a Diplomate Member of National Academy of Distinguished Neutrals. He is a former Chair of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of the State Bar of Michigan, Editor Emeritus of The Michigan Dispute Resolution Journal, a former member of the SBM’s Representative Assembly, a former President of the Grand Traverse-Leelanau-Antrim Bar Association, and a former Chair of the Traverse City Human Rights Commission. He is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation and a Fellow of the SBM Foundation.He has received the Distinguished Service Award from the SBM ADR Section in recognition of significant contributions to the field of dispute resolution. He has received the George Bashara Award from the ADR Section in recognition of exemplary service. He has received the Hero of ADR Awards from the ADR Section. He is the Reviewing Editor of Chapters 8 and 10, Elkouri & Elkouri, “How Arbitration Works” (9th ed. 2026).
He is a Michigan Lawyers Weekly 2026 Michigan Legal 250 Honoree for Alternative Dispute Resolution. He is in Best Lawyers of America for arbitration and mediation. He has a First Tier ranking in Northern Michigan for Mediation by Best Law Firms and a Second Tier ranking in Northern Michigan for Arbitration by Best Law Firms. He is on the Michigan Super Lawyers list for alternative dispute resolution.
While serving with the U.S. Army in Vietnam, he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal and Army Commendation Medals. The unit he was in was awarded the Meritorious Unit Commendation and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm. 
He holds his B.A. and J.D. cum laude from the University of Michigan and his LL.M. in Labor Law from Wayne State University. 

In 2022, during the last crypto bear market, the crypto industry was already rocked by the closure of FTX, which was the third largest cryptocurrency exchange at the time. Now with Bitcoin down 60% off of its high, the crypto market is being rocked again. 

In 2022, during the last crypto bear market, the crypto industry was already rocked by the closure of FTX, which was the third largest cryptocurrency exchange at the time. Now with Bitcoin down 60% off of its high, the crypto market is being rocked again. 

According to Weex.com Crypto News, four crypto platforms have scheduled their closures within 30 days. These platforms include: BitMart, BitMEX, AscendEX, EXMO.com. While these examples specifically involve cryptocurrencies and cryptocurrency exchanges, as discussed in this article, the scope of dispute resolution has a broader breadth and involves the comprehensive analysis of the Web3 economy.

The new digital economy built on Web3 

Web3 is already powering a rapidly expanding digital economy that extends far beyond cryptocurrencies. Blockchain technology underpins digital currencies, decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms that facilitate lending and borrowing without traditional financial institutions, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) that represent ownership of digital and physical assets, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) that enable community governance, tokenized real-world assets, decentralized marketplaces, blockchain gaming ecosystems, and increasingly sophisticated smart contracts capable of executing agreements automatically once predefined conditions are satisfied.

Major financial institutions, such as JPMorgan, BlackRock and Goldman are exploring tokenized securities. Fortune 50 Companies including Walmart and Coca-Cola are utilizing blockchain for transparency and traceability in their global supply chains. 

Governments are evaluating digital identity initiatives and businesses across industries are experimenting with tokenization as a means of representing ownership interests in everything from real estate to fine art. Collectively, these innovations represent more than technological advancement—they signal the emergence of an entirely new commercial ecosystem. However, every mature marketplace requires more than an efficient transaction layer. It also requires a trusted mechanism for resolving disagreements when transactions do not unfold as expected.

Every new economy creates new disputes

The evolution of commerce has always been accompanied by the evolution of conflict. International trade gave rise to commercial arbitration. Electronic commerce required new approaches to cybersecurity and digital contracting. Web3 is no different. 

Although blockchain introduces novel technologies, the underlying disputes remain remarkably familiar: parties disagree about ownership, performance, governance, fraud, interpretation, and responsibility.

The difference is that these disagreements now arise within decentralized ecosystems that frequently transcend national borders. As experienced attorneys in this area, we have found the most common categories of Web3 disputes include:

• Familiar disputes in a new digital setting

Web3 disputes may sound highly technical, but many resemble problems people already understand. A smart contract dispute is much like an automatic payment going through even though the underlying deal has changed. 

A digital asset dispute may be as simple as asking who owns money taken from a wallet without permission. 

A DeFi dispute can resemble a disagreement with a bank over a loan, investment loss, or improper liquidation—except there may be no traditional bank involved. 

A DAO governance dispute is similar to a shareholder fight over voting, control, or use of company funds. 

An NFT dispute may arise when someone buys a digital image but later discovers that the purchase did not include the copyright. And in cross-border transactions, the first question may be the most basic one: Which country’s law applies, and where should the dispute be heard? 
In other words, Web3 does not create entirely new human conflicts. It places familiar disputes—over contracts, money, ownership, governance, and fairness—into a faster, borderless, and more technologically complex environment.

• Cross-border jurisdictional challenges 

A single blockchain transaction may involve parties located across multiple continents, utilizing decentralized infrastructure distributed globally. 

Questions concerning governing law, jurisdiction, applicable regulations, and enforcement frequently become as significant as the substantive dispute itself. 

These examples demonstrate an important reality: Web3 disputes are rarely confined to technology alone. They involve traditional legal principles applied within entirely new technological environments.

Why traditional litigation is inadequate

Traditional litigation was designed for disputes involving identifiable parties, defined jurisdictions, and tangible assets. Web3 challenges each of these assumptions. Transactions occur across decentralized networks, parties may remain pseudonymous, digital assets move across borders in seconds, and the applicable law is often uncertain. As a result, conventional court proceedings can be slow, costly, and ill-suited to the pace and global nature of decentralized commerce. Jurisdictional disputes, public proceedings, and the need for specialized technical expertise further complicate litigation. As Web3 continues to evolve beyond national boundaries, so too must the mechanisms for resolving its disputes.

ADR: The often-overlooked solution

ADR works best in Web3 when it is designed into the transaction from the outset. The goal is simple: do not wait until assets are frozen, code has failed, or participants are scattered across several countries to decide how a dispute will be resolved. Web3 businesses should adopt a clear, layered process—begin with direct negotiation, move to mediation for commercial resolution, use expert determination for narrow technical questions, and reserve arbitration for disputes requiring a binding and internationally enforceable outcome.

The dispute resolution clause should identify the governing law, seat of arbitration, administering institution, language, number of arbitrators, and method for selecting neutrals with relevant digital asset expertise. It should also address emergency relief, preservation of wallet records and blockchain evidence, confidentiality, notice through verified digital channels, and the treatment of pseudonymous parties. DAO rules and platform terms should explain who may bring a claim, who represents the community or protocol, and how any settlement or award will be implemented.

A practical Web3 dispute-resolution model may therefore look like this: rapid notice and negotiation; expedited mediation; technical issues referred to an independent expert; and, if necessary, streamlined arbitration with emergency procedures and enforceable relief. For lower-value disputes, an online, documents-only process can reduce cost and delay. For high-value or cross-border disputes, institutional arbitration can provide procedural structure, specialist decision-makers, and enforceability. The key is to treat dispute resolution as part of the product, not as legal language added at the end. A Web3 project that plans for conflict is not expecting failure—it is demonstrating sound governance. Build the transaction, build the technology, and build the path to resolution at the same time.

Looking beyond smart contracts

Web3 has fundamentally changed how we transact, with smart contracts, tokenization, and decentralized platforms transforming commerce at an unprecedented pace. 

Yet technology alone cannot resolve the human realities of business trust, fairness, judgment, and disagreement. Every successful marketplace requires not only an efficient way to transact, but also a trusted way to resolve disputes when transactions fail. The next evolution of Web3, therefore, is not simply about building smarter contracts; it is about embedding smarter dispute resolution into its very foundation. 

Projects that integrate negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and sound governance from the outset will inspire greater confidence, attract investment, and stand the test of time. 

Blockchain may power the transaction, but ADR powers the trust. And in the digital economy, trust will always be the most valuable asset. 

The use of facilitative mediation in Probate disputes is now widespread throughout the State of Michigan. Probate cases have many special characteristics and intricacies that set them apart from typical disputes. 

The use of facilitative mediation in Probate disputes is now widespread throughout the State of Michigan. Probate cases have many special characteristics and intricacies that set them apart from typical disputes.  This article identifies those special characteristics and provides advice on how to address them in the mediation process.

Family Dynamics:  

Most probate disputes involve members of the same family.  Typically, the participants have known one another for 40-70 years.  They grew up together, shared bathrooms and back seats of the station wagon together. Their resentments toward one another have been percolating for decades. They recently endured the stresses of caring for a dying parent together. They bring jealousy, anger and distrust into the mediation session.  The resentments and distrust impede effective communication and are barriers to open-mindedness.  The attorneys and the mediator should be on the watch for the family dynamics in play, and take measures to negate the negative influences and irrational thoughts that are obstacles to effective discussions.  As an attorney, if you are aware of your client’s acute resentments, you should advise your mediator of that problem in advance of the session.

Guardianships and Conservatorships: 

These are the most difficult cases to mediate, for a number of reasons. The topic is worth its own article. The primary problem is that the person over whom a guardianship or conservatorship is sought may not have the requisite capacity to participate in the mediation process. Often, I have helped to facilitate an agreement between a parent and his/her children, and the parent will renege on the agreement the next day, or when the agreement is presented to the court. It should also be noted that a person cannot be deemed to be in need of a guardian or conservator except through a specific court order.  The court must conduct a hearing and make specific findings of fact, prior to such a determination. While the mediation process can grease the skids for that hearing, it cannot independently create the solution.

Best Day/Worst Day Analysis: 

Quite often, a probate dispute will center around the validity of a testamentary document.  A testamentary document will either be found to be valid or invalid. This determination leaves the parties with an identifiable amount at stake. Assuming that the approximate value of the estate is known, it’s relatively easy to determine the “best day” vs the “worst day” for each participant, should the dispute proceed to court.  In most other types of cases (personal injury, malpractice, divorce, etc.), the potential outcomes are not so clear. The presence of an identifiable range of outcomes in a probate mediation helps the participants to better understand their choices. I had a case a couple of years ago where two brothers in their twenties would recover $200,000 if they won their case, and $0 if they lost.  After a few hours of mediation in a Troy conference room, their step-mother finally offered to pay them $100,000 to settle the case.  The case had a 50-50 probability of success, in my opinion.  The youngsters told me that they wished to reject their step-mother’s proposal.  I reframed the question.  I handed them a 3 x 5 piece of paper and said, “Here is $100,000. Would you take this $100,000 down to the casino in Detroit and place it on a 50-50 bet? You win and you walk away with $200,000. You lose and you walk away with nothing.”  And then I reminded them that their attorney would drive them to the casino, but the cost of the ride would be about $40,000, win or lose. The boys quickly understood the ramifications of their decision and agreed to settle for $100,000.

Disguised Greed and Self-righteousness: 

Greed and self-righteousness are present in all disputes, but it takes a different form in a probate proceeding.  It is easily disguised as the efforts of the “only person here who understood what Dad really wanted.” I often have heard a participant state “I am only trying to honor my father’s wishes” [at least those I was able to unduly influence him into making]. That prompts me to ask if their father’s wish was for his children to wage a three-day battle in a public court room where all of his medical records concerning his dementia would be made public, because that is the outcome if the case does not settle at mediation.

Practical Considerations

Scheduling the Mediation Session: 

Most probate mediations have multiple participants.  It is not uncommon to have four or more participants (with four or more attorneys) involved in a probate proceeding.  This creates scheduling issues. Be considerate of your opposing counsel when scheduling efforts are on-going.  Answer emails promptly, or designate a person in your office to work on scheduling.  It’s frustrating to wait more than a day to get an answer from someone.  It impacts the entire group working on the case. If you reply two or three days after the original scheduling email goes out, it is likely that some of the dates originally proposed will no longer be available.

Payment of the Mediator Fee: 

MCR 2.411(D)(2) states that “The costs of mediation shall be divided between the parties on a pro-rata basis unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the court.” Attorneys frequently cite this rule in disputes about payment of the mediator fee.  
I do not believe that the rule applies to the typical probate proceeding.  First, a probate proceeding does not have “parties.”  A person participating in a probate proceeding is called an “interested person.” Second, there are typically multiple “interested persons” in a probate proceeding, some of whom have no interest in the mediation. If a charity or heir is not impacted by the court’s determination on the ultimate question, should that charity be required to pay the mediator fee on a “pro-rata basis?” 
Finally, even if the fee is limited to those participating, should it be divided among the number of “sides” or the number of participants? Sometimes one child is challenging a will. That child may be opposed by four siblings.  Should that child pay one fifth or one half of the mediator fee? I strongly encourage attorneys to get the court’s specific decision on payment of the mediator fee when mediation is originally ordered. The court should identify who is participating in the mediation, and what percentage each interested person will be obligated to pay. I also encourage attorneys to consider whether the estate or trust should pay 100% of the mediator fee. This solution removes costly discussion and argument over an issue that is relatively insignificant, dollar-wise, in the ultimate resolution. 

Notice of the Mediation: 

Each interested person whose rights may be affected by the outcome of the mediation should be provided notice of the mediation session, even if they have not appeared in the case. 

Failure to do so may invalidate a hard-earned settlement agreement. 

The Michigan Attorney General must be notified when a charity is involved.

Mediation in probate proceedings saves money, provides certainty sooner, and allows the parties to compromise in a way that cannot be accomplished through a decision of the court. It also allows delicate family problems to be solved in a private, confidential setting, rather than a public court room.  Those who mediate probate proceedings should be aware of the intricacies of that process, and be prepared to address them as they arise.


John Hohman served as a Probate Judge for 17 years. He left the bench in 2013 to become the State Court Administrator.  He has served as a mediator and arbitrator since 2015. He has mediated or arbitrated cases in 45 counties throughout the State of Michigan. His primary focus is probate mediation, but he also serves as a mediator and arbitrator in civil and domestic cases.

Reprinted with permission from the WCBA periodical Res Ipsa Loquitur. 

Data centers are on a lot of people’s minds, with concerns typically involving the amount of water, electricity and land they use. A related concern has to do with concerns about a technology data centers enable, notably, artificial intelligence.

Mackinac Center for Public Policy

Data centers are on a lot of people’s minds, with concerns typically involving the amount of water, electricity and land they use. A related concern has to do with concerns about a technology data centers enable, notably, artificial intelligence.

A recent panel from the Mackinac Center looked at the trade-offs involved in data centers. People often underestimate the positives that data centers contribute to technologies in medicine, manufacturing and other economic sectors. It’s also easy to overlook the economic activity and revenue from the data centers themselves, as well as from the companies they support.

Many concerns are overblown. A typical data center uses less water than a golf course, and new designs allow much of that to be recycled. Michigan has a lot of water, and strong laws ensure its use is sustainable.

Data centers use a lot of energy, but not as much as big companies in Michigan that few people would dream of shutting down.

And electricity is not a zero-sum game, where one business or person using it means less for everyone else. Adding new companies to the electricity grid can be good for everyone when it spreads fixed costs over a wider customer base.

Though all this is true, many voters are skeptical of data centers, and lawmakers respond to their constituents. Some legislative proposals would shut down or severely hinder this new technology and the economic growth, jobs and revenue it could bring. Others would treat data centers differently than businesses that have similar patterns for using water or electricity. And a few bills would regulate data center construction to favor labor unions.

These are bad ideas. Michigan lawmakers should regulate all companies the same when it comes to how they use land, water and energy. The state should not push unionized labor or use the tax code to pick favorites. Citizens and legislators should make Michigan a welcoming state for industry and flatten the playing field as much as possible.

Members of the Michigan Legislature have created various proposals to regulate data centers. Here they are, as summarized by Michigan Votes.

• Senate Bill 1018 imposes a temporary moratorium on the approval and operation of data centers in Michigan until April 1, 2027.

• Senate Bill 1019 amends Michigan’s zoning laws to include the Data Center Regulation Act, reinforces limits on local regulation of resource extraction and energy projects, and protects certain renewable energy projects from retroactive zoning changes.

• Senate Bill 1020 temporarily prohibits the Michigan Public Service Commission from approving any electric utility agreements with data centers until April 1, 2027.

• House Bill 5777 establishes a regulatory framework for large-scale data centers in Michigan, requiring registration, financial security, environmental and operational reporting, prevailing wage for construction, and creating a fund to reimburse local governments for costs related to data center impacts.

• House Bill 5786 sets labor hiring priorities, apprenticeship requirements, and compliance documentation standards for enterprise data center construction contracts in Michigan, with enforcement mechanisms and tax incentive implications.

• House Bill 5787 amends Michigan’s sales tax law to expand and regulate tax exemptions for data center equipment, tying eligibility to job creation, green building, clean energy use, and compliance with labor standards, while establishing new certification, reporting, and accountability requirements for enterprise data centers.

• House Bill 5882 creates a structured process for Michigan local governments to temporarily pause and evaluate large-scale data center and cryptocurrency mining projects, requiring public input, impact studies, and transparency, while preserving existing legal and labor protections.

• House Bill 5881 amends Michigan’s zoning law to require local ordinances to comply with the Data Center Planning and Responsibility Act, and clarifies limits on local regulation of resource extraction and renewable energy projects.

• House Bill 5882 creates a structured process for Michigan local governments to temporarily pause and evaluate large-scale data center and cryptocurrency mining projects, requiring public input, impact studies, and transparency, while preserving existing legal and labor protections.

• House Bill 5982 requires contested case review and final approval by the Michigan Public Service Commission for any utility agreements offering preferential rates to large-load data centers, enhancing procedural oversight without altering substantive ratemaking standards.

____________________

Jarrett Skorup is the vice president for marketing and communications at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan legislators consider a variety of proposals, many bad, on data centers

The Trump administration has tried in numerous ways to interfere with the upcoming midterms, often to restrict access to the ballot and suppress votes. As the election nears, speculation has arisen that the administration could next send ICE agents to polling places as an intimidation tactic.

The Trump administration has tried in numerous ways to interfere with the upcoming midterms, often to restrict access to the ballot and suppress votes. As the election nears, speculation has arisen that the administration could next send ICE agents to polling places as an intimidation tactic.

The first thing to say about this prospect is that it would be flatly illegal. As I explain in a new article, federal law has barred armed agents from polling places for well over a century — except in the event of an armed enemy attack on the country — and that prohibition remains in effect to this day. A separate statute prohibits intimidating voters or election workers.

In the event of illegal ICE presence at election sites, local officials are prepared to respond. A few recent incidents are illustrative.

In May, nine ICE agents swarmed a car in the parking lot of the public library in Las Palmas, Texas. The library was a polling site, and it was the early voting period in the primary. When the Bexar County sheriff learned of this situation, he went to the scene and reportedly told the ICE agents to leave, which they did.

A few weeks later, during the California primary, several ICE agents were spotted in the parking lot of a polling place in Simi Valley. After a concerned witness from an immigrant support network reported the sighting, park rangers arrived and persuaded the agents to depart.

Later in June, during New York’s primary, ICE agents entered a library in downtown Syracuse that was being used as a polling site. They were seeking to interview a poll worker as part of an investigation triggered by her social media posts, unrelated to the election. No voters were there at the time, and the county elections commissioner rushed to the site to make sure voting would not be disrupted.

It’s worth noting that there is no indication that the ICE agents were targeting election sites in any of these cases. And in each case, local officials moved swiftly to ensure they left election sites.

Nevertheless, the presence of the federal agents provoked fear and anxiety in these communities for good reason. Tensions around the administration’s mass deportation campaign have never been higher, turbocharged by a $200 billion ICE budget that has empowered armed and often masked agents to use racial profiling to stop and arrest people. Many of the victims have had no criminal background, and many have been lawfully present in the country or even U.S. citizens. Worst of all, we have seen certain ICE agents rely on violent and abusive tactics, including killing individuals who posed no immediate threat with impunity.

All this could make us despair, but it shouldn’t. Not only can we succeed, but we already are succeeding. ICE abuses have sparked outpourings of solidarity and loud demands for accountability across the country. The way that communities have handled the scattered instances of ICE agents at the polls is also reassuring. Local officials and law enforcement are making sure that everyone, including federal agents, follows the law, and that voting proceeds smoothly.

Civil society, including poll watchers and others, will be ready to document any concerning incidents and report them. Litigators, including the Brennan Center, will be standing by to protect voters’ rights in court if any voter is intimidated.

Voters can also do their part. The Brennan Center, alongside Asian Americans Advancing Justice, FIRM, and Unidos, published a Know Your Rights resource for voters detailing what they can do before and during voting if there are federal agents at their polling site.

The administration’s campaign to interfere in our elections is failing — from blatantly illegal executive orders, to vindictive criminal investigations, to a grab-bag of threats to states, localities, election officials, and voter mobilization groups. Court after court has struck down many of these efforts. American voters, too, must stand up to this campaign of intimidation.

Fortunately, voters have seen through the bluster. A recent poll found 67 percent of Americans believe that Trump’s claims about election rigging in California were made to sow doubt over the legitimacy of the election.

During and after the Civil War, federal lawmakers recognized the danger of an executive branch that could try to usurp states’ power over elections. They passed laws preventing election interference that protect us today. As they knew well, our democracy depends on all of us casting our votes and using our voices to hold elected officials accountable at the ballot box. We have the tools we need to protect against abuse.

————————————-

Hayne Yoon is senior counsel in the Brennan Center’s Voting Rights and Elections Program.

Usually the state budget has a precise number for how much spending it authorizes from federal funds. The budget for the fiscal year that starts in October does not. And this has raised some controversy about the topline number for how much spending the budget authorizes. But this wouldn’t even be a controversy in most states. That’s because lawmakers and journalists in other states don’t bother to include federal funding when presenting state budgets.

BY CATE WELCH & JAMES M. HOHMAN
MACKINAC CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY

Usually the state budget has a precise number for how much spending it authorizes from federal funds. The budget for the fiscal year that starts in October does not. And this has raised some controversy about the topline number for how much spending the budget authorizes. But this wouldn’t even be a controversy in most states. That’s because lawmakers and journalists in other states don’t bother to include federal funding when presenting state budgets.

For instance, a recent report from Senate Republicans in Arizona covers an $18.29 billion budget that does not include federal funds, a figure that is reiterated by reporters.

Pennsylvania lawmakers and journalists pay attention to $50.8 billion in general fund spending, but they ignore the $80 billion in spending from non-general state and federal funds. The state also has separate authorizations for road funding, which are not included in annual budget stories.

North Carolina lawmakers and journalists point to their $34 billion budget, but that is for “net appropriations,” which represents only state funds and does not include federal funds, which they call “receipts.”

Of all the states, it seems 35 exclude federal funding when presenting the total amount of spending their budgets authorize. Only 10 states, Michigan included, include federal funds. Some of those states have unique approaches, such as Alaska, which has four different budget bills, all passed at different times.

Reports from both lawmakers and reporters are often unclear about the state budget and what is included. While we looked further for verification, our classification might be a little off.

Lawmakers get to set the standards for reporting budgets, apparently guided by custom and past practice.

Whether to include federal funds or not is an interesting question because the numbers will mean different things. If someone cares about how much money lawmakers are authorizing, budgetary numbers ought to include federal money. If someone cares about how much money is spent from the state’s taxes and fees, then the budget number shouldn’t include federal funds.

Federal funding is an odd thing. Turning it down doesn’t mean that the state’s taxpayers get a refund. Accepting federal funds is an “accept or pass” proposition. The potential recipients, such as state employees and health care organizations, would like lawmakers to take the money.

The question of whether to accept federal funding is different from state funding, where saying no to spending on a given purpose means the money be used for either other spending priorities or to reduce taxes.

In other words, passing on federal money gets the state nothing. But abstaining from spending all the state money available frees up cash that can be used to reduce state tax burdens.

This is why the Mackinac Center, as well as state reports, focuses on state funding. We exclude federal funding and the small amounts of local and private funding that appear in the state budget.

The new state budget authorizes $50.3 billion in state funds, up from the $48.4 billion authorized by the budget approved last year.

This is different from General Fund revenue. Most of the state’s taxes are earmarked for special uses — some by the Michigan Constitution, some by state laws. Fuel taxes, for instance, must be spent on transportation, according to the state constitution. The six-mill property tax levied by the state goes to the School Aid Fund, but lawmakers could change that allocation with as many votes as it takes to pass any other law. These are state funds that can accomplish lawmakers’ fiscal policies, and they ought not be neglected in an assessment of state fiscal policy, which is why they are in our standard.

It’s like that in other states, too. Colorado also uses total funding and separates general fund spending from oddly named “cash funds,” which are restricted to specific purposes.

Most lawmakers and journalists in Michigan use the total spending for the topline numbers. That is fine. Total spending is a useful measure if people want to know how much money flows through state government. It is a less useful measure if the question is how much the state government has grown. State funds reflect the resources lawmakers raise from taxpayers and the spending priorities they choose to pursue. That is why most states focus on state-funded spending when presenting their budgets.

Michigan’s state-funds budget deserves more attention. It is the measure that best captures state lawmakers taxing and spending decisions.

————————————-

Cate Welch is a fiscal policy intern at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. James M. Hohman is the director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.