Samuel Damren
Election inspectors, generally referred to as “poll workers,” are the front-line protectors of American democracy. The ranks of these part-time public servants are not filled with career civil servants nor politicians. They are your neighbors and come from all walks of life.
In Michigan general elections, more than 35,000 individuals serve as election inspectors to assist election officials administer voting in thousands of separate elections and on ballot issues. Across the United States, the number of poll workers for the 2024 election topped 770,000.
In Michigan, as they are across the country, elections are run locally subject to state controls through strict procedures incorporating multiple “checks and balances,” bipartisan teams, and “back-up” protocols.
This commentary examines safeguards in place at the front-line level to prevent the occurrence of voter fraud.
To be an election inspector in Michigan requires training which is obligatory, detailed, and time consuming. The pay is modest with rates ranging from $175 to $300 per day. Many inspectors volunteer their time without pay. Their work is overseen and directed by election officials and the Michigan Department of State consistent with a detailed statutory framework.
Election inspectors must follow the “Election Inspector’s Manual” (EIM). A multi-page manual for election officials serves as template for the EIM and is posted on the Michigan Department of State website. It is supplemented by information from local officials keyed to their election jurisdiction.
EIMs are user friendly but extremely detailed, including screen shots and pictures of the set up and operation of Electronic Poll Books (EPB), Voter Assist Terminal (VAT), tabulators and record keeping. It is structured as a “logic tree” taking election inspectors from the beginning of voting process on election day to conclusion.
It provides step-by-step methods to address specific issues.
Diana Pratt is my neighbor. She is a retired professor of Legal Writing at Wayne State University Law School, a position she held for 26 years. The upcoming November election will be the fourth time she has served as an election inspector in Washtenaw County.
Based on her training and personal experience, Professor Pratt observed, and wants me to share with you, that “our election system is impressive. Multiple checks ensure that the system is safe and secure from outside interference. The EPB and election inspectors also ensure that only those registered to vote are allowed to vote.”
“When the polls are closed, the tabulated election results, back-up paper ballots, and all the additional information prepared during the day are transported to voting headquarters by a Democratic and Republican member of the precinct team,” Pratt indicated. “Every voter should be confident that their votes will be counted.”
If it occurs, admissible evidence establishing that a vote was unlawful is straight forward: Proof that named voter X registered to vote, that under law named voter X was not entitled to vote, and that voter X voted in an election.
Criminal fraud charges require proof of intent which can be problematic.
Conjecture, speculation, inadmissible hearsay, and unsupported accusations of illegal voting do not establish anything. Likewise, “irregularities” in election processing do not establish fraudulent conduct unless causally connected to the knowing acceptance of a fraudulent vote.
In all instances, identifying the name of the person who registered to vote illegally or the name used to cast a fraudulent vote is fundamental. If you can’t identify those names, you have nothing upon which to base an allegation of illegal voting, much less to then begin to assemble the admissible and necessary evidence to prove it.
In past instances of alleged voter fraud, purported lists of “dead” voters have been presented to various authorities only to find upon investigation that the voters were either not dead or, if deceased, did not actually vote. Similar unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud in lawsuits have resulted in sanctions against counsel.
While rare, voter fraud does occur in Michigan. Charges and convictions for voter fraud since 2020 number in the handful across the state. The most recent charges were brought by Attorney General Dana Nessel in August of 2026 against five non-citizens that voted in the 2024 election.
Beginning with 35,000 front-line poll workers through the entire registration and voting process, Michigan elections have repeatedly proven to be free from outside interference and competently conducted in non-partisan tradition.
In Michigan general elections, more than 35,000 individuals serve as election inspectors to assist election officials administer voting in thousands of separate elections and on ballot issues. Across the United States, the number of poll workers for the 2024 election topped 770,000.
In Michigan, as they are across the country, elections are run locally subject to state controls through strict procedures incorporating multiple “checks and balances,” bipartisan teams, and “back-up” protocols.
This commentary examines safeguards in place at the front-line level to prevent the occurrence of voter fraud.
To be an election inspector in Michigan requires training which is obligatory, detailed, and time consuming. The pay is modest with rates ranging from $175 to $300 per day. Many inspectors volunteer their time without pay. Their work is overseen and directed by election officials and the Michigan Department of State consistent with a detailed statutory framework.
Election inspectors must follow the “Election Inspector’s Manual” (EIM). A multi-page manual for election officials serves as template for the EIM and is posted on the Michigan Department of State website. It is supplemented by information from local officials keyed to their election jurisdiction.
EIMs are user friendly but extremely detailed, including screen shots and pictures of the set up and operation of Electronic Poll Books (EPB), Voter Assist Terminal (VAT), tabulators and record keeping. It is structured as a “logic tree” taking election inspectors from the beginning of voting process on election day to conclusion.
It provides step-by-step methods to address specific issues.
Diana Pratt is my neighbor. She is a retired professor of Legal Writing at Wayne State University Law School, a position she held for 26 years. The upcoming November election will be the fourth time she has served as an election inspector in Washtenaw County.
Based on her training and personal experience, Professor Pratt observed, and wants me to share with you, that “our election system is impressive. Multiple checks ensure that the system is safe and secure from outside interference. The EPB and election inspectors also ensure that only those registered to vote are allowed to vote.”
“When the polls are closed, the tabulated election results, back-up paper ballots, and all the additional information prepared during the day are transported to voting headquarters by a Democratic and Republican member of the precinct team,” Pratt indicated. “Every voter should be confident that their votes will be counted.”
If it occurs, admissible evidence establishing that a vote was unlawful is straight forward: Proof that named voter X registered to vote, that under law named voter X was not entitled to vote, and that voter X voted in an election.
Criminal fraud charges require proof of intent which can be problematic.
Conjecture, speculation, inadmissible hearsay, and unsupported accusations of illegal voting do not establish anything. Likewise, “irregularities” in election processing do not establish fraudulent conduct unless causally connected to the knowing acceptance of a fraudulent vote.
In all instances, identifying the name of the person who registered to vote illegally or the name used to cast a fraudulent vote is fundamental. If you can’t identify those names, you have nothing upon which to base an allegation of illegal voting, much less to then begin to assemble the admissible and necessary evidence to prove it.
In past instances of alleged voter fraud, purported lists of “dead” voters have been presented to various authorities only to find upon investigation that the voters were either not dead or, if deceased, did not actually vote. Similar unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud in lawsuits have resulted in sanctions against counsel.
While rare, voter fraud does occur in Michigan. Charges and convictions for voter fraud since 2020 number in the handful across the state. The most recent charges were brought by Attorney General Dana Nessel in August of 2026 against five non-citizens that voted in the 2024 election.
Beginning with 35,000 front-line poll workers through the entire registration and voting process, Michigan elections have repeatedly proven to be free from outside interference and competently conducted in non-partisan tradition.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
