A resolution to hold Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and the Department of State in civil contempt of the Michigan House of Representatives.
Summary
House Resolution 117 is a legislative contempt resolution directed at Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and the Michigan Department of State. It states that the House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas for documents related to a matter under investigation, that the Department of State objected to the subpoenas, and that the House concluded the department did not fully comply by the stated deadline. The resolution declares the Secretary of State and the Department of State to be in violation of the House subpoenas and in civil contempt of the Michigan House of Representatives.
The resolution also directs the House Office of Legal Counsel to take steps necessary to secure compliance, including possible legal action, and to transmit copies of the resolution to the Secretary of State. In its findings, the resolution relies on the Michigan Constitution and state statutes governing legislative oversight and subpoena power, and it specifically states that reviewing election training materials is a valid legislative purpose for the subpoenas.
Impact
If adopted, the resolution does not directly amend the Michigan Compiled Laws, but it asserts and exercises the House’s oversight authority under Article IV, Section 1 of the Michigan Constitution and MCL 4.101 and 4.541. Its practical effect is to formalize the House’s position that the Secretary of State and the Department of State are in contempt for noncompliance with legislative subpoenas and to authorize further enforcement efforts, including litigation. The resolution affects the relationship between the House and the Department of State, especially regarding access to records and documents tied to election administration and training materials.
Sentiment
The House vote indicates support from a majority of members, with the resolution passing 58-47 on third reading. The text of the resolution reflects a strongly critical view of the Secretary of State’s response to the subpoenas, describing the noncompliance as deliberate and emphasizing the House’s constitutional oversight role. Overall, the sentiment in the chamber appears partisan and confrontational, with supporters framing the action as necessary enforcement of legislative authority and opponents likely viewing it as an overreach into executive branch administration.
Contention
The central point of contention is whether the House Oversight Committee had a valid legislative purpose and sufficient authority to compel production of the requested election-related documents, especially training materials. The Department of State, through the Attorney General’s civil rights and elections division, objected to the subpoenas, signaling a dispute over scope, legality, and compliance. Supporters of the resolution argue that legislative oversight and review of election training materials justify the subpoenas, while the Secretary of State and the Department of State appear to have maintained that the subpoenas were improper or otherwise objectionable. The conflict is therefore both procedural, over subpoena compliance, and institutional, over the balance of power between the House and the executive branch.