WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HR 118

A resolution directing the impeachment of Jocelyn Benson, Secretary of State of the state of Michigan, for corrupt conduct in office and for crimes and misdemeanors.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Jim DeSana and 6 co-sponsors

HR 118 introduces Articles of Impeachment against Michigan Sec. of State Jocelyn Benson for corrupt conduct and election overreach, risking removal if Senate convicts.

referred to Committee on Government Operations
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HR 118

Summary — HR 118 (Resolution to Impeach Jocelyn Benson, Michigan Secretary of State)

Status: Introduced (referred to Committee on Government Operations)
Introduced: August 28, 2025
Classification: House resolution (Articles of Impeachment)

Main purpose

HR 118 is a resolution by members of the Michigan House of Representatives that adopts Articles of Impeachment charging Jocelyn Benson, Michigan Secretary of State, with “corrupt conduct in office” and “crimes and misdemeanors.” The resolution alleges that Benson exceeded statutory and constitutional authority in administering elections, abused her office, and engaged in conduct creating an appearance of corruption.

Key allegations and grounds (summary)

  • Exceeding authority / violating separation of powers:
    • The resolution cites alleged intrusions on legislative power and violations of the state constitution (citing Article III §2, Article IV §1 and oath requirements under Article XI §1) by issuing guidance and instructions that plaintiffs and some courts found constituted rulemaking subject to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
  • Failure to follow APA and state election law:
    • The resolution points to litigation (notably O’Halloran v. Benson) in which certain provisions of a Secretary of State manual — “The Appointment, Rights, and Duties of Election Challengers and Poll Watchers” — were challenged as improperly issued rules.
    • Other directives cited as struck down or subject to challenge include Davis v. Benson (open-carry prohibition at polling locations) and Genetski v. Benson (signature-verification standard).
  • Appearance of corruption / improper campaign influence:
    • The resolution alleges an appearance of corruption based on a contribution (reported as $82,500) from Michigan Legacy PAC (a PAC associated with Secretary Benson) to the campaign committee of Justice Kyra Harris Bolden while an appeal in O’Halloran was pending and oral argument was scheduled; the complaint notes the timing and subsequent favorable opinion authored by Justice Bolden.
  • Legal violations cited:
    • The resolution references potential conflicts with state criminal statute on bribery (MCL 750.117) and other statutory violations without alleging specific criminal convictions.

Procedural details

  • The resolution declares impeachment adopted by the House and directs that the Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the Senate.
  • As a resolution of impeachment, it would require the House majority to adopt (the resolution asserts adoption). A Senate trial would be the next constitutional step; removal and disqualification would follow only if the Senate convicts according to Michigan’s impeachment procedures.
  • HR 118 as provided lists initial sponsors in the resolution text (e.g., Reps. DeSana, Schriver, Markkanen, Greene, Maddock, Fox, and Smit). Legislative status notes referral to the Committee on Government Operations.

Who would be affected

  • Primary subject: Jocelyn Benson (Secretary of State).
  • Secondary impacts: administration of Michigan elections (office operations and guidance), local election officials, voters, Michigan Supreme Court actors referenced, and broader state political/administrative processes.

Potential consequences and impact

  • If the House’s impeachment is transmitted and the Senate proceeds to trial, possible outcomes include acquittal or conviction; conviction could result in removal from office and possible disqualification from holding future office.
  • The resolution amplifies existing legal and political disputes over the Secretary of State’s authority to issue election-related guidance versus rulemaking under the APA, and could influence future litigation, administrative practice, and public confidence in election administration.
  • The resolution is an allegation-based, political/legal action — courts have both struck down and upheld different aspects of Benson’s guidance in separate cases. The resolution does not itself adjudicate criminal guilt.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.