Michigan survey finds early voting strains smaller communities

A University of Michigan survey reported on October 7 found that 41% of Michigan city and township leaders said the state’s nine days of early in-person voting had a mostly or very negative impact on local election administration. Officials in smaller and more financially stressed communities were more likely to report difficulties, highlighting an uneven burden as local governments carry out a voter-approved requirement.

The finding concerns officials’ assessments, rather than a measurement of statewide election costs or voter participation. The university’s policy brief examines local responses to election reforms adopted through constitutional amendments in 2018 and 2022. Those changes include automatic voter registration, registration through Election Day, no-excuse absentee voting and early in-person voting.

How Michigan officials assessed nine days of early voting

The spring 2026 Michigan Public Policy Survey ran from March 30 to June 5. The wider survey received responses from 1,328 of Michigan’s 1,856 general-purpose local governments, a 72% response rate by unit. The election findings focus on cities and townships, which administer elections; the brief recorded election-related responses from 225 cities and 867 townships.

The assessments differed substantially by community size. According to the university account, 68% of officials in Michigan’s largest jurisdictions reported a positive impact from early voting. In jurisdictions with 1,500 to 5,000 residents, 43% reported a mostly or very negative impact. Officials in communities reporting greater fiscal stress were also more likely to assess the requirement negatively.

Debra Horner, a co-author and senior program manager for the survey, said Michigan was still in its first few election cycles of nine-day early voting. Local governments were encountering both costs and difficulty finding staff, she said. Co-author Stephanie Leiser, director of the university’s Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy, said paying poll workers for nine days can strain communities already struggling to fund other local needs.

What the 2024 primary showed about costs

Earlier reporting offers examples of the costs behind that concern, though it cannot establish what communities spent in 2026. In an analysis of the February 2024 presidential primary, Votebeat estimated recurring operating costs of about $19 per early in-person vote in Ann Arbor and about $58 in similarly sized Lansing. Its calculation included labor and selected supplies but excluded upfront equipment costs.

Votebeat also reported about $16.72 per early vote for 23 municipalities in a Washtenaw County arrangement, compared with about $44 in Ypsilanti Township and about $86 in Bridgewater Township. Those figures illustrate how widely local costs varied in one election. They should not be read as current statewide prices: the primary had 23% turnout among registered voters, and local circumstances affected use of the new option.

Michigan clerks could operate early voting themselves, work with neighboring municipalities or join a countywide arrangement, Votebeat reported. Sharing sites could reduce labor costs, but some voters might have farther to travel. Its analysis found no clear overall pattern connecting an implementation model with both lower costs and higher early-voting turnout. The 2024 primary was the first statewide election under the new rules, giving officials an initial comparison point rather than a settled benchmark.

What the survey leaves open

The new survey does not put a dollar figure on the burden reported by officials or show whether nine-day voting changed participation. Nor can the 2024 cost-per-vote examples be treated as a trend against the 2026 responses: one is an analysis of selected operating expenses in a low-turnout primary, while the other records officials’ views across jurisdictions. The two sources instead show the practical question facing communities: how to staff the required voting period while providing access in places with different budgets, populations and geography.

The survey also shows that local views of election reforms can change. The brief reports that 40% of city and township officials assessed same-day registration negatively in 2020; in 2026, 26% did so, while 33% reported a positive impact. For nine-day early voting, the current split between clerks, other leaders and communities of different sizes remains the clearest finding. It identifies where officials report pressure, while leaving measured costs and effects on voters for further examination.