Michigan's FOIA law exemptions one of many transparency challenges in the state
During Sunshine Week open government advocates focus on closing gaps in transparency. In Michigan, that means hearing the familiar refrain to expand the state's public records law, but that's not the only way the public is left in the dark.
Here's a round-up:
Michigan's public records law stands out as a national outlier for exempting the governor and state lawmakers from its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Other public bodies in Michigan must comply with FOIA, from local law enforcement agencies to big state departments. Journalists and other government watchdogs routinely use FOIA requests to obtain records to investigate potential wrongdoing. For years, transparency advocates have called on Michigan lawmakers to take action to expand FOIA.
The Michigan Senate passed legislation in January to expand FOIA to the governor and state Legislature. House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, called it a "watered down" FOIA bill during a Jan. 30 press conference. "So we're not going to pass that bill," he said. Instead, Hall has pushed for his own transparency plan which proposes several measures such as barring politicians from working as lobbyists immediately after leaving office. But Hall's plan does not propose expanding Michigan's FOIA law.
Michigan voters elect the justices for the Michigan Supreme Court. The Michigan Constitution requires justices to be chosen in a nonpartisan election. Before Michigan Supreme Court candidates land on the general election ballot, political parties nominate their picks at a convention. Michigan's political parties also nominate candidates for other offices at political conventions, including Secretary of State, Attorney General and university boards.
But candidates to serve on the Michigan Supreme Court are the only ones chosen by loyal partisans whose names appear in the nonpartisan section of the ballot. That can leave voters unfamiliar with the convention selections without information about the party affiliation of Michigan Supreme Court candidates.
Michigan's system for electing justices is unique. In some states, judges seeking election to higher courts run with party labels during their first bid but then seek additional terms in a yes/no retention election while some states have nonpartisan primary and general elections, according to William Raftery, Senior Analyst at the National Center for State Courts. Ohio recently shifted its process to require candidates to serve on the Ohio Supreme Court selected in a partisan primary to also appear on the general election ballot with their party label.
The Michigan Supreme Court received considerable pushback to a proposal that would require local judges to disclose additional financial assets. While judges are required to release some financial information in annual reports, the details are sparse, coming far short of comparable disclosures from federal lawmakers or other elected officials.
The proposed change as introduced to Michigan's Code of Judicial Conduct garnered opposition from several large groups, including the Michigan Judges Association and Michigan District Judges Association. Most of the criticism centered on privacy and safety, suggesting a requirement to disclose properties could imperil judges.
National advocacy organization Fix the Court applauded the offered changes, saying thousands of federal officials and judges in more than two dozen states are already subject to comparable disclosure requirements.
Almost every speaker opposed multiple components of the changes during a Wednesday hearing before the high court on the proposal. The court took no action, but could move to change the proposal again.
Finding out which Michigan attorneys face allegations of misconduct and possible disciplinary action requires a bit of a lift. The Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission investigates potential wrongdoing in a confidential process meant to protect lawyers from frivolous accusations. But once the commission authorizes the Grievance Administrator to file a formal complaint against a lawyer with the Attorney Discipline Board, the complaint and the rest of the disciplinary process becomes public.
Anyone can email or call the Attorney Discipline Board for the complaint and other public pleadings in the case, said the board's Deputy Director John Burgess in an email. Case documents aren't available on the board's website except for orders and notices of discipline and opinions. Asked how someone would know to reach out to the board to seek a complaint filed against an attorney that emerges from a confidential process, Burgess responded, "At this time, that is a question with no particularly great answer." He recommended reaching out to the Attorney Grievance Commission with a standing request to receive a notice of any complaint filed against a specific attorney, saying if the board provides notice of a complaint filed without first receiving a request it "could create the appearance of bias."
Hearings in disciplinary proceedings are public, but there is no public calendar. Burgess said notices of any hearings can be requested.
Michigan Politics: Michigan House approves Republican road funding package
At their best, Michigan's 15 public universities are centers of enlightenment, though not necessarily transparency.
They have fought and won in courts to shield from public view some of their actions.
When the Free Press sued the University of Michigan, arguing all its board meetings should be public, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school.
"The Constitution permits defendant to hold informal meetings in private; defendant is only required to hold its formal meetings in public," the 2016 ruling said, noting that the schools have broad discretion to decide formal versus informal.
The Michigan Supreme Court let the decision stand by declining to hear an appeal on it.
"It's almost a joke," said Free Press legal counsel Herschel Fink, who litigated the case. "You could have a pro-forma meeting and basically take care of all the business in secret."
The surest way to open the process would be to ask Michigan voters to approve a constitutional amendment requiring the meetings be public, Fink said.
Contact Clara Hendrickson at chendrickson@freepress.com or 313-296-5743. Reach Dave Boucher at dboucher@freepress.com and on X @Dave_Boucher1. Contact John Wisely: jwisely@freepress.com. On X: @jwisely
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Michigan transparency challenges from FOIA and beyond
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘We made a mistake': Pillen accepts responsibility for failed vetoes to Nebraska budget
Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen. Dec. 10, 2024. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner) LINCOLN — Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen has accepted responsibility for mishandled line-item vetoes to the state's next two-year budget while reiterating that many of the suggested cuts will be reconsidered in 2026. Pillen, speaking with the Nebraska Examiner after the Legislature adjourned for the year, said the veto process includes 'human beings' in his office, the Clerk of the Legislature's Office and the Secretary of State's Office. On May 21, his office delivered Legislative Bill 261 and LB 264 with line-item vetoes to the Secretary of State's Office, which is the right place for the bills to go when the Legislature is out of session, but not to the Clerk of the Legislature's Office on the other side of the Capitol, which is where bills must be returned when senators are in session. The Governor's Office says LB 261 was line-item vetoed at 1:08 p.m. on May 21 and LB 264 at 1:10 p.m. A spokesperson for the Secretary of State's Office said the bills were delivered to that office around 5 p.m. the same day. The Legislature did receive a separate letter from Pillen the night of May 21 detailing the line-item vetoes, as well as a copy of the bills with the inscribed vetoes, but lawmakers contended the next day that a line-item veto is constitutional only with the inscribed vetoes on the actual bills. Those bills remained at the Secretary of State's Office until morning. The Nebraska Constitution requires vetoes to be returned within five days of being presented to the governor, excluding Sundays. The bills passed May 15 and went to Pillen's office at 1:12 p.m., so the deadline was by the end-of-day May 21. Pillen said the mistake on the night of May 21 was 'a miscommunication on where it was supposed to go.' Pillen was in Washington, D.C., the following day, for a 'Make America Healthy Again' event at the White House. 'Bottom line: We made a mistake. I'd have thought, because we all work together, that a flag would have been thrown and said, 'Hey, let's do X,' but there wasn't, and then the glass of milk was spilled the next morning,' Pillen told the Examiner. The intended vetoes targeted $14.5 million to the state's general fund and $18 million in repurposed cash funds for improvements at Lake McConaughy. He sought to save $14.5 million that the Legislature's budget aimed to use from the state's 'rainy day' cash reserve by trimming spending — $152 million from the rainy day fund went to help balance the budget. The Nebraska Supreme Court, which faced about $12 million of Pillen's proposed general fund reductions (83%), has said the loss of those funds could close vital court services. This was Pillen's second two-year budget — he vetoed $38.5 million in general fund spending in 2023 for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 fiscal years. Lawmakers restored about $850,000 of the trims. Pillen, Secretary of State Bob Evnen and Speaker of the Legislature John Arch have pledged to clarify the line-item veto process for the budget ahead of 2026, and they've agreed that the suggested reductions should be considered when the budget is adjusted next year. Arch has said that to his knowledge, nothing like this had happened before. Pillen, whose office now insists the matter is resolved, said, 'As I told our team, we look in the mirror, we accept responsibilities. I've not met a human that doesn't make a mistake yet.' Pillen and his staff have declined to detail exactly what happened the night of May 21. Rani Taborek-Potter, a spokesperson for Evnen, said no one from the Secretary of State's Office delivered the actual LB 261 and LB 264 with the line-item vetoes to the Clerk of the Legislature's Office, 'nor is it our office's responsibility to do so.' 'When bills are vetoed by the Governor, the vetoed bills are delivered directly to the Clerk of the Legislature's Office by the Governor's office, as was the case for LB 319 and LB 287 to the best of our knowledge,' Taborek-Potter told the Examiner, referring to the two other bills vetoed this session related to expanding SNAP benefit eligibility and fighting bedbugs in Omaha. Taborek-Potter confirmed the Governor's Office delivered the budget bills to the administrative assistant in the Secretary of State's Office just before 5 p.m. on May 21. The Examiner on May 23 requested all records and communications regarding the line-item vetoes from when the budget bills passed May 15 to the date of the records request. The request sought texts, emails and digital messages. It also asked for communications within the executive branch and between Pillen's office and the legislative branch, including staff and state senators. Documents provided in response indicated that Pillen's veto letter detailing his objections was ready by 6:05 p.m., when the state budget administrator, Neil Sullivan, sent it to Pillen's staff. Around 6:27 p.m., Kenny Zoeller, director of the governor's Policy Research Office, the main research and lobbying arm for Pillen, confirmed the letter among gubernatorial staff. 'We are handing this off back to the Legislature POST adjournment,' Zoeller wrote of next steps. 'I will text when it's handed off.' Laura Strimple, the governor's primary spokesperson, sent a draft news release regarding the vetoes at 8:21 p.m. to Sullivan. It was sent to reporters around 11:23 p.m. The Legislature adjourned at 9:20 p.m., and a reporter could see legislative staff discussing the veto letter. Through much of the day on May 22, legislative leadership met off the floor, including Arch. Several emerged just before adjournment at 2:37 p.m. when Arch announced the vetoes could not be accepted and that the Legislature had concluded they were constitutionally improper. Some members of the Appropriations Committee hugged, threw fists in the air and smiled after. Pillen's spokesperson, Strimple, sent a statement to reporters at 4:48 p.m. stating it was the governor's position that Pillen 'clearly took the legally required steps to exercise his veto authority by surrendering physical possession and the power to approve or reject the bills.' She said the Governor's Office would consult with the Attorney General's Office and other counsel. The Policy Research Office, executive branch budget staff and other members of the governor's staff met around 5 p.m. on May 22. Strimple sent her statement on the governor's position to all members of the governor's staff at 5:23 p.m., then to lawmakers at 5:53 p.m. On May 27, the next legislative day, Pillen, Arch and Evnen released their joint statement around 2:54 p.m., ending the possible constitutional dispute and returning to their respective corners, with no one taking blame for the situation until Pillen spoke with reporters this week. Pillen's office asserts that it searched texts and digital messages as part of the public records request but found no responsive records, including from Zoeller, who had pledged to text after delivering the veto letter in one of the emails. The Governor's Office provided no records reflecting communications with the legislative branch. None of the records indicate what happened to the bills after being delivered to Evnen's office. Evnen, speaking with the Examiner on Friday, reiterated that the Secretary of State's Office's role with legislation is to file it, and 'when it's brought to our office and we're asked to file it, that's what we do.' 'There's a certain amount of confusion, really between the legislative branch and the Governor's Office, about those line-item vetoes, and I think that what we will do is sit down and talk through together how that will be handled. That's a really good thing to do,' he said. Multiple lawmakers beyond Arch have quietly teased the suggestion with the Examiner, asking how much clearer the process can be. Asked if there was a reason the original bills in the Secretary of State's Office by about 5 p.m. could not be delivered by midnight on May 21, Evnen said: 'You would have to ask the Governor's Office.' Strimple, asked about the remaining timeline on May 21 and May 22, said that with the Arch-Evnen-Pillen joint statement, 'The matter is concluded.' One of the top targets of Gov. Jim Pillen's intended line-item vetoes to the state's budget bills was about $12 million in spending earmarked for the Nebraska Supreme Court. Corey Steel, state court administrator for Nebraska, told lawmakers that the line-item vetoes to the courts could eliminate various services, including three problem-solving courts in Lancaster and Sarpy Counties, a drug court in Gov. Jim Pillen's home of Platte County, transition living reimbursements for certain adults and non-statutory services for juveniles on probation. Pillen told the Examiner that while he has the 'utmost respect' for the separation of powers between Nebraska's branches of government, he believes each one must look at government differently. He said the courts have significantly increased spending and have money sitting around. Steel, as well as Chief Justice Jeffrey Funke, have said that position isn't accurate and that increased spending has been in part due to legislation that came without new funds. The judicial branch leaders have said that the 'money' held in various funds is now exhausted. However, Pillen said he's not backing down and that the reductions will be considered in 2026. 'We have to be fiscally responsible,' Pillen said, 'and that's all we're asking.' — Zach Wendling SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
4 hours ago
A US territory's colonial history emerges in state disputes over voting and citizenship
WHITTIER, Alaska -- Squeezed between glacier-packed mountains and Alaska's Prince William Sound, the cruise-ship stop of Whittier is isolated enough that it's reachable by just a single road, through a long, one-lane tunnel that vehicles share with trains. It's so small that nearly all its 260 residents live in the same 14-story condo building. But Whittier also is the unlikely crossroads of two major currents in American politics: fighting over what it means to be born on U.S. soil and false claims by President Donald Trump and others that noncitizen voter fraud is widespread. In what experts describe as an unprecedented case, Alaska prosecutors are pursuing felony charges against 11 residents of Whittier, most of them related to one another, saying they falsely claimed U.S. citizenship when registering or trying to vote. The defendants were all born in American Samoa, an island cluster in the South Pacific roughly halfway between Hawaii and New Zealand. It's the only U.S. territory where residents are not automatically granted citizenship by virtue of having been born on American soil, as the Constitution dictates. Instead, by a quirk of geopolitical history, they are considered 'U.S. nationals' — a distinction that gives them certain rights and obligations while denying them others. American Samoans are entitled to U.S. passports and can serve in the military. Men must register for the Selective Service. They can vote in local elections in American Samoa but cannot hold public office in the U.S. or participate in most U.S. elections. Those who wish to become citizens can do so, but the process costs hundreds of dollars and can be cumbersome. 'To me, I'm an American. I was born an American on U.S. soil,' said firefighter Michael Pese, one of those charged in Whittier. 'American Samoa has been U.S. soil, U.S. jurisdiction, for 125 years. According to the supreme law of the land, that's my birthright.' The status has created confusion in other states, as well. In Oregon, officials inadvertently registered nearly 200 American Samoan residents to vote when they got their driver's licenses under the state's motor-voter law. Of those, 10 cast ballots in an election, according to the Oregon Secretary of State's office. Officials there determined the residents had not intended to break the law and no crime was committed. In Hawaii, one resident who was born in American Samoa, Sai Timoteo, ran for the state Legislature in 2018 before learning she wasn't allowed to hold public office or vote. She had always considered it her civic duty to vote, and the form on the voting materials had one box to check: 'U.S. Citizen/U.S. National.' 'I checked that box my entire life,' she said. She also avoided charges, and Hawaii subsequently changed its form to make it more clear. Amid the storm of executive orders issued by Trump in the early days of his second term was one that sought to redefine birthright citizenship by barring it for children of parents who are in the U.S. unlawfully. Another would overhaul how federal elections are run, among other changes requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship. Courts so far have blocked both orders. The Constitution says that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' It also leaves the administration of elections to the states. The case in Whittier began with Pese's wife, Tupe Smith. After the couple moved to Whittier in 2018, Smith began volunteering at the Whittier Community School, where nearly half of the 55 students were American Samoan — many of them her nieces and nephews. She would help the kids with their English, tutor them in reading and cook them Samoan dishes. In 2023, a seat on the regional school board came open and she ran for it. She was the only candidate and won with about 95% of the vote. One morning a few weeks later, as she was making her two children breakfast, state troopers came knocking. They asked about her voting history. She explained that she knew she wasn't allowed to vote in U.S. presidential elections, but thought she could vote in local or state races. She said she checked a box affirming that she was a U.S. citizen at the instruction of elections workers because there was no option to identify herself as a U.S. national, court records say. The troopers arrested her and drove her to a women's prison near Anchorage. She was released that day after her husband paid bail. 'When they put me in cuffs, my son started crying," Smith told The Associated Press. "He told their dad that he don't want the cops to take me or to lock me up.' About 10 months later, troopers returned to Whittier and issued court summonses to Pese, eight other relatives and one man who was not related but came from the same American Samoa village as Pese. One of Smith's attorneys, Neil Weare, grew up in another U.S. territory, Guam, and is the co-founder of the Washington-based Right to Democracy Project, whose mission is 'confronting and dismantling the undemocratic colonial framework governing people in U.S. territories.' He suggested the prosecutions are aimed at 'low-hanging fruit' in the absence of evidence that illegal immigrants frequently cast ballots in U.S. elections. Even state-level investigations have found voting by noncitizens to be exceptionally rare. 'There is no question that Ms. Smith lacked an intent to mislead or deceive a public official in order to vote unlawfully when she checked 'U.S. citizen' on voter registration materials,' he wrote in a brief to the Alaska Court of Appeals last week, after a lower court judge declined to dismiss the charges. Prosecutors say her false claim of citizenship was intentional, and her claim to the contrary was undercut by the clear language on the voter application forms she filled out in 2020 and 2022. The forms said that if the applicant did not answer yes to being over 18 years old and a U.S. citizen, 'do not complete this form, as you are not eligible to vote.' The unique situation of American Samoans dates to the 19th century, when the U.S. and European powers were seeking to expand their colonial and economic interests in the South Pacific. The U.S. Navy secured the use of Pago Pago Harbor in eastern Samoa as a coal-refueling station for military and commercial vessels, while Germany sought to protect its coconut plantations in western Samoa. Eventually the archipelago was divided, with the western islands becoming the independent nation of Samoa and the eastern ones becoming American Samoa, overseen by the Navy. The leaders of American Samoa spent much of the late 19th and early 20th centuries arguing that its people should be U.S. citizens. Birthright citizenship was eventually afforded to residents of other U.S. territories — Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Congress considered it for American Samoa in the 1930s, but declined. Some lawmakers cited financial concerns during the Great Depression while others expressed patently racist objections, according to a 2020 article in the American Journal of Legal History. Supporters of automatic citizenship say it would particularly benefit the estimated 150,000 to 160,000 nationals who live in the states, many of them in California, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Utah and Alaska. 'We pay taxes, we do exactly the same as everybody else that are U.S. citizens,' Smith said. 'It would be nice for us to have the same rights as everybody here in the states.' But many in American Samoa eventually soured on the idea, fearing that extending birthright citizenship would jeopardize its customs — including the territory's communal land laws. Island residents could be dispossessed by land privatization, not unlike what happened in Hawaii, said Siniva Bennett, board chair of the Samoa Pacific Development Corporation, a Portland, Oregon-based nonprofit. 'We've been able to maintain our culture, and we haven't been divested from our land like a lot of other indigenous people in the U.S.,' Bennett said. In 2021, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to extend automatic citizenship to those born in American Samoa, saying it would be wrong to force citizenship on those who don't want it. The Supreme Court declined to review the decision. Several jurisdictions across the country, including San Francisco and the District of Columbia, allow people who are not citizens to vote in certain local elections. Tafilisaunoa Toleafoa, with the Pacific Community of Alaska, said the situation has been so confusing that her organization reached out to the Alaska Division of Elections in 2021 and 2022 to ask whether American Samoans could vote in state and local elections. Neither time did it receive a direct answer, she said. 'People were telling our community that they can vote as long as you have your voter registration card and it was issued by the state,' she said. Finally, last year, Carol Beecher, the head of the state Division of Elections, sent Toleafoa's group a letter saying American Samoans are not eligible to vote in Alaska elections. But by then, the voting forms had been signed. 'It is my hope that this is a lesson learned, that the state of Alaska agrees that this could be something that we can administratively correct,' Toleafoa said. 'I would say that the state could have done that instead of prosecuting community members.'
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Some Wyoming residents voice support for voter registration changes
CHEYENNE — Beginning July 1, Wyoming voters will be required to provide proof of state residency and U.S. citizenship when registering to vote, something Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray has been advocating for years. The move comes after the Wyoming Legislature passed House Bill 156 in February, a piece of legislation Gov. Mark Gordon let go into law without his signature. The public comment period for rules related to the change began May 5 and lasts until June 20. Wednesday afternoon, Gray's office held an in-person and virtual meeting to allow people to voice their opinions about the proposed rules. All attendees who spoke during the meeting expressed support for the new law, and made some minor recommendations for the Secretary of State to consider before a final version of the law is published. Wyoming voters will be required to be a state resident for at least 30 days before casting their ballots, and must present proof of residency and citizenship when registering to vote. Last year, a similar piece of legislation was approved by the Wyoming Legislature, but vetoed by Gordon on the grounds that the regulations exceeded Gray's legal authority. The 2025 legislation grants the Secretary of State that authority. 'Providing proof of United States citizenship and proof of residency has been a key priority of our administration,' Gray said Wednesday, 'and this rulemaking marks over a year-and-a-half-long standoff with Gov. Mark Gordon and myself concerning the need for documentary proof of citizenship and residency to ensure a reasonable means to follow our constitutional obligations of ensuring only U.S. citizens and only Wyomingites are voting in Wyoming elections.' Gray said the veto last year was very troubling, and there were a lot of inaccurate statements made by the governor. 'We didn't give up. We went to the Legislature, and the people won, weighing the governor back down, and the bill became law without his signature,' he said. Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette, and the former chairman of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, a hardline group of Republican lawmakers, was the primary sponsor of the bill. He spoke during Wednesday's public hearing, saying this bill will build confidence in Wyoming elections. 'Prior to introducing this bill, we conducted a poll of likely voters in the state of Wyoming. It was a very scientific poll, and this particular issue had over 74% support, and we saw that as we traveled the state,' he said. Voter Meeting From left, Elena Campbell speaks on Zoom, while C.J. Young, Election Division director; Jesse Naiman, deputy secretary of state; and Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray listen during a public comment meeting about voter identification rules in the Capitol Extension on Wednesday. Platte County Clerk Malcolm Ervin, who also serves as chairman of the Wyoming County Clerks Association, weighed in Wednesday, as well, with a few minor suggested changes. One recommendation concerned the use of Wyoming student identification cards as a document to prove residency for voter registration. He suggested the ID cards be required to display the voter's legal name, not a chosen name. He said most of his concerns regarding the 2025 legislation were quelled by the fact that there is a 'last-ditch' effort that allows people to show proof of residency or citizenship if they don't have the required documentation to vote outlined in the new law. If someone doesn't have valid identification forms or lacks a Wyoming driver's license and a Social Security number to prove residency, they can provide other documentation, such as a utility bill, bank statement or a pay stub under the proposed rules. To prove U.S. citizenship, one must produce a document already outlined in law, including a Wyoming driver's license, Wyoming ID card, a valid U.S. passport, a certificate of U.S. citizenship, a certificate of naturalization, a U.S. military draft record or a Selective Service registration acknowledgement card, a consular report of birth abroad issued by the U.S. Department of State, or an original or certified copy of a birth certificate in the U.S. bearing an official seal. 'I want to be clear that we see that adaptation as a last-ditch effort, if we've exhausted all other options. It's our last option on the table, specifically to ensure nobody is disenfranchised from voting,' Ervin said. The other concern he had that was addressed in the new legislation is that post office boxes in Wyoming will only count as proof of residency if the person lists their residential address on their voter registration application form. Another virtual attendee spoke in favor of the new law. Mark Koep, chairman of the Crook County Republican Party, echoed Rep. Bear's statements of statewide support. 'Overwhelmingly, the voters of Wyoming — and I talk to a lot of people — support these rules that you have in place,' he said. 'And so, I just want to make that heard on this chat to the media in the room: the people of Wyoming want these rules.' Since 2000, there have been four convictions of voter fraud in Wyoming, according to The Heritage Foundation, all involving U.S. citizens. When the public comment period closes on June 20, it will once again be up to Gordon to accept or reject the proposed rules. Under Gray's proposed rules, a valid Wyoming driver's license will be adequate proof of identity, residency and U.S. citizenship, so long as it lists a Wyoming address. Tribal identification cards issued by either the Eastern Shoshone or Northern Arapaho tribes, or other federally recognized tribes, will also count as proof of residency if a Wyoming address is listed. If the applicant doesn't have the forms of identification present at the time of registration, they must provide on the voter registration application form their Wyoming driver's license number and one of any of the following documents: U.S. passport; a driver's license or ID card issued by the federal government, any state or outlying possession of the United States; a photo ID card issued by the University of Wyoming, a Wyoming community college, or a Wyoming public school; an ID card issued to a dependent of a member of the United States Armed Forces; or a tribal identification card issued by the governing body of the Eastern Shoshone tribe of Wyoming, the Northern Arapaho tribe of Wyoming or other federally recognized Indian tribe. These documents would also need to list a Wyoming address to prove state residency. If a person seeking to register to vote doesn't have a valid driver's license, they must provide the last four digits of their Social Security number, along with one of the previously mentioned documents in the proposed rules. None of the documents will suffice if the applicant is not a U.S. citizen. Online comments on the proposed rules can continue to be submitted by email to the Secretary of State's chief policy officer and general counsel, Joe Rubino, at until June 20.
