A Feb 17, 2026 NYT article titled "Republicans, Braced for Losses, Push More Voting Restrictions in Congress," referred to a 2020 letter from state Michigan Republicans to the state's secretary of state outlining voting concerns. I've been working on a piece on 2020 election conspiracy theories, so it got my attention. The letter itemizes a long list of common Republican complaints which conspiracy theorizers toss around. I didn't have time to fully research the Michigan situation myself at the time, so I decided to ask the Perplexity AI based search tool to provide me a quick overview, and I stashed it here.
Here's what I asked, and what Perplexity answered.
Question to Perplexity:
A November 16, 2020 letter by Michigan Republicans to Michigan's secretary of state itemized a long list of election security concerns. Were these ever addressed? Is the election audit process that was already in place likely to uncover election problems of the sort listed in the letter? Were (and are) there sufficient safeguards already in place to detect fraud and other election problems? And to what extent was the 2020 election in Michigan carefully examined?
Answer from Perplexity:
Michigan’s 2020 election, including the issues raised by Republican legislators in November 2020, was examined in multiple layers by courts, the Michigan Senate, and extensive post‑election audits, and those processes did not find evidence of outcome‑changing fraud while also identifying areas for procedural improvement. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
What happened to the November 2020 Republican concerns?
The November 2020 Republican letters and statements alleged things like ineligible ballots being counted, ballots counted multiple times, improper treatment of absentee ballots, problems with observers, and general vulnerabilities in Detroit and other jurisdictions. [7] [3]
Those themes were specifically examined in later investigations and audits, most notably by the Michigan Senate Oversight Committee (led by Republicans) and by the Bureau of Elections’ post‑election audit program. [2] [3] [6]
The Republican‑led Senate Oversight Committee spent months reviewing fraud allegations, holding hearings, examining documents, and interviewing witnesses; its June 2021 report explicitly concluded that the certified and audited results of the November 2020 election “were accurately represented,” while also listing real vulnerabilities and recommending reforms. [3]
In other words, the committee treated the kinds of issues raised in
those letters as claims to be tested and, after review, rejected the
broad fraud narrative while still pushing for changes in training,
procedures, and law. [2] [3]
How robust was Michigan’s audit process?
Michigan ran what state officials described as the most comprehensive series of post‑election audits in its history after the 2020 general election, involving more than 250 audits statewide. [5] [6] [1] [2]
These included:
-
A statewide “risk‑limiting” audit (RLA) of the presidential race, in which randomly selected paper ballots from across the state were manually checked against machine‑tallied results and found to confirm the outcome. [5] [2]
-
Hand‑count audits of selected races (for example, U.S. Senate) in many jurisdictions, comparing paper ballots directly to machine totals to test tabulator accuracy. [1] [2]
-
Procedural audits in counties, cities, and townships that examined how absentee ballots were processed, how equipment was secured, and whether local officials followed legal and administrative requirements. [6] [2] [5]
The Michigan Auditor General later reviewed this audit program and concluded that the post‑election audits were effective overall and that the outcome of the 2020 election accurately reflected the will of the voters, while pointing out weaknesses in training, documentation, and oversight of local officials performing audits. [1] [2]
The Bureau of Elections agreed with those findings, implemented or began implementing recommended improvements (such as better training and more formal audit‑related certification), and emphasized that, despite the noted administrative issues, the audits still collectively upheld the accuracy of the 2020 results. [2] [1]
Can these audits catch the kinds of problems alleged?
The main categories of alleged problems in 2020 Michigan—mis‑tabulation by machines, batches counted more than once, counting of ineligible or late absentee ballots, and mishandling of ballots in large cities—map directly onto what risk‑limiting and procedural audits are designed to detect. [8] [7] [5] [2]
-
Machine mis‑tabulation or double‑counting: Randomly sampling and hand‑counting paper ballots in an RLA and targeted hand‑count audits of specific contests will reveal if the electronic totals diverge from what is on the paper. If there were large‑scale double‑counting or systematic machine errors, you would expect to see statistically significant discrepancies in those samples, which the audits did not find. [6] [5] [2]
-
Widespread use of ineligible or late absentee ballots: While some kinds of eligibility issues can be difficult to detect after the fact, procedural audits examine whether clerks followed rules for signature verification, deadlines, chain of custody, and ballot handling, and they did not uncover systemic failures that could plausibly have changed statewide outcomes. [5] [6] [2]
-
Problems with observers and access: These are primarily legal and procedural questions, and they were addressed through litigation and legislative review; courts rejected broad claims that improper observer access undermined the count, and the Senate committee likewise did not find those complaints sufficient to cast doubt on the statewide result. [7] [3]
Experts broadly view risk‑limiting audits, when combined with traditional canvass and recount mechanisms, as a strong safeguard against large‑scale tabulation errors and many types of fraud because they rely on the voter‑verified paper ballots as the ultimate record. [8] [5]
Michigan’s system in 2020 was not perfect—training and documentation gaps were real—but the evidence from audit samples and investigations indicates it was capable of detecting major discrepancies, and it did not reveal any that would call the certified presidential result into question. [3] [6] [1] [2] [5]
Were there sufficient safeguards then, and are there now?
Before 2020, Michigan already had a paper‑ballot system, bipartisan canvassing boards, pre‑ and post‑election testing of voting machines, requirements for post‑election audits, and legal avenues for recounts and court challenges, all of which are standard safeguards against fraud and error. [8] [2] [5]
The post‑2020 reviews demonstrated that these safeguards largely functioned as intended for detecting tabulation problems and major irregularities, while revealing that processes around training, documentation, and audit oversight needed strengthening. [3] [1] [2]
Following 2020, the Bureau of Elections and Legislature pursued additional changes, such as improved training programs and certifications for local officials conducting audits and a broader package of election‑law reforms designed to address vulnerabilities the Senate Oversight Committee identified. [1] [2] [3]
Later statewide elections (for example, 2024) have likewise been followed by recounts and broad audit programs; their results have again reported that Michigan’s election system accurately tabulated votes and met “good general compliance” standards, while continuing to refine procedures. [9] [10]
How thoroughly was the 2020 Michigan election examined?
By early 2021, more than 250 post‑election audits had been completed across Michigan, involving over 1,300 clerks of both parties and nonpartisan officials, and every one of those audits confirmed the accuracy and integrity of the 2020 general election results. [6] [2] [5]
In addition, the Republican‑led Michigan Senate Oversight Committee conducted what it described as a lengthy and thorough investigation into fraud allegations and concluded that the certified and audited results accurately reflected the vote, while recommending reforms rather than any new statewide “forensic” audit. [4] [3]
Multiple court cases in Michigan related to the 2020 election also reviewed and rejected fraud claims, often noting a lack of evidence or unreliable affidavits; while each case was limited to particular issues, the pattern reinforced the findings of audits and legislative inquiry. [4] [3]
Outside fact‑checking organizations reviewing Michigan’s handling of 2020 likewise highlight that the state did not conduct a separate Arizona‑style “forensic” audit because it had already completed what they describe as the most extensive post‑election audit program in its history, which validated the presidential result. [4] [5]
Taken together—court rulings, the large statewide audit program, and the Republican‑led Senate investigation—Michigan’s 2020 election was subject to unusually intensive scrutiny, and those examinations converged on the conclusion that while procedural improvements were needed, there was no evidence of widespread or outcome‑changing fraud of the sort alleged in the November 2020 Republican letters. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [1]
1. https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MISOS/bulletins/30d40e3
2. https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/03/04/michigan-elections-auditor-general-report/6979835001/
3. https://www.misenategop.com/senate-oversight-committee-releases-report-on-november-2020-general-election/
4. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/05/14/fact-check-michigan-did-not-authorize-forensic-audit-2020-election/5057526001/
5. https://www.michigan.gov/sos/resources/news/2021/02/12/statewide-election-audit-process-affirms-presidential-election-outcome
6. https://www.michigan.gov/sos/resources/news/2021/03/02/more-than-250-audits-confirm-accuracy-and-integrity-of-michigans-election
7. https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/michigan-republican-senators-request-election-audit-from-secretary-of-state
8. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/review-robust-post-election-audits
9. https://www.michigan.gov/sos/resources/news/2025/10/13/2024-postelection-recount-and-audit-report-confirms-michigans-elections-are-secure-and-accurate
10. https://www.michigan.gov/sos/-/media/Project/Websites/sos/Elections/Ballot-Access/November-2024-post-election-audit-report.pdf?rev=5e193acac9334f13932c72cb8bb39854
