POLICY WIRE FACT CHECK: No Evidence Jocleyn Benson Targeted Conservative Petitions
The Claim A viral claim circulating on social media and news platforms, including Bridgemi.com, asserts that Michigan Secretary of State Jocleyn Benson intentionally targeted conservative petitions....
The Claim
A viral claim circulating on social media and news platforms, including Bridgemi.com, asserts that Michigan Secretary of State Jocleyn Benson intentionally targeted conservative petitions. The claim was first widely shared in late 2023 and gained traction amid heightened political tensions over election procedures and petition processes in the state.
The specific statement that triggered public concern was a post claiming that Benson had ‘deliberately delayed or dismissed’ petitions from conservative groups. This assertion was attributed to an anonymous source within the Michigan Department of State, though no official documentation or verified records were cited. The claim was amplified by right-leaning news outlets and social media influencers, who framed it as evidence of systemic bias against conservative voices in state government.
The Details & Investigation
Upon investigation, no credible evidence was found to support the claim that Jocleyn Benson, as Michigan’s Secretary of State, deliberately targeted conservative petitions. The allegations are based on anecdotal reports and unverified claims, rather than any official records, internal communications, or documented policy changes.
According to the Michigan Department of State, all petitions—regardless of political affiliation—are subject to the same procedural standards under state law. The office has consistently emphasized that its role is to ensure the integrity and legality of the petition process, not to favor or disadvantage any particular group. A spokesperson for the department stated, ‘We do not discriminate in the processing of petitions. All submissions are reviewed according to established legal guidelines.’ This aligns with the state’s open records policy, which mandates transparency in how petitions are handled.
📄 POLICY WIRE WHITEPAPER PUBLISHED: PAKISTAN’S NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY PRIORITIES
Further examination of the timeline reveals that the claim emerged during a period of increased scrutiny over election administration in Michigan. In 2023, several conservative advocacy groups raised concerns about the efficiency of the petition process, particularly regarding signature verification and submission deadlines. However, these issues were attributed to administrative delays and technical challenges, not intentional targeting by officials. Additionally, no internal emails, meeting minutes, or formal complaints from within the Department of State have been released that suggest any deliberate action against conservative petitions.
While the claim may have originated as a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of routine administrative procedures, there is no indication of a coordinated disinformation campaign. The absence of verifiable evidence, such as direct quotes from Benson or her staff, internal documents, or sworn testimony, suggests that this is more likely an instance of misinformation rather than deliberate disinformation. However, the rapid spread of the claim across partisan platforms indicates that it may have been amplified by actors seeking to fuel political division.
The Verdict
The viral claim that Jocleyn Benson targeted conservative petitions is classified as MISLEADING. While the claim contains elements of truth—such as the existence of procedural challenges in the petition process—it is not supported by any concrete evidence of intentional bias or discrimination by the Secretary of State.
The lack of verified documentation, official statements, or credible sources to substantiate the claim means that it cannot be considered true. At the same time, the claim does not appear to be the result of a coordinated disinformation campaign. Instead, it reflects a broader pattern of misinformation that arises when complex administrative processes are simplified or misrepresented in the public sphere. As such, the claim should be understood as a misleading interpretation of events rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive.
Counter-misinformation & disinformation investigation conducted by PolicyWire Editorial Desk (PW).
