But critics have concerns about the potential effectiveness of the measures, whether they will reduce government transparency or if they could be misused for political purposes in the future.
“It gives police powers to legislative leaders who may, in the future, not discharge those responsibilities in an ethical way,” said Sen. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor, who voted against the sergeant-at-arms bill Whitmer signed into law.
For Rigas, the new law will give her the ability to request security at her home if protesters return, she said, noting local police had frustrated her by saying the October demonstration was protected by the First Amendment.
Known as a conservative firebrand, Rigas said she had “never turned down a meeting with a constituent or anybody.” But as for protesters who walked up to her front door and taped a poster over a window?
“Unacceptable,” she said.
The ‘right reaction’? The new law Whitmer signed will give House and Senate leaders control over requests for their internal law enforcement details to investigate matters or provide security outside the state Capitol.
The statute directs the sergeants-at-arms to partner with local law enforcement.
The measure was part of the budget compromise negotiated between the GOP-led House, Democrat-controlled Senate and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, which included $6 million in additional funding for the sergeants.
House Speaker Matt Hall, a Richfield Republican, told reporters the new law was something “I’ve actually been working on for quite a while,” noting Whitmer also has a security detail.
Some lawmakers publicly called for more protections in June, when authorities said Michigan officials’ names were included on a list prepared by a Minnesota man who assassinated a legislator in that state.
State Sen. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor (Courtesy of Michigan Senate Democrats) More recently, two House Democrats said in September that they’d received death threats because of a misleading social media post following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
In the House, support for the sergeant-at-arms bill was unanimous, while senators split on the legislation i n a 20-16 vote that blurred party lines. The plan moved through the legislature in less than two months and was sent to Whitmer for her signature without a committee hearing.
A fall 2023 survey from the Brennan Center for Justice found 43% of state legislators have experienced threats, with 38% saying the amount of abuse has increased since they first took office.
About 38% of state lawmakers nationally believed threats and abuse toward them was increasing, according to the survey. Another 38%, meanwhile, believed levels had stayed the same. 51% of respondents reported that threats they faced were no more or less serious than before.
GOP state Rep. Bill Schuette told The New York Times in July he purchased an alarm system after multiple people showed up at his home in Midland.
But Irwin, who voted against the bill, told Bridge he did not hear “any compelling rationale for voting for the legislation” and noted he’d received “many, many death threats over the years.”
“I can appreciate how that can be frustrating and can be scary and can cause people to want to react,” Irwin added. “I just don’t think this was the right reaction.”
Irwin argued the millions spent on beefed-up security could be better put toward addressing the root causes of political violence, calling it “a huge waste of money.” He also raised concerns about how the Legislature’s new investigative power might be wielded in the future.
Hall, the state House speaker, pushed back against the notion that the new police powers could be abused for political purposes, telling reporters the measure was narrowly tailored to address threats to legislators.
“The purpose is to protect elected officials, and in order to do that, you have to expand the jurisdictions of the sergeants,” Hall said. “We’re not trying to have sergeants just pull people over on the side of the road.”
In 2021, the Michigan Department of State wrote that elected officials could buy items like a ballistics vest or home security system as an “incidental office expense” using campaign funds “so long as the disbursement would not have been made but for their status as an office holder.”
Lightner and Sen. Stephanie Chang, a Detroit Democrat, have written the department for an additional interpretation of the state’s campaign finance law to allow directly spending campaign funding for “security costs” for candidates.
Redacting information The other two bills , which would allow some elected officials to redact key personal information from effectively all available public records, are still moving through the Legislature. Each has passed one chamber.
The legislation would apply to state and federal judges, state legislators, members of Congress, the attorney general, secretary of state, governor, lieutenant governor and former governors.
Lawmakers want to be able to — at their request — force public agencies to redact a slew of personal information online for themselves and family members. It’d include home addresses, employer’s addresses, telephone numbers, license plates and a litany of financial information.
The redactions would be lifelong, not just until the official leaves office, a protection not afforded to most Michiganders, though there is an address confidentiality program for some survivors of abuse.
House Judiciary Chair and state Rep. Sarah Lightner, R-Springport, says it may be high time for the state to redact the personal information of elected officials in the name of safety. (Photo courtesy of Michigan House Republicans) The information would not only be removed from readily available public resources but also become exempt from records requests through the Freedom of Information Act.
Amid some public criticism, the legislation has received minor revisions, including exemptions that would not allow registered sex offenders to redact their information, and requiring a lawmaker’s spouse, if a registered lobbyist, to still include their employer.
Officials couldn’t use the law to remove their information from private repositories.
The addresses of lawmakers’ homes have long been used by news outlets for accountability reporting. Both state legislators and most Michigan judges are required to live in the jurisdiction they represent, but in practice that has not always been the case, as officials at times have rented or leased homes they don’t appear to live in.
“It’s not to hide that property or whatever,” Lightner said. “It’s to make it not so easy for you to find us at home.”
Rigas told Bridge that when she first learned of the legislation, eliminating the ability to check elected officials’ residency was a concern that she agreed with. But “we deserve to have some privacy when it comes to our personal lives versus our public life,” she said, saying election officials should ensure candidates aren’t lying about their residency.
While candidates must provide their home address on an affidavit of identity when filing to appear on the ballot, the amount of investigation state and local officials can conduct is limited.
The proposals may run afoul of some voter-approved transparency laws in the process. Proposal 2 of 2022 requires state elected officials to list properties they own in personal financial disclosure reports that must be posted online. The legislation would require the secretary of state to remove any trace of the address upon request.
Lightner acknowledged there would likely be “trailer legislation” — effectively loosening the disclosure requirements for those officials — to resolve the conflicts.
“If you have a lake house and you’re there once out of the entire summer” it would still have to be included in a disclosure, but “if it’s one that you will go to a lot then that physical address is taken out” Lightner said. Without any checks from department officials, it appears it would be up to lawmakers’ discretion to decide what should be redacted.
The Bridging Divides Initiative at Princeton University collects information on threats against officials at the local level — but not including the state level — and found local Michigan officials received 90 between 2022 and September 2025. It was the fifth-highest in the nation, more than in Texas and Florida or neighboring states like Ohio and Illinois.
About a third of their reported incidents of threats or harassment were judges; the rest of the offices, such as county commissioners and local election officials, are not included under the legislation.
Business Watch About Business Watch
Support Bridge’s nonprofit civic journalism. Donate today.
This must be the credit given on each article: Put at bottom of each article in small print
“This story was originally published by Bridge Michigan (bridgemi.com), a nonprofit and nonpartisan news organization. To get regular coverage from Bridge Michigan, sign up for a free Bridge Michigan newsletter here (https://bit.ly/BridgeMichiganNewsletter).”
Use photos as well and credit photos. Simply copy and paste name and put: Photo Credit: John Doe
