Curtis VanderWall – Michigan State Senator
State Legislators and Officials

Curtis VanderWall – Michigan State Senator

Skip to main content
How can we help you today?
< All Topics
Print

Curtis VanderWall – Michigan State Senator

Posted
Updated
ByPatriot University
0 out of 5 stars
5 Stars 0%
4 Stars 0%
3 Stars 0%
2 Stars 0%
1 Stars 0%

Category: State Legislator
Role: Michigan State Senator, District 35 (Ludington); Lead sponsor of SB 303 banning voter affidavits (2021)
Priority: P1 (Lead sponsor of SB 303; banned sworn affidavits for voters without ID; required provisional ballots; part of 39-bill Michigan package)

## Role

Curtis VanderWall, a Republican state senator from Ludington representing Michigan Senate District 35, served as lead sponsor of Senate Bill 303 in 2021, which would have banned the use of sworn affidavits if voters arrive at polling places without ID, requiring them instead to vote provisional ballots. SB 303 had nine Republican co-sponsors and was part of a 39-bill Michigan Republican restriction package. The bill did not advance significantly due to opposition from Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer and characterization by the Michigan Department of State as voter suppression.

## Background

VanderWall has served in the Michigan Senate since 2019. His SB 303 was among the most restrictive of the 39-bill Michigan package because it eliminated a longstanding voter safeguard without evidence of fraud or abuse. Michigan had allowed voters without ID to sign sworn affidavits affirming their identity for years, and the system had functioned securely. VanderWall’s bill sought to eliminate this safeguard based on false 2020 election fraud claims rather than documented problems with the affidavit system.

## Documented Actions

### 1. SB 303 – Banning Sworn Affidavits, Requiring Provisional Ballots (2021)

Evidence: VanderWall was the lead sponsor of SB 303, which, along with companion bill SB 304, would ban the use of sworn affidavits if voters arrive at polling places without ID. Under SB 303, voters without ID would be forced to vote provisional ballots that wouldn’t be counted unless the voter returned with additional documentation.

This represented a significant restriction compared to Michigan’s existing law, which allowed voters without ID to sign a sworn affidavit affirming their identity and vote a regular ballot that would be counted. The affidavit system had several advantages:

– Allowed voters who forgot ID to vote immediately

– Provided access for voters without standard identification (homeless, elderly without driver’s licenses)

– Maintained the integrity of the secret ballot (provisional ballots can be traced to individual voters more easily)

– Had functioned securely for years without fraud incidents

SB 303’s provisional ballot requirement would have created new barriers. Provisional ballots require voters to complete additional steps after Election Day (returning with documentation) for their vote to be counted, and many provisional voters never complete these steps—meaning their votes are discarded. Research shows provisional ballot systems result in lower final vote counts than regular ballot systems.

VanderWall provided no evidence that Michigan’s affidavit system had resulted in voter fraud. The bill was a solution in search of a problem, motivated by false 2020 election fraud claims rather than documented security concerns.

Sources: Michigan Legislature, SB 303 (2021-2022) bill text; Michigan Department of State summary; Empowered Voices analysis; PolitiFact fact-check

Pattern: Eliminating longstanding safeguard; provisional ballot burden reducing counted votes; lack of fraud evidence; targeting voters without standard ID; solution in search of problem

### 2. Nine-Sponsor Coordinated Bill

Evidence: SB 303 had nine Republican co-sponsors alongside VanderWall: Dan Lauwers, Rick Outman, Kevin Daley, Dale Zorn, Jim Stamas, Lana Theis, Kenneth Horn, Jon Bumstead, and Tom Barrett. This broad co-sponsorship demonstrated unified Michigan Republican commitment to eliminating the affidavit safeguard.

The multiple sponsors created shared “ownership” of the restriction across the Michigan Republican caucus, making it harder to characterize SB 303 as one legislator’s outlier proposal. The coordinated sponsorship also signaled that if Michigan Republicans gained unified control (both chambers plus governorship), affidavit elimination would be a top priority.

The companion bill structure (SB 303 and SB 304) showed technical coordination—the bills worked together to create a comprehensive ban on affidavits. This legislative packaging demonstrated deliberate strategy rather than ad hoc proposal.

Sources: Michigan Legislature SB 303 co-sponsor list; bill analysis

Pattern: Ten-legislator coordination (lead sponsor + 9 co-sponsors); companion bill structure; unified Republican caucus commitment; shared ownership preventing outlier characterization

### 3. Part of 39-Bill Systematic Restriction Package

Evidence: VanderWall’s SB 303 was one component of the 39-bill Michigan Republican voting restriction package introduced during the 2021-2022 legislative session. According to the Michigan Department of State, these 39 bills collectively would restrict voting rights and harm election administration. The package targeted multiple aspects of voting simultaneously:

– Voter identification (SB 303, SB 285): Eliminating affidavits, requiring photocopies

– Absentee voting: Restricting Secretary of State authority to send applications

– Drop boxes: Banning on Election Day

– Ballot access: Eliminating prepaid postage

– Signature verification: Stricter rules

– Poll challengers: Expanded protections

This 39-bill strategy demonstrated systematic, coordinated targeting of voting infrastructure on multiple fronts. Michigan Republicans couldn’t enact restrictions due to Governor Whitmer’s veto power, but the package established a template for future efforts if Republicans gained unified control.

The bills’ failure to advance suggests Michigan Republicans introduced them more as markers and signals than as serious near-term legislative efforts. However, the 39-bill package showed the breadth of restrictions Republicans would pursue given the opportunity.

Sources: Michigan Department of State “Summary of Bills to Restrict Voting Rights and Hinder Elections” (April 21, 2021); legislative tracking; analysis of bills’ progress

Pattern: 39-bill coordinated package; systematic multi-front targeting; marker-setting for future unified control; Democratic governor preventing advancement; template establishment

Pattern Analysis

VanderWall exemplifies the public-corruption-ombudsman skill’s “voter suppression” category through his lead sponsorship of legislation eliminating a longstanding voter safeguard (affidavits) without evidence of fraud or abuse. The provisional ballot requirement would have reduced counted votes because many provisional voters never complete the additional documentation steps. The ten-legislator coordination (lead sponsor + 9 co-sponsors) demonstrated unified Michigan Republican commitment, and the 39-bill package context showed systematic targeting of voting infrastructure on multiple fronts simultaneously.

Related profiles: lana-theis-profile (MI SB 285 sponsor, SB 303 co-sponsor), bryan-hughes-profile (TX comprehensive package), seth-grove-profile (PA comprehensive bill), barry-fleming-profile (GA SB 202)

Related skills: voting-rights-law-expert, fourteenth-amendment-legal-expert (equal protection – affidavit elimination), fifth-amendment-legal-expert (due process), first-amendment-legal-expert (ballot access)

Severity Assessment

Immediate harm: Low-Moderate – bill did not advance significantly; likely would have been vetoed Democratic erosion: Moderate – eliminating longstanding safeguard; provisional ballot system reducing counted votes; 39-bill coordinated package; ten-legislator unified sponsorship; but prevented by Democratic governor Authoritarian marker: Eliminating voter safeguard without fraud evidence; reducing counted votes via provisional system; targeting voters without standard ID; coordinated multi-bill systematic restriction strategy

Accountability Status

Current status: Serving Michigan State Senator Legal exposure: None; bill did not advance and did not become law Public accountability: Bill opposed by Michigan Department of State, Governor Whitmer, Democrats, and voting rights organizations; characterized as voter suppression by election officials; did not advance; supported by Michigan Republican caucus (10 sponsors)

2022-2026 Updates

Election status: Term-limited from MI Senate; won election to MI House District 102 in November 2022 with 61.3% of the vote. Assumed new House seat January 1, 2023. Legal outcomes: 2021 MI voting bills did not advance. Rendered permanently moot by Michigan Proposal 2 (November 2022), a constitutional amendment approved 60-40 that enshrined early voting, no-excuse absentee voting, drop boxes, and ID alternatives into the Michigan Constitution. Subsequent actions: Continues serving in MI House. Moved from Senate to House after redistricting created new District 102 along the Lake Michigan shoreline.

Cross-References

Skills: public-corruption-ombudsman, voting-rights-law-expert, fourteenth-amendment-legal-expert, fifth-amendment-legal-expert, first-amendment-legal-expert

Related profiles: lana-theis-profile, bryan-hughes-profile, seth-grove-profile, barry-fleming-profile, gretchen-whitmer-profile

Topics: Michigan voting restrictions, SB 303, SB 304, voter affidavit ban, provisional ballots, sworn affidavits, voter ID requirements, 2021 Michigan Legislature, 39-bill restriction package, homeless voter disenfranchisement, elderly voters without ID

Investigative trail pointers (public records)

Education only — verify independently. Absence of hits is not proof.

Channel Starting points
Federal courts CourtListener / PACER party and attorney searches (spelling variants)
Campaign finance FEC + OpenSecrets for committees and donors tied to documented roles
Corporate / LLC State secretary of state; OpenCorporates for cross-border shells from reporting
Sanctions / PEP OpenSanctions when international business context is already sourced
Contracts / grants USAspending.gov for named entities from investigations

Use public-records-research-specialist, corporate-intelligence-investigator, and public-corruption-ombudsman evidence tiers.

Factual correction requests: If you believe information in this profile is incorrect, please contact factcheck@patriot.university with your name (optional), the specific claim, and any supporting documentation. We review all submissions and correct verified errors promptly.

For Trump Supporters: Questions Worth Considering

Curtis VanderWall led a 10-senator Michigan Republican effort to ban sworn voter affidavits — the safeguard that allows voters who arrive without ID to sign a sworn statement affirming their identity and vote a regular ballot. Under his SB 303, those voters would instead have been required to cast provisional ballots, which must be followed up with documentation submission; research consistently shows provisional ballot systems result in significantly fewer counted votes than regular ballot systems. No fraud involving Michigan’s affidavit system was documented. The bill was part of a 39-bill Michigan Republican restriction package. It didn’t advance because Governor Whitmer would have vetoed it. Then Michigan voters in November 2022, in a 60-40 referendum vote, amended the state constitution to specifically protect no-excuse absentee voting, early voting, drop boxes, and ID alternatives — permanently.

Here’s a question worth sitting with: Michigan voters — not politicians, voters — went to the ballot box in 2022 and amended the state constitution 60-40 to protect the voting access methods that VanderWall and his colleagues were trying to eliminate. Sixty percent of Michigan voters, across a statewide election, made a direct democratic choice to enshrine those protections. That’s not a close result — it’s a 20-point margin. When the people of a state express their will directly through a constitutional referendum on the exact question at issue, what does that tell you about whether the legislative restrictions reflected the will of the people those legislators represented?

A second question about the affidavit system specifically: Michigan’s sworn affidavit system allows a voter who forgot their ID — or who doesn’t have a driver’s license — to sign a sworn statement affirming they are who they say they are. Lying on that statement is a crime. Voters who use it are on record, traceable. VanderWall proposed replacing this with provisional ballots that many voters never follow up on, resulting in uncounted votes. His proposal didn’t enhance security — both systems require voters to attest to their identity. It just resulted in fewer completed votes. What is the security purpose of a system change that reduces counted votes without improving fraud detection?

Sources

  • Michigan Legislature: Senate Bill 303 (2021-2022 Session) bill text and co-sponsor list
  • Michigan Department of State: “Summary of Bills to Restrict Voting Rights and Hinder Elections” (April 21, 2021)
  • Empowered Voices: “Michigan Voter Suppression Bills” legislative tracking
  • PolitiFact: “Fact-checking claims made in support of Michigan’s GOP-backed election bills” (May 12, 2021)
  • Research on provisional ballot systems and voter disenfranchisement

Last Updated: May 11, 2026
Profile Status: Active monitoring – currently serving
Next Review: Quarterly

Was this article helpful?
0 out of 5 stars
5 Stars 0%
4 Stars 0%
3 Stars 0%
2 Stars 0%
1 Stars 0%
5
Please Share Your Feedback
How Can We Improve This Article?
Table of Contents

Related Articles