Lana Theis – Michigan State Senator
State Legislators and Officials

Lana Theis – Michigan State Senator

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

Lana Theis – 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 22 (Brighton); Sponsor of SB 285 and co-sponsor of SB 303 eliminating voter affidavit options (2021)
Priority: P1 (Sponsored SB 285 requiring photo ID copies; co-sponsored SB 303 banning sworn affidavits; part of 39-bill Michigan restriction package)

## Role

Lana Theis, a Republican state senator from Brighton representing Michigan Senate District 22, sponsored Senate Bill 285 in 2021, which would have required absentee voters to include a photocopy of their photo ID with mailed ballot applications and eliminated the affidavit option for in-person voters without ID. Theis was also a co-sponsor of SB 303, which would ban the use of sworn affidavits if voters arrive at polling places without ID. Both bills were part of a 39-bill Michigan Republican package characterized by the Michigan Department of State as restricting voting rights and harming election administration.

## Background

Theis has served in the Michigan Senate since 2019 and was part of the Republican effort to restrict voting access following the 2020 election. Michigan Republicans introduced 39 bills during the 2021-2022 legislative session targeting various aspects of voting, despite Michigan’s 2020 election being secure and well-administered. The bills did not advance significantly due to Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s opposition and the likelihood of vetoes.

## Documented Actions

### 1. SB 285 – Photo ID Copy Requirement and Affidavit Elimination (2021)

Evidence: Theis sponsored SB 285, which would have imposed two significant new requirements:

– Require absentee voters to include a photocopy of their photo ID with mailed ballot applications, creating a burden for voters without access to photocopiers or scanners and raising privacy concerns about mailing copies of government-issued identification

– Eliminate the affidavit option for in-person voters without ID, requiring those voters to cast provisional ballots instead of signing an affidavit affirming their identity

Michigan law at the time allowed voters without ID to sign an affidavit affirming their identity—a provision designed to ensure that voters who forget their ID or lack standard identification (homeless voters, elderly voters without driver’s licenses) can still vote. SB 285 would have eliminated this safeguard, forcing such voters to cast provisional ballots that might not be counted.

The photocopy requirement was particularly problematic. Many voters, especially elderly voters and those in rural areas, do not have easy access to photocopiers or scanners. Requiring ID photocopies with absentee ballot applications would create a new barrier to mail-in voting that disproportionately affects voters without home office equipment—a class that skews older, lower-income, and more rural.

Sources: Michigan Legislature, SB 285 (2021-2022) bill text; Empowered Voices Michigan analysis; Michigan Department of State summary of restrictive bills

Pattern: Eliminating affidavit safeguard; photocopy burden creating disparate impact; targeting absentee voting; provisional ballot requirement

### 2. SB 303 Co-Sponsorship – Banning Sworn Affidavits (2021)

Evidence: Theis was one of 10 Republican co-sponsors of SB 303 alongside Curtis VanderWall (lead sponsor), Dan Lauwers, Rick Outman, Kevin Daley, Dale Zorn, Jim Stamas, Kenneth Horn, Jon Bumstead, and Tom Barrett. SB 303, along with companion bill SB 304, would ban the use of sworn affidavits if voters arrive at polling places without ID, requiring them instead to vote provisional ballots that wouldn’t be counted unless additional documentation is provided.

This provision would have significantly changed Michigan voting by eliminating a longstanding safeguard for voters without ID. Under existing law, voters who arrived without ID could sign a sworn affidavit affirming their identity and vote a regular ballot. SB 303 would force these voters to cast provisional ballots—a less secure voting method that requires voters to return with documentation for their vote to be counted, and many provisional ballots are never counted because voters don’t complete the additional steps.

The practical effect would be to disenfranchise voters who forget their ID or lack standard identification. Homeless voters, elderly voters without driver’s licenses, and voters who’ve recently moved would face new barriers. Republicans provided no evidence that Michigan’s affidavit system had resulted in voter fraud—the system had functioned successfully for years without security issues.

Sources: Michigan Legislature, SB 303 (2021-2022) bill text and co-sponsor list; Michigan Department of State summary; Empowered Voices analysis

Pattern: Ten-sponsor coordinated bill; elimination of longstanding safeguard; provisional ballot burden; lack of fraud evidence; targeting voters without standard ID

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

Evidence: Theis’s SB 285 and her co-sponsorship of SB 303 were part of a massive 39-bill Michigan Republican restriction package introduced during the 2021-2022 legislative session. According to the Michigan Department of State, these bills would restrict voting rights and harm election administration. The package included measures to:

– Require photo ID for absentee ballot applications and in-person voting (SB 285, SB 303)

– Ban drop boxes on Election Day

– Prohibit prepaid postage on absentee ballot return envelopes

– Prevent the Secretary of State from sending unsolicited absentee ballot applications

– Impose stricter signature verification rules

– Strengthen protections for poll challengers

The 39-bill strategy demonstrated a coordinated, systematic effort to restrict voting on multiple fronts simultaneously. By introducing dozens of bills, Michigan Republicans forced voting rights advocates and the public to track and oppose restrictions across many legislative vehicles, taxing opposition resources and attention.

Most bills did not advance significantly, likely due to Governor Whitmer’s certain vetoes and recognition that Michigan Republicans lacked veto override power. However, the introduction of 39 bills created a “marker” for future restriction efforts and demonstrated Republican commitment to restricting access if they gained unified control.

Sources: Michigan Department of State summary of 39 restrictive bills (April 21, 2021); Empowered Voices legislative tracking; PolitiFact fact-check of Michigan election bills

Pattern: 39-bill coordinated package; multiple aspects of voting targeted; Democratic governor preventing advancement; marker-setting for future restrictions; resource-taxing strategy

Pattern Analysis

Theis exemplifies the public-corruption-ombudsman skill’s “voter suppression” category through her sponsorship and co-sponsorship of bills eliminating Michigan’s voter affidavit safeguard and creating new barriers to absentee voting. The photocopy ID requirement in SB 285 demonstrated how technical requirements can create disparate burdens on voters without home office equipment. The 39-bill package strategy showed systematic, coordinated targeting of voting on multiple fronts, forcing opposition to divide resources across dozens of legislative vehicles.

Related profiles: curtis-vanderwall-profile (MI SB 303 lead sponsor), bryan-hughes-profile (TX comprehensive package), seth-grove-profile (PA comprehensive bill), kathy-bernier-profile (WI multiple bills)

Related skills: voting-rights-law-expert, fourteenth-amendment-legal-expert (equal protection – affidavit elimination), twenty-fourth-amendment-legal-expert (photocopy costs as poll tax), fifth-amendment-legal-expert (due process)

Severity Assessment

Immediate harm: Low-Moderate – bills did not advance significantly; likely would have been vetoed Democratic erosion: Moderate – 39-bill coordinated package; elimination of longstanding safeguard; photocopy burden creating barriers; but prevented from advancing by Democratic governor Authoritarian marker: Eliminating voter safeguard (affidavits); creating technical barriers (photocopies); provisional ballot requirement reducing counted votes; 39-bill coordinated restriction effort

Accountability Status

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

2022-2026 Updates

Election status: Won reelection November 2022 to MI Senate District 22 with 60.7% of the vote, despite Michigan Democrats winning a legislative trifecta statewide. 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 — the opposite of what Theis’s bills proposed. Subsequent actions: Continues serving in MI Senate. The Proposal 2 amendment was implemented via legislation effective February 2024, establishing 9 days of in-person early voting and constitutional protection against unreasonable voting burdens.

Cross-References

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

Related profiles: curtis-vanderwall-profile, bryan-hughes-profile, seth-grove-profile, kathy-bernier-profile, gretchen-whitmer-profile

Topics: Michigan voting restrictions, SB 285, SB 303, voter affidavit elimination, photo ID photocopy requirement, provisional ballots, 2021 Michigan Legislature, 39-bill restriction package, absentee voting barriers, homeless voter disenfranchisement

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

Lana Theis sponsored Michigan SB 285, which would have required absentee voters to include a photocopy of their photo ID with ballot applications. Many elderly voters and rural voters do not have access to photocopiers or scanners. She also co-sponsored SB 303, which would have eliminated Michigan’s sworn affidavit option — the provision allowing voters without ID to sign a sworn statement affirming their identity. Both bills were part of a 39-bill Michigan Republican restriction package. Neither advanced significantly; Governor Whitmer would have vetoed them. Then Michigan voters went to the polls in November 2022 and voted 60-40 to amend the state constitution to specifically protect no-excuse absentee voting, early voting, drop boxes, and ID alternatives — the exact opposite of what Theis’s bills proposed. The constitutional amendment was implemented in February 2024.

Here’s a question worth sitting with: The Michigan Legislature tried to restrict voting access. The voters of Michigan responded by amending the state constitution — a direct democratic override requiring a statewide majority — to permanently protect the access methods the Legislature was trying to eliminate. That’s a 60-40 margin. That’s not a close call. When the people of a state vote directly to constitutionally protect the voting access methods that their legislature is trying to eliminate, what does that tell you about whose interests the legislative effort was serving?

A second question: Theis was reelected with 60.7% in 2022 — even as Democrats won a legislative trifecta in Michigan. Her personal vote share in her district was strong even as her party lost statewide power. That’s a split verdict: her own constituents in Brighton endorsed her, while Michigan voters statewide moved the other direction and amended the constitution against what she had been proposing. When two different democratic verdicts point in opposite directions — one from a single district and one from the whole state — which one tells you more about what Michigan voters wanted?

Sources

  • Michigan Legislature: Senate Bill 285 (2021-2022 Session) bill text
  • 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)

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