ST. JOHNS, MI – Midterm results have changed very little in Michigan’s massive recount of Proposals 2 and 3. But the investigative effort has already proved successful for the group of election skeptics that requested it.

“It was worth the time, because a number of problems that need to be addressed and fixed moving forward were discovered,” said Stefanie Lambert, a lawyer for recount requestor Election Integrity Force.

These “consistent problems throughout the state,” Lambert told MLive, include chain of custody issues, folded ballots during in-person voting, broken seals and spoiled ballots accidentally counted. Election Integrity Force executive director Sandy Kiesel has also alleged “ballot box tampering and precincts that can’t be recounted.”

“Everyone’s vote needs to count, right? So, every person’s vote should count,” Lambert said. “So, if there’s a problem that would disenfranchise one voter, that’s important to know.”

Go deeper: Accuracy affirmed or errors exposed? Inside Michigan’s proposal recount

Election Integrity Force’s opinions about Michigan elections run a spectrum between mainstream policy proposals and debunked conspiracy theories. Its recount requests included a claim that vote tabulators were connected to the internet, but this was disproven by a Republican-led state Senate report after the 2020 election.

Recently, the group joined lawsuits to decertify the 2020 election and stop Detroit absentee voting. The judge who threw out the latter called it a “false flag of election law violations and corruption.”

Lambert and fellow Election Integrity Force lawyer Daniel Hartman have also been criticized for leading legal efforts post-2020 based on false allegations of widespread election fraud.

Hartman represented plaintiffs in the Detroit suit, and a Michigan attorney general investigation alleges Lambert “orchestrated a coordinated plan” last year to illegally obtain and analyze vote tabulators.

Some Election Integrity Force recount challengers been disruptive and combative, prompting warnings from Attorney General Dana Nessel and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson.

Michigan elections director Jonathan Brater told Hartman in a letter he received reports of challengers touching ballots and containers, going into restricted areas and accusing election workers of breaking the law and threatening them with prosecution.

A challenger in Marquette, Brater wrote, was removed for “repeatedly demanding to see the reverse side of ballots … presumably so that he could see other races” instead of only the proposals.

But this recount, Lambert insists, is a nonpolitical effort to make election issues transparent and “provide that information to the communities to fix it going forward.”

Clinton County Clerk Debra Sutherland said that’s exactly what she’ll do after her recount Wednesday found some wrongly numbered duplicate ballots in one precinct.

“The problems that they did find were things that we just need to address with our workers,” Sutherland told MLive. “Make sure that they’re paying a little bit closer attention to details when they’re duplicating ballots the end of the night.”

Election officials around the state have expressed mixed feelings about the recount, with many saying its results uphold the accuracy of Michigan elections but some knocking perceived bad-faith motives.

“Those of us who work with elections on a daily basis have full confidence in our system,” said Ionia County Clerk Greg Geiger, “and we are constantly encouraged by events such as the current recount that is once again proving just how secure and how accurate the process really is.”

Ingham County Clerk Barb Byrum tweeted the recount is “ridiculous,” and Grand Rapids Clerk Joel Hondorp told MLive he questions the allegations of systemic fraud Election Integrity Force made in its recount requests.

“They’re looking for a problem where none exists,” Hondorp said.

Benson and two members of the Board of State Canvassers – Republican Tony Daunt and Democrat Mary Ellen Gurewitz – have called for tightening the law that allowed this recount to investigate election processes while being mathematically unable to overturn the results.

Go deeper: This difference allowed Michigan’s proposal recount. Should the law change?

“The state went into this believing that there wouldn’t be any problems, that it’s just frivolous and a waste of time for taxpayers,” Lambert told MLive, but the recount has exposed “important problems” that need “investigated.”

Friday is the final day of the 43-county recount of hundreds of thousands of votes for Proposals 2 and 3, successful constitutional amendments to expand voting rights and ensure abortion rights. Clerks and election workers began last Wednesday recounting 607 precincts in counties big and small.

Lambert didn’t say how Election Integrity Force will use its findings going forward, but the group is active in lawsuits and releases reports analyzing voting data and criticizing election processes.

One thing Election Integrity Force will be talking about, Lambert said, is that election equipment chain of custody “was broken in so many of these jurisdictions.” That needs fixed, she said, so people have confidence “their vote is protected and counted properly.”

The group must pay for the recount. At $125 per precinct (set by law), that’s north of $75,000 to be distributed throughout the counties. But Sutherland and Geiger told MLive they already know that’s not enough to cover their costs, which means taxpayers must cover the difference.

Still, a bright side of the recount for some clerks was showing people the process and its accuracy in hopes they can build trust.

“We had to do it,” Sutherland said, “so because we had to do it, if we can change anyone’s outlook on elections, it’s worth my time.”

Read more from MLive:

Michigan’s redistricting commission sends dormancy plan to state; could go dark once lawsuits end

EITC boost, retirement tax repeal: Whitmer eyes priorities for first few months of 2023

Whitmer directs Michigan departments, agencies to comply with Proposal 3

Affordable, energy efficient housing top of mind for Michigan Democrats in 2023