[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6467801,"mediaKeyId","5784464-2685f36bf2c0ecc24858fa31882c81bd","parentId",5784464,"title","Witnesses urge JCAR to reject rule they say would remove e-poll book retention and limit local access","audioSeconds",711,"startMs",876785,"endMs",1588250,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5784464-2685f36bf2c0ecc24858fa31882c81bd&start=876&end=1588","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5784464-2685f36bf2c0ecc24858fa31882c81bd/thumbnail_876785.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6467801/Michigan/Witnesses-urge-JCAR-to-reject-rule-they-say-would-remove-e-poll-book-retention-and-limit-local-access","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6467801-d5d9677054e24a05e0e94e4535be5f9e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770504042&Signature=WPBDWgYqjju3O9N2zIbidycyCRS2evkK6sdGfRBqWTOEe3HBae0-TrtGzsZzFYtxWFLG9rYeEjBjJ-7~I09Oe87d3NlHm46HiUJUVIASybtPc7agWDdY0l3XHobdxS0831DQpqjhbb8NAwOgBY2rmLy03KhxN7H5yBjn-M3SUJ55scp1QYR0tRbkH0qtvH2tUFlW3USERh6UhtbqytKO2LASPDOnXtItvVN5HzOuJV~sn8FDCY3-hvmwIYhLBULxgb4~gSofOMtarA56jNoj-qUib-328iY7E7496v2z1pML-lenZGYSbzMGQoPRdh9qxo94IuA0b1jDJImwWIjiPw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Michigan Legislature","date","2025-09-18T01:32:19Z","article","Multiple witnesses told the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules that a proposed election-related rule would eliminate an audit trail and violate federal retention requirements, urging the committee to reject the rule.

Shelly Lake testified that deleting certain election data is a federal felony and warned clerks not to follow any rule that would require deletion of e-poll book records. “Deleting election data is a felony, federally,” Lake said and urged the committee to “protect your clerks, and don't ask them to delete EPB data.”

Steve Fromm, who identified himself as a Salem Township resident, said the proposed change centralizes election data under the secretary of state and removes a form of civilian oversight. “We're going to change rules more to lessen our election integrity by removing yet another piece of the audit trail,” he said.

Representative Johnson read written testimony from Patrice Johnson of Pure Integrity Michigan Elections (PIME), who urged JCAR to reject the rule set she identified as 2025-14. The written testimony asserted that state Rule 168.48 would mandate deletion of electronic poll book data after seven days, while federal law requires retention of election records for 22 months under provisions tied to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The testimony argued the rule would expose clerks and taxpayers to criminal penalties under federal statute and risk loss of federal HAVA funding. It also cited Michigan Supreme Court precedent (Klonlara) to argue agencies cannot exceed statutory delegations.

Committee members asked witnesses to clarify technical and legal points. A committee member who identified themselves as an IT professional responded during the hearing that data copied to a central site are backed up, that multiple copies exist, and that the system has been publicly available for years. Senator Bair commented that data are copied to a central site and said they are available for public lookup, while opposing witnesses said transferring records to the secretary of state reduces local clerk custody and impedes civilian oversight.

Witnesses provided several quantitative details in testimony: federal law was cited as requiring 22 months of retention for election records; testimony claimed thumb-drive storage costs of roughly $5–$15; and witnesses said the July 15 public hearing for the rule had zero attendees. Witnesses also asserted the agency omitted required reports and regulatory-impact justification under Michigan administrative procedure requirements.

No formal committee vote on the rule was recorded at the meeting. Committee chair and members said any written testimony would be included in the meeting minutes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Joint Committee on Administrative Rules - 9/17/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Public testimony at a Joint Committee on Administrative Rules meeting urged rejection of a proposed rule (discussed as 25-49/2025-14) that witnesses said would allow deletion or reclassification of electronic poll-book data, potentially conflicting with federal retention requirements and reducing local clerk and public access to records.","taxTitle","2025 House Legislature MI, Michigan","taxId",77683,"location","Michigan","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6467806,"Michigan Department of State seeks to codify personalized license-plate review process",467,449145,916490,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5784464-2685f36bf2c0ecc24858fa31882c81bd&start=449&end=916","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5784464-2685f36bf2c0ecc24858fa31882c81bd/thumbnail_449145.jpg","/articles/6467806/Michigan/Michigan-Department-of-State-seeks-to-codify-personalized-license-plate-review-process","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6467806-a01382464c240bb04e8d588ccb8cba51/orig.mp4?Expires=1770504042&Signature=dOAfXctQAQggfNj0rJj8pCEm8KYBUJWCgUrqz5eL~YvVBxZwjwihT6KqYvVCg7CeS~tTLYgctjTqwYBa1RwAwgMEElv9~rlTva5ZVx~cgesxN4GZBfH~MyoPH9ls85kK8U2G0w1zAvzkZtjGKXYTKedJ0Vd5tmw0Mkr3hSdKff2F~DHVN1gCJktR46mioeCevUQygt0UIQD3A9ANrxzOnRNTXkaqOQ-BO7A28kfeiqbknytoiRnV0aHLN7ZYWA80tNtF1R67XIcbgerCDTy7aZD0vKAiWtD1KXubucXYRxc~3m8l~VzU3KnVtF-DQy4XaLESUF2V5vwCqyUcrj9nkw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules heard testimony on a proposed rule set (25-57) from the Michigan Department of State that would codify the agency’s current process for reviewing personalized license plate applications, staff said at the committee’s meeting.

The rule package would place in administrative rules the Department of State’s review process — developed with the ACLU after litigation in the mid-2010s — for deciding whether proposed personalized plate messages are acceptable. Department lawyers said the rule mirrors the existing policy and contains no substantive changes.

Erin Shore, presenting for the department, described a multi-person review committee that assesses each application and the plate type. “Each review is done on a very individualized, nuanced process,” Erin Lilly of the department’s legal team added, noting that some wording may be acceptable on certain specialty plates and not on others and that the agency reviews changes in slang or usage over time.

The presenters said the rule includes an appeal process for residents who believe an issued plate later acquires a negative connotation and that the department has posted the procedure on its website. Lilly told the committee the rule originated after a prior statute was struck down by the courts for vagueness and that the department’s current practice has existed since about 2014 or 2015. “This is the exact same policy. There were no changes,” Lilly said.

Representative Brenda Carter asked how the rule aligns with the Michigan Vehicle Code; the department replied that the previously struck statute remains on the books but is not being enforced in the same way and that the rule is intended to reflect current administrative practice. Senator Stephanie Bueno asked whether similar matters are being litigated at the federal level; the department said the prior Michigan litigation was adjudicated in federal court under First Amendment claims but declined to characterize ongoing federal litigation.

Department witnesses said the proposed rules underwent the standard rulemaking process, that they received no public comments and that no one attended the public hearing. The department also distributed examples of plate text that are not issued; presenters said the full list exceeds 600 pages and provided a shorter handout.

No formal committee vote on the rule set was recorded during the meeting; committee members moved on to other items on the agenda after questions and discussion.","The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules heard Department of State testimony to adopt rules that formalize the agency's existing review process for personalized license-plate requests, including an appeal mechanism and ongoing review for changing language.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Witnesses urge JCAR to reject rule they say would remove e-poll book retention and limit local access

Michigan Department of State seeks to codify personalized license-plate review process