Commission seeks city attorney opinion on timing of swearing‑in after changed state ballot rules
Loading...
Summary
Commissioners asked the city attorney to review whether recent state rules on ballot curing and delayed counts preempt the Huntington Woods charter requirement for the organizational meeting and swearing-in of newly elected officials.
Huntington Woods, Mich. — Commissioners asked the city attorney on Oct. 21 to provide a written opinion on whether state changes to ballot-counting rules affect the timing of the city’s organizational meeting and the swearing-in of newly elected officials.
Commissioner Roselle said a 2022 constitutional amendment and subsequent state procedures allow certain military and overseas ballots to be counted up to six days after Election Day if postmarked properly, and permit a three-day “cure” period for absentee-ballot signature issues. Those provisions can delay county certification of results, Roselle said, and she asked how the city should reconcile the charter requirement that organizational meetings occur on the Monday after the election with the possibility that results remain uncertified when that Monday arrives.
The commissioner said a bill intended to fix the conflict was introduced but did not become law in the last session; a new bill moved through both chambers this session but remained unreconciled. "We've really been put in a trick box by the state legislature," Roselle said, describing the problem as one affecting many municipalities and requesting guidance on whether the city should proceed with the charter schedule, delay swearing-in until certification, or take other actions consistent with state preemption.
City Attorney indicated she would examine the preemption question — whether state law supersedes the charter timing — and produce an opinion to guide the commission’s scheduling of the organizational meeting and oaths of office.
Commissioners referenced past practice of postponing the organizational meeting when certification could not be completed on the charter date and asked the attorney to clarify current authority and options. No final policy change was adopted at the meeting; commissioners requested the attorney’s written opinion for a future meeting.

