Canvassers approve 100‑word summary for proposed citizenship‑verification amendment amid debate over notice and implementation

The Michigan State Board of Canvassers on July 10 adopted a revised 100‑word summary for a constitutional amendment proposed by Americans for Citizen Voting Michigan that would require citizenship verification through a statewide program, allow removal of noncitizens after notice and a 45‑day rebuttal window, require documentary proof for certain regular or absentee ballots, and prohibit counting ballots from voters with unverified citizenship unless documents are presented within six days after an election. The summary specifies an effective election date of Nov. 2, 2027, and references a state‑funded hardship program and penalties up to a $1,000 fine or five years imprisonment.

Sponsor representatives said they incorporated board feedback into a second draft. Paul Jacob, the petition sponsor, said the group had not yet decided which version to circulate and that the proposal under discussion was the one they were "very likely to go with." David Porter, counsel for the sponsor, commended the Acting Director and asked the board to approve the form and summary.

Opponents and some board members pushed back on implementation details they said were inadequately reflected in the 100‑word text. Mark Brewer, legal counsel to Promote the Vote Action, argued the summary should make clear the proposal will create separate eligibility for federal and state/local ballots and warned the change could lead to two classes of voters and two ballot types. "You're going to have two classes of voters in that election," Brewer said, arguing that the summary needed clearer language about how federal registration interacts with state eligibility.

Members asked detailed questions about notice timelines, cure periods and how the Qualified Voter File would track citizenship status. Acting Director of Elections explained clause‑by‑clause why the summary included tracking language and the 45‑day rebuttal and noted that some implementation issues — whether separate files or multiple ballots would be required, or what tabulator changes might be necessary — could not be resolved in a 100‑word statement.

The board recessed briefly to permit staff to draft tighter language; after the break the Acting Director read an edited 100‑word summary that included tracking of separate federal/state/local eligibility and a 45‑day rebuttal window. The board approved the revised summary and then approved the petition form (conditioned on replacing the summary language on the petition) by unanimous votes.

The vote authorizes optional, administrative approval of form and summary language and does not itself decide the substance or legality of the amendment. If proponents move forward to circulation, local election officials and the Secretary of State will face implementation decisions about how to flag eligibility in the Qualified Voter File, how notices will be mailed and timed, and how provisional ballots will be handled and cured.