Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Legislation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board discusses possible legislation to register for‑profit signature‑gathering firms

Michigan State Board of Canvassers · December 16, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Members discussed pursuing legislation to require for‑profit circulator companies that hire paid gatherers to register with the state and maintain personnel profiles. Staff said the Department of State can provide technical support; members expressed mixed views and asked for time to consider constitutional implications.

Board members discussed whether the board should pursue legislation to require registration and employee verification for for‑profit companies that deploy paid signature gatherers in Michigan.

Chair Hausman described meetings with House legislators and said staff heard interest in drafting legislation that would require companies that hire signature gatherers to register with the state and maintain profiles of employees who gather signatures. Director Bridal explained the previous legislative approach used in 2023 — staff draft, board transmits a proposal, and the Department of State can provide technical support or present a draft to lawmakers.

Board members raised First Amendment and constitutional concerns. One member cautioned that requiring registration of individuals engaged in circulator speech could prompt legal challenges; staff and counsel said case law must be considered and recommended developing a draft before seeking a formal board vote to transmit legislative language. Staff suggested surveying other states that have addressed circulator regulation as a starting point.

No formal motion was taken. Members asked staff and legal counsel to gather information and consider drafting options for the board to review at a future meeting. Several members said they wanted time to 'chew on' the proposal before deciding whether to ask staff to pursue a legislative draft.