Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedural Rules Petitions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Canvassers back procedural rule updates and debate petition form, oath and signature rules
Summary
The board supported proposed procedural rule amendments (including a 48‑hour submission deadline for public materials) and debated whether to enshrine oath administration, the republication requirement for constitutional amendments, random‑sampling limits, and the 180‑day signature window into rule or statute; staff said alleged forgeries will be packaged for investigators.
The Michigan Board of State Canvassers voted to support amendments to the board’s procedural rules and to authorize the Bureau of Elections to proceed through the rule‑promulgation process, while engaging in extended discussion on petition form requirements, oath administration, signature distribution and the 180‑day collection window.
Director Bridal summarized the proposal to require members of the public to submit materials at least 48 hours before the relevant board meeting and to not consider materials received after that deadline, explaining the change is intended to give both sides and staff time to review late submissions. “What you have here is a proposed first step in updating the procedural rules for the board,” he said.
Board members pressed staff about when and whether the board should require witnesses to be sworn. One member said they have historically had the reporter administer oaths rather than the chair. Staff and legal counsel said the board already has authority to administer oaths in specific petition‑hearing sections of the election law but that explicit, broad statutory authority to administer oaths is not clear. Adam, a Bureau of Elections staffer, said those powers exist in sections that govern hearings on nominating petitions and statewide initiative petitions and that clarification could be included in the rulemaking. “It does say in section 552 of election law... the board has the authority to administer oaths in those two respective sections already,” Adam said.
Members also discussed changes proposed in a legislative petition package addressing constitutional amendment petitions, specifically treating the republication requirement (reprinting altered or abrogated constitutional text on the back of petition sheets) as a form requirement handled during an 'approval as to form' step. Staff said that approach would create a safe harbor for sponsors who circulate the exact form approved by the board; board members debated the risk that printer errors or post‑approval changes could be used to later invalidate petitions. One board member summarized: if a sponsor circulates the exact approved form, they should be insulated from future form challenges; if the petition is changed after circulation, the safe harbor would be lost.
On signature verification, staff explained random sampling validates the overall sufficiency of signatures statewide but does not by itself confirm whether each congressional district met the statutory distribution requirement (100 signatures from the requisite number of districts for statewide petitions). Staff said the bureau does an initial face review to ensure a minimum of 100 facially valid signatures from the required number of congressional districts and that further, targeted checks can be done if a challenger specifies a district.
Board members also asked whether the statutory 180‑day window for valid signatures should be lengthened. Staff cautioned that increasing the window would add verification work and could increase the number of signatures submitted and complexity for processing; the board signaled it was inclined to leave the 180‑day limit unchanged for now.
Staff reported that materials related to alleged forged signatures are being packaged and will be referred to investigators — the Department of State’s Office of Investigative Services will make referrals to the Attorney General’s office as appropriate; the AG’s office may seek assistance from the state police.
Why it matters: These procedural and form rules shape how petitions are reviewed, how petitioners are protected from mechanical errors, and how allegations of forgery are investigated — all of which affect ballot access and the integrity of petition‑driven measures.
Next steps: The board authorized staff to proceed with rulemaking; staff will draft specific rule language, post notice and receive additional public comment during rulemaking; staff will also prepare materials for investigators where alleged forgery is suspected.
