Laws governing the initiative process in Michigan

Laws and procedures

Laws governing ballot measures
State
• Laws governing state initiative processes
• Laws governing state recall processes
• Changes to ballot measure law in 2024
• Difficulty analysis of changes to laws governing ballot measures
Local
• Laws governing local ballot measures
Learn about Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker.
2024 » « 2022

Citizens of Michigan may initiate legislation as either an indirectly initiated state statute or a directly initiated constitutional amendment. For statutes, if the petition receives enough valid signatures, then the state legislature has 40 days to adopt or reject the proposal. If the legislature rejects the law, then the measure is placed on the next general election ballot. For amendments, if the petition contains sufficient signatures, then the measure is placed directly on the next general election ballot. In addition, residents have the power to repeal legislation via veto referendum. The Michigan State Legislature can also place measures on the ballot as legislatively referred constitutional amendments.

Crafting an initiative

Of the 24 states that allow citizens to initiate legislation through the petition process, several states have adopted restrictions and regulations that limit the allowable scope and content of initiated proposals. These regulations may include laws that mandate that initiatives address only one topic, restrict the range of acceptable topics for proposed laws, prohibit unfunded mandates and establish guidelines for adjudicating contradictory measures.

Single-subject rule

See also: Single-subject rule

Michigan does not have a single-subject rule for ballot initiatives.

The courts have interpreted the state constitution as making a distinction between constitutional amendments and constitutional revisions. Both the state legislature, through the referral process, and citizens, through the initiative process, can propose constitutional amendments. However, a constitutional convention is needed to propose a general revision to the Michigan Constitution.

In 2008, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that a ballot initiative designed to make several changes to the state legislative and judicial systems was a general revision, not an amendment, and thus could not appear on the ballot. The court's ruling stated, "It proposes fundamentally to redesign the very framework of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, which emerged after an historic convention and subsequent voter approval." In 2018, the Michigan Supreme Court heard a case in which plaintiffs argued that a ballot initiative to create an independent redistricting committee was a general revision, rather than an amendment. The state Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ballot initiative, with the four-justice majority writing that "a voter-initiated amendment under Const 1963, art 12, § 2 is permissible if it does not significantly alter or abolish the form or structure of our government, making it tantamount to creating a new constitution."

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 and Article XII, Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4

Subject restrictions

See also: Subject restrictions (ballot measures)

In Michigan, citizens can initiate statutes and constitutional amendments that the legislature could also enact under the Michigan Constitution.

Citizens cannot initiate referendums against bills that included appropriations for state institutions or state funds.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9

Veto referendums on emergency legislation

In Michigan, veto referendums can be used on emergency legislation. Signatures are due 90 days following the final adjournment of the legislative session at which the law was passed.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9

Competing initiatives

See also: Superseding initiative; "Poison pills"; List of Michigan ballot measures

In Michigan, when two ballot measures approved at the same election are in conflict, the measure with the most affirmative votes supersedes the other.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 and Article XII, Section 2

Starting a petition

Each initiative and referendum state employs a different procedure for filing petition applications. Some states require preliminary signatures while others do not. In addition, several states review each proposed statute, verifying that the law conforms to the style and conventions of state law and recommending alterations to initiative proponents. Some of these states also review the law for more substantive considerations of content and consistency. Also, many states conduct a review of the ballot title and summary, and several states employ a fiscal review process which analyzes proposed laws to determine their impact on state finances.

Applying to petition

See also: Approved for circulation

In Michigan, proponents of an initiative are required to file their measure with the secretary of state before collecting signatures.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 ; Article XII, Section 2; and MCL 168.483a

Proposal review/approval

See also: Approved for circulation

In Michigan, petitions for ballot initiatives need to follow a specific format. Proponents have the option of submitting a draft petition to the Board of State Canvassers for approval or rejection based on formatting technicalities. According to the secretary of state's office, "While Michigan election law does not require the pre-approval of the petition form, such approval greatly reduces the risk that signatures collected on the form will be ruled invalid due to formatting defects."

In 2018, House Bill 6959 added the option of having the Board of State Canvassers review a petition summary to determine if it is misleading or deceptive.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 ; Article XII, Section 2 and MCL Chapter 168.482b

Petition format

Petitions for citizen-initiated measures need to follow a specific format. The instructions for the format are as follows:

(1) Each petition under this section must be 8-1/2 inches by 14 inches in size. (2) If the measure to be submitted proposes a constitutional amendment, initiation of legislation, or referendum of legislation, the heading of each part of the petition must be prepared in the following form and printed in capital letters in 14-point boldfaced type: INITIATIVE PETITION AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OR INITIATION OF LEGISLATION OR REFERENDUM OF LEGISLATION PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION (3) The full text of the amendment so proposed shall follow and be printed in 8-point type. If the proposal would alter or abrogate an existing provision of the constitution, the petition shall so state and the provisions to be altered or abrogated shall be inserted, preceded by the words: "Provisions of existing constitution altered or abrogated by the proposal if adopted." (4) The following statement must appear beneath the petition heading: “We, the undersigned qualified and registered electors, residents in the ____________________________ congressional district in the state of Michigan, respectively petition for (amendment to constitution) (initiation of legislation) (referendum of legislation) (other appropriate description).” (5) The following warning must be printed in 12-point type immediately above the place for signatures, on each part of the petition: WARNING A person who knowingly signs this petition more than once, signs a name other than his or her own, signs when not a qualified and registered elector, or sets opposite his or her signature on a petition, a date other than the actual date the signature was affixed, is violating the provisions of the Michigan election law. (6) Subject to subsections (7) and (8), the remainder of the petition form must be as provided following the warning to electors signing the petition in section 544c(1). In addition, the petition must comply with the requirements of section 544c(2). (7) Each petition under this section must provide at the top of the page check boxes and statements printed in 12-point type to clearly indicate whether the circulator of the petition is a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer signature gatherer. (8) Each petition under this section must clearly indicate below the statement required under subsection (7) and be printed in 12-point type that if the petition circulator does not comply with all of the requirements of this act for petition circulators, any signature obtained by that petition circulator on that petition is invalid and will not be counted.

See law: MCL Chapter 168.482

Fiscal review

See also: Fiscal impact statement

Michigan does not conduct a fiscal review of ballot measures.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 ; Article XII, Section 2 and MCL Chapter 168

Collecting signatures

Each initiative and referendum state employs a unique method of calculating the state's signature requirements. Some states mandate a certain fraction of registered voters while others base their calculation on those who actually voted in a preceding election. In addition, many states employ a distribution requirement, dictating where in the state these signatures must be collected. Beyond these overarching requirements, many states regulate the manner in which signatures may be collected and the timeline for collecting them.

Number required

See also: Michigan signature requirements

In Michigan, the number of signatures needed to place a measure on the ballot is based on the total number of votes cast for the governor in the preceding election.

The following are the requirements for the types of citizen-initiated measures in Michigan:

• initiated constitutional amendment (ICA): 10 percent of the votes cast for governor
• initiated state statute (ISS): 8 percent of the votes cast for governor
• veto referendum (VR): 5 percent of the votes cast for governor

The chart below shows election years and the signature requirement for initiatives designed to appear on the ballot in that year, with gubernatorial years bolded.

Year	Amendment	Statute	Referendum
2024	446,198	356,958	223,099
2022	425,059	340,047	212,529
2020	425,059	340,047	212,529
2018	315,654	252,523	157,827
2016	315,654	252,523	157,827
2014	322,609	258,087	161,304
2012	322,609	258,087	161,304
2010	380,126	304,101	190,063
2008	380,126	304,101	190,063
2006	317,757	254,206	158,879
2004	317,757	254,206	158,879
2002	302,711	242,169	151,356
2000	302,711	242,169	151,356
1998	308,908	247,127	154,454
1996	308,908	247,127	154,454
1994	256,457	205,166	128,229
1992	256,457	205,166	128,229
1990	239,657	191,726	119,829
1988	239,657	191,726	119,829
1986	304,001	243,201	152,001
1984	304,001	243,201	152,001
1982	286,722	229,377	143,361
1980	286,722	229,377	143,361
1978	265,702	212,562	132,851
1976	265,702	212,562	132,851

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 & Article XII, Section 2

Distribution requirements

See also: Distribution requirements

The Michigan State Legislature approved and Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed Michigan House Bill 6595 on December 28, 2018. HB 6595 was designed to create a distribution requirement for initiative signature petitions in Michigan limiting the number of signatures collected in any one congressional district to 15 percent of the total required. This would effectively require valid signatures from a minimum of seven different congressional districts for a successful initiative petition. This bill, however, was overturned by a court ruling.

See also: Changes in 2019: Michigan's distribution requirement

On May 22, 2019, Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) released an opinion stating that certain provisions of HB 6595, including the distribution requirement, were unconstitutional. The opinion is binding on state officials unless it is overturned by a court ruling. In response to Nessel's opinion, Rep. Jim Lower (R), who sponsored HB 6595, said, “I don’t think anybody’s surprised. I disagree with the conclusions she has come to, and I think it will be litigated.”

Lawsuits were filed against Nessel's official opinion by the Michigan House and Senate and the Michigan League of Women Voters. In September 2019, the court upheld Nessel's ruling. Rep. Lower appealed the decision.

On January 27, 2020, the Michigan Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling, decided that the state constitution's signature requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures are self-executing. The Michigan State Legislature, according to the court, cannot "impose additional obligations on a self-executing constitutional provision." The Court of Appeals ruled that the distribution requirement was an "unreasonable restraint on the constitutional right of the people to initiate laws."

On January 24, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the distribution requirement was unconstitutional. Justice Megan Cavanagh said, "It would run directly contrary to the clear intention that nothing more than a minimum number of signatures from the statewide population is necessary to propose changes to Michigan’s laws." The court also overturned a requirement that paid signature gatherers register with the state but said requiring paid circulators to identify that they are paid on their petitions forms is constitutional.

See also: Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's 2019 opinion invalidating parts of HB 6595

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9, Article XII, Section 2 and Public Act 608-18

Restrictions on circulators

Circulator requirements

See also: Petition circulator

In Michigan, a person who collects signatures, known as a circulator, must sign a statement that he or she witnessed each act of signing the petition. Circulators are themselves allowed to sign the petition being circulated.

Once circulation is completed, the signatures are submitted to the secretary of state.

See law: Michigan Statutes and Codes, Sec. 168.544c and Michigan Statutes and Codes, Sec. 168-471

Pay-per-signature

See also: Pay-per-signature

Michigan allows paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 ; Article XII, Section 2 & Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 168 (Act 116)

Out-of-state circulators

See also: Residency requirements for petition circulators

Michigan does not require circulators to be residents of the state. Circulators who are not residents of the state must indicate this on their circulator certificate.

See law: Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 168, Section 544c

Badge requirements

See also: Badge requirements

In 2018, the state legislature passed and the governor signed House Bill 6595 requiring petitions to disclose whether a circulator is paid or volunteer. Circulators who are paid were also required to sign an affidavit stating that he or she is a paid to gather signatures, but it was blocked from enforcement by an attorney general opinion. Signatures collected by paid circulators that did not sign an affidavit are considered invalid under the bill, and, if a circulator makes a false statement about his or her status as a paid circulator, that person would be charged with a misdemeanor. Prior to 2018, Michigan law did not require paid and volunteer circulators to be identified as such on badges or petitions.

In May 2019, Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) issued an opinion stating that the provisions of HB 6595 requiring petitioners to identify their paid or volunteer status were unconstitutional. The AG opinion is binding on state official unless it is overturned by a court ruling.

Circulators also need to provide their address on their certificate to circulate. Signatures collected by a circulator who provided a false address are considered invalid.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 ; Article XII, Section 2 and Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 168 (Act 116)

Electronic signatures

See also: Electronic petition signatures

Since electronic signatures are an emerging technology, the constitutionality of bans on e-signatures and the legality of e-signatures in states without bans is largely untested. Michigan law does mandate that signatures be collected in person.

See law: Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 168, Section 544c

Deadlines for collection

See also: Petition drive deadlines; Initiative petition circulation periods

In Michigan, petitioners have 180 days to collect the required signatures for an initiated statute or an initiated constitutional amendment. Signatures older than 180 days at the time of filing are considered invalid. In addition, any signatures collected before a November election where a governor is elected, cannot be submitted after that election. Amendment petitions must be filed 120 days prior to the election. Petitions for statutes must be filed 160 days prior to the election, allowing the legislators 40 days to pass the proposed law.

Signatures for veto referendums are due 90 days following the final adjournment of the legislative session at which the targeted bill was passed.

Prior to 2016, signatures older than 180 days were considered "stale and void," but petitioners could go through a process to prove that signatures older than 180 days were valid. The process had proved difficult for many petitioners and involved working with local clerks and election officials. In 2016, two groups of petitioners asked the elections board to change the rules for this verification process to make it easier by allowing the use of the state's electronic voter registration database. In the 2016 legislative session, however, state legislators removed the possibility of proving signatures older than 180 days valid.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9; Article XII, Section 2; Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 168, Section 471 and Section 473b

Getting on the ballot

Once signatures have been collected, state officials must verify that requirements are met and that fraudulent signatures are excluded. States generally employ a random sample process or a full verification of signatures. After verification, the issue must be prepared for the ballot. This often involves preparing a fiscal review and ballot summary.

Signature verification

See also: Signature certification

In Michigan, signatures are filed with the secretary of state and verified by the bureau of elections using a random sample method of verification. The Board of State Canvassers then votes on whether or not to certify the signatures. An action by the Board of State Canvassers requires a vote of three of four members.

See law: Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 168, Section 475; Section 476; Section 477 and Section 478

Ballot title and summary

See also: Ballot title

In Michigan, each ballot measure receives a generic title, consisting of the last two digits of the year and a number designating the order in which it was filed to appear on the ballot (e.g. Proposal 12-1, Proposal 12-2, Proposal 12-3...). Numbers must be assigned to ballot measures not less than 60 days before the election.

In addition, each measure receives a summary of 100 words or less, objectively describing the purpose of the measure. This summary is drafted by the Director of Elections and approved by the Board of State Canvassers.

See law: Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 168, Section 474 and Section 474a

The election and beyond

Ballot measures face additional challenges beyond qualifying for the ballot and receiving a majority of the vote. Several states require ballot measures to get more than a simple majority. While some states mandate a three-fifths supermajority, other states set the margin differently. In addition, ballot measures may face legal challenges or modifications by legislators. If a ballot measure does fail, some states limit how soon that initiative can be re-attempted.

Supermajority requirements

See also: Supermajority requirements

Michigan ballot measures do not require a supermajority for approval. This includes initiated statutes, initiated amendments, and referendums. A simple majority of all votes cast on the measure is required for approval.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 and Article XII, Section 2

Effective date

Approved statutes take effect 10 days after the official declaration of election results. Approved amendments take effect 45 days after the election date.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 and Article XII, Section 2

Litigation

See also: Ballot measure lawsuit news

A person who believes that they have been aggrieved by a decision of the Board of State Canvassers may challenge the decision in the Michigan Supreme Court. The person must file the legal challenge within 7 business days after the Board certifies signatures or 60 days before the election, whichever occurs first.

See law: Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 168, Section 479

Legislative alteration

See also: Legislative alteration

The Michigan State Legislature may only change or repeal initiated statutes by a three-fourths supermajority vote in each house. In the case of amendments, the Legislature must pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority and place it on the ballot -- the same process that is required for ordinary legislatively referred constitutional amendments.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 and Article XII, Section 2

Re-attempting an initiative

Michigan does not limit how soon an initiative can be re-attempted.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 and Article XII, Section 2

Funding an initiative campaign

Main article: Campaign finance requirements for Michigan ballot measures

Some of the notable features of Michigan's campaign finance laws are:

• A ban on all campaign contributions from people that have a ownership stake in a casino/gambling establishment.
• A requirement that individuals who raise or spend $500 to support or defeat a referendum to register with the Michigan secretary of state.
• A provision requiring all campaigns to use checks for all expenditures over $50.
• No prohibition of contributions from corporations and labor unions to support or oppose a referendum.

State initiative law

The laws governing the initiative process are outlined in the Michigan Constitution and Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL).

Constitution: Section 9 of Article II and Section 2 of Article XII of the Michigan Constitution provide for the initiative and referendum process in Michigan.

Statute: Section 168 of Michigan Election Code provides additional rules for the initiative and referendum process in Michigan.

External links

• Michigan Department of State, "Initiative and Referendum Petitions," June 2019

Changes in the law

The following laws have been proposed that modify ballot measure law in Michigan. If a box is empty for any given year, it means Ballotpedia did not track any ballot measure or recall-related laws in that year.

Proposed changes by year

2022

See also: Changes in 2022 to laws governing ballot measures

House Bill 5252: The legislature required the Michigan secretary of state to post on the department's website a summary of a ballot measure petition and the date the petition was filed. League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State See also: Michigan Supreme Court, League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State, January 24, 2022 On January 24, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the state's signature distribution requirement was unconstitutional. Justice Megan Cavanagh said, "It would run directly contrary to the clear intention that nothing more than a minimum number of signatures from the statewide population is necessary to propose changes to Michigan’s laws." The court also overturned a requirement that paid signature gatherers register with the state. In 2018, the Michigan State Legislature passed a bill enacting a distribution requirement for citizen initiatives in Michigan. The legislation—House Bill 6595—also enacted certain requirements for petition circulators. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) released an opinion stating that the requirement was unconstitutional in May 2019. In June 2019, the Michigan House and Senate filed lawsuits against Nessel. The League of Women Voters in Michigan also filed a lawsuit against provisions of HB 6595. In September 2019, Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens decided that the House and Senate lacked standing to challenge Nessel. The ruling was appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals. On January 27, 2020, the Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that the state constitution's signature requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures are self-executing. The Legislature, according to the court, cannot "impose additional obligations on a self-executing constitutional provision." The Court of Appeals ruled that the distribution requirement was an "unreasonable restraint on the constitutional right of the people to initiate laws." The ruling also found several other petition circulator requirements in HB 6595 unconstitutional. The decision was appealed to the state Supreme Court. Mothering Justice et al. v. Nessel See also: Michigan Court of Appeals, Mothering Justice et al. v. Nessel, January 26, 2023 On January 26, 2023, a three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a legislative action, referred to as adopt-and-amend, in which the Legislature passes an indirect initiated state statute and then amends the initiative, as constitutional. Judge Christopher Murray said, "The constitutional convention record squarely supports the conclusion that there was no intention to place a temporal limit on when the Legislature could amend initiated laws enacted by the Legislature." Attorney General Dana Nessel (D), as well as the campaigns behind two affected initiatives, appealed the ruling the Michigan Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case on June 21, 2023. On December 7, 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the adopt-and-amend legislative action. In 2018, two indirect initiated state statutes — one to increase the minimum wage, and the other to require paid sick leave — received enough signatures to appear on the ballot in Michigan. These proposed ballot measures were indirect initiated state statutes. In Michigan, citizen-initiated statutes that receive enough valid signatures are sent to the Legislature, which then has 40 days to pass the initiative into law. Otherwise, the initiative appears on the next general election ballot. On September 5, 2018, the House and Senate voted to pass the indirect initiatives, enacting them into law. On December 4, 2018, the Legislature voted to amend the enacted initiatives, and Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed the bills on December 13. Michigan One Fair Wage and Michigan Time to Care — the campaigns behind the two initiatives — sued the state of Michigan. Plaintiffs described the legislative amendments as an adopt-and-amend tactic that violated Section 9 of Article 2 of the Michigan Constitution. Defendants argued that nothing prohibited the Legislature from amending enacted indirect initiatives. On July 19, 2022, Court of Claims Judge Douglas Shapiro ruled against the state, holding that the legislature's amendments to the enacted initiatives were unconstitutional. Judge Shapiro wrote, "Both the letter and spirit of Article 2, § 9 support the conclusion that the Legislature has only three options to address voter-initiated legislation within the same legislative session—adopt it, reject it, or propose an alternative. Once the Legislature adopted the Earned Sick Time Act and the Improved Workforce Opportunity Act, it could not amend the laws within the same legislative session. To hold otherwise would effectively thwart the power of the People to initiate laws and then vote on those same laws—a power expressly reserved to the people in the Michigan Constitution." Judge Shapiro stayed the court's order until February 19, 2023. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's ruling on January 26, 2023.

2021

See also: Changes in 2021 to laws governing ballot measures

Senate Bill 280 (Vetoed): The legislation would have required initiative petition signatures to be submitted 200 days, rather than 160 days, before the targeted election and required the board of state canvassers to make a determination regarding the sufficiency of the petition within 100 days.

2020

See also: Changes in 2020 to laws governing ballot measures

League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State See also: Michigan Supreme Court, League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State, January 24, 2022 On January 24, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the state's signature distribution requirement was unconstitutional. Justice Megan Cavanagh said, "It would run directly contrary to the clear intention that nothing more than a minimum number of signatures from the statewide population is necessary to propose changes to Michigan’s laws." The court also overturned a requirement that paid signature gatherers register with the state. In 2018, the Michigan State Legislature passed a bill enacting a distribution requirement for citizen initiatives in Michigan. The legislation—House Bill 6595—also enacted certain requirements for petition circulators. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) released an opinion stating that the requirement was unconstitutional in May 2019. In June 2019, the Michigan House and Senate filed lawsuits against Nessel. The League of Women Voters in Michigan also filed a lawsuit against provisions of HB 6595. In September 2019, Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens decided that the House and Senate lacked standing to challenge Nessel. The ruling was appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals. On January 27, 2020, the Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that the state constitution's signature requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures are self-executing. The Legislature, according to the court, cannot "impose additional obligations on a self-executing constitutional provision." The Court of Appeals ruled that the distribution requirement was an "unreasonable restraint on the constitutional right of the people to initiate laws." The ruling also found several other petition circulator requirements in HB 6595 unconstitutional. The decision was appealed to the state Supreme Court.

2019

See also: Changes in 2019 to laws governing ballot measures

League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State See also: Michigan Supreme Court, League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State, January 24, 2022 On January 24, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the state's signature distribution requirement was unconstitutional. Justice Megan Cavanagh said, "It would run directly contrary to the clear intention that nothing more than a minimum number of signatures from the statewide population is necessary to propose changes to Michigan’s laws." The court also overturned a requirement that paid signature gatherers register with the state. In 2018, the Michigan State Legislature passed a bill enacting a distribution requirement for citizen initiatives in Michigan. The legislation—House Bill 6595—also enacted certain requirements for petition circulators. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) released an opinion stating that the requirement was unconstitutional in May 2019. In June 2019, the Michigan House and Senate filed lawsuits against Nessel. The League of Women Voters in Michigan also filed a lawsuit against provisions of HB 6595. In September 2019, Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens decided that the House and Senate lacked standing to challenge Nessel. The ruling was appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals. On January 27, 2020, the Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that the state constitution's signature requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures are self-executing. The Legislature, according to the court, cannot "impose additional obligations on a self-executing constitutional provision." The Court of Appeals ruled that the distribution requirement was an "unreasonable restraint on the constitutional right of the people to initiate laws." The ruling also found several other petition circulator requirements in HB 6595 unconstitutional. The decision was appealed to the state Supreme Court.

2018

See also: Changes in 2018 to laws governing ballot measures

House Bill 6107: The legislation criminalized making a false signature on a recall, initiative, or referendum petition as a misdemeanor. House Bill 6595: The legislation made changes to laws governing the initiative process in Michigan, including: creating a distribution requirement requiring that no more than 15 percent of required signatures come from a given congressional district; requiring the Board of State Canvassers to officially determine whether an initiative petition is sufficient or insufficient no later than 100 days prior to the election; requiring initiative petitions to include a summary of the proposal that is no longer than 100 words; providing that petitions must say whether the circulator is a paid or volunteer signature gatherer; and requiring paid circulators to submit a signed affidavit, among other changes. Senate Bill 809: The legislation made several changes to election policies in Michigan, including requiring that a special election for a ballot measure must occur at a regular election date. The legislation also provided that a person collecting signatures for a recall petition needs to be at least 18 years old and a U.S. citizen, rather than a registered voter in the electoral district of the official being recalled, among other changes.

2017

See also: Changes in 2017 to laws governing ballot measures

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Michigan Michigan House Bill 4635 was designed to amend state law to make it a misdemeanor for a circulator of a petition for initiative, referendum, constitutional amendment, or recall to make "a false statement or misrepresentation concerning the contents, purport, or effect of" the petition. Michigan Senate Bill 0395 was designed to amend state law to make it a misdemeanor for a circulator of a petition for initiative, referendum, constitutional amendment, or recall to make "a false statement or misrepresentation concerning the contents, purport, or effect of" the petition. Michigan House Bill 5211 was designed to amend state law find an organization guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $10,000 fine for employing an individual who, while circulating a petition for initiative, referendum, constitutional amendment, or recall, was found to have made "a false statement or misrepresentation concerning the contents, purport, or effect of" the petition. Michigan House Bill 5214 was designed to amend Michigan law to state that if the signature of the same voter appears on a petition for recall, constitutional amendment, initiative, or referendum more than once, only the first signature would be counted. Michigan House Bill 5208 was designed to establish a process by which a voter may remove his or her signature from a referendum, initiative, constitutional amendment, or recall petition. Michigan House Bill 5209 was designed to prohibit organizations from employing individuals who have been convicted of elections crimes as petition signature gatherers for recall, referendum, initivative, or constitutional amendment. Michigan House Bill 5210 was designed to prohibit organizations employing recall, referendum, initiative, or constitutional amendment petition signature gatherers from paying a fixed rate per signature or per signature sheet. The bill would require compensation to be set at an hourly rate. Michigan House Bill 5212 was designed to require paid petition circulators for initiatives, referendums, recalls, or constitutional amendments to wear identification badges that state they are being paid and identify the entity compensating them. Michigan House Bill 5213 was designed to require organizations employing signature gatherers to register with the secretary of state's office and to establish penalties for organizations unable to provide the office with records of its employees.

2016

See also: Changes in 2016 to laws governing ballot measures

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Michigan a Michigan Senate Bill 776: Was designed to eliminate a state elections code provision that allows initiative petitioners to prove signatures collected outside of the standard 180-day window are valid and use them to qualify initiatives for the ballot, thereby limiting the circulation window for initiatives strictly to 180 days. d Michigan Senate Bill 535: Was designed to prohibit and establish penalties for "a circulator misrepresenting the contents of a ballot question or recall petition and a circulator misrepresenting whether he or she is a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer." d Michigan Senate Joint Resolution K: This bill was designed to clarify the state's already existing provision preventing the use of the veto referendum power against appropriation bills. d Michigan House Bill 4756: Was designed to dictate that both bills and indirect initiatives approved by the legislature take effect 90 days after they are filed with the secretary of state, unless they are approved by an immediate effect vote, which requires a two-thirds (66.67%) vote of the legislature. d Michigan House Joint Resolution U: Was designed to dictate that both bills and indirect initiatives approved by the legislature take effect 90 days after they are filed with the secretary of state, unless they are approved by an immediate effect vote, which requires a two-thirds (66.67%) vote of the legislature. d Michigan Senate Bill 640: Repealing the requirement that recall petitioners be registered voters in Michigan. d Michigan House Bill 5696: The official title of the bill was "Elections; petitions; process for counting duplicate petition signatures; provide for, and eliminate penalties." d Michigan House Bill 5700: The official title was "Elections; recall; board of county election commissioners to determine if reasons in recall petition against a county officer are factual and of sufficient clarity; provide for, and modify time to notify an officer whose recall is sought of the recall petition." d Michigan House Bill 5703: The official title was "Elections; recall; provision related to recalled candidate as the nominee of the party; remove, and eliminate recall primary election."

2015

See also: Changes in 2015 to laws governing ballot measures

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Minnesota a Michigan Senate Bill 571: This law was designed to prevent the use of public funds to support or oppose ballot measures. It also contained other provisions concerning campaign finance and elections. Senate Bill 535: Was designed to prohibit and establish penalties for "a circulator misrepresenting the contents of a ballot question or recall petition and a circulator misrepresenting whether he or she is a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer." Senate Joint Resolution K: This bill was designed to clarify the state's already existing provision preventing the use of the veto referendum power against appropriation bills. House Bill 4756: Was designed to dictate that both bills and indirect initiatives approved by the legislature take effect 90 days after they are filed with the secretary of state, unless they are approved by an immediate effect vote, which requires a two-thirds (66.67%) vote of the legislature. House Joint Resolution U: Was designed to dictate that both bills and indirect initiatives approved by the legislature take effect 90 days after they are filed with the secretary of state, unless they are approved by an immediate effect vote, which requires a two-thirds (66.67%) vote of the legislature.

2014

See also: Changes in 2014 to laws governing ballot measures

The following bills were introduced in the Michigan State Legislature: d HB 4046: Prohibits circulators being paid for each petition signature collected, and requires petition circulators to wear identification badges. d HB 4883: Requires that proposals be placed on the ballot before candidate names, with local proposals first, then county, then statewide. d HJR E: Protects legislation making appropriations by reducing spending, from referendum. d HJR Q: Provides for a constitutional amendment clarifying appropriation bills subject to referendum. d SB 10: Requires the name of individual or organization providing compensation to a circulator of a ballot question petition to be printed on the front of the petition. d SJR C: Provides for a constitutional amendment that clarifies appropriations bills subject to referendum. d SJR X: Provides for a constitutional amendment that requires two-thirds majority vote of the legislature for passage of a law that is the same or similar to a law rejected by a referendum.

2013

See also: Changes in 2013 to laws governing ballot measures

The following bills were introduced in the Michigan State Legislature: HB 4046: Prohibits being paid for each petition signature collected, and require petition circulators to wear identification badges. HB 4883: Requires that proposals be placed on the ballot before candidate names, with local proposals first, then county, then statewide. HJR E: Protects legislation making appropriations by reducing spending, from referendum. HJR Q: Provides for a constitutional amendment clarifying appropriation bills subject to referendum. SB 10: Requires the name of individual or organization providing compensation to a circulator of a ballot question petition to be printed on the front of the petition. SJR C: Provides for a constitutional amendment that clarifies appropriations bills subject to referendum. SJR X: Provides for a constitutional amendment that requires two-thirds majority vote of the legislature for passage of a law that is the same or similar to a law rejected by a referendum.

2012

See also: Changes in 2012 to laws governing ballot measures

The following bills were introduced in the Michigan State Legislature: a Michigan House Bill 6060 (2012): Tightens recall laws, making it more difficult to recall elected officials. a Michigan Senate Bill 0824 (2012): Revises the Michigan Campaign Finance Act with new specifications of the secretary of state's duties, as well as, new definitions and punishments for late reporting of campaign contributions.

2011

See also: Changes in 2011 to laws governing ballot measures

The following bills were introduced in the Michigan State Legislature: Michigan Senate Bill 5063 Michigan Senate Bill 88: SB 88 would require that petitions indicate whether the circulator is paid and by whom he or she is employed. Michigan Senate Bill 629 HB 5059 HJR GG SB 823

2010

See also: Changes in 2010 to laws governing ballot measures

The following bills were introduced in the Michigan Legislature: d HB 4364: Would require the name of a petition circulator to be printed on the official petition. d HB 4560: Would make revisions to Michigan's recall law. d SB 1357: Would require campaigns for or against constitutional conventions to follow campaign disclosure laws. d SB 1358: Would set a campaign disclosure reporting schedule for constitutional convention campaigns. d SB 7: Would increase penalties on petition circulators who fraudulently obtain signatures. d SB 9: Would make revision's to Michigan's recall law. d SB 144: Would switch the campaign finance reporting deadlines for Ballot Measure Committees. d SB 394: Would increase restrictions to Michigan's recall law only allowing the law to be used for cases of malfeasance and serious corruption. d SB 413: Would increase criteria in order to accept signatures on petitions. The bill was approved by the Michigan State Senate on January 27, 2010 on a 31-6 vote. The bill awaits a vote in the Michigan House of Representatives. d SB 951/952: Would change the format of official initiative petitions including having the full ballot question on the petition and changing the size type and how many lines would be on a petition. d SB 953: Would require the Michigan Secretary of State to post on its official website the subject matter in relation to potential ballot measures. The bill was approved by the Michigan State Senate on January 27, 2010 on a 29-8 vote. The bill awaits a vote in the Michigan House of Representatives. d SB 954: Would require warning disclaimers on official initiative petitions in Michigan. The bill was approved by the Michigan State Senate on January 27, 2010 on a 30-7 vote. The bill awaits a vote in the Michigan House of Representatives. d SJR C: Would add a distribution requirement that initiative petitions must have the signature of one elector in each of the state's counties along with 42 counties having 100 or more electors signing petitions within the respective county.