Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
MICHIGAN VOTING RIGHTS ACT
http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
Senate Bill 401 (S-3) as reported from House committee Analysis available at
Sponsor: Sen. Darrin Camilleri http://www.legislature.mi.gov
Senate Bill 402 (H-2) as reported from House committee
Sponsor: Sen. Jeremy Moss
Senate Bill 403 (H-1) as reported Senate Bill 404 (S-2) as reported
Sponsor: Sen. Stephanie Chang Sponsor: Sen. Erika Geiss
House Committee: Elections
Senate Committee: Elections and Ethics
Complete to 12-7-24
BRIEF SUMMARY:
Together, Senate Bills 401 to 404 would create the Michigan Voting Rights Act. Senate Bills
401, 402, and 403 would create three new acts related to voting and elections in Michigan,
while Senate Bill 404 would amend the Michigan Election Law.
Senate Bill 401 would create the State Voting Rights Act, which would prohibit disparities in
voter participation and impairments of the rights of racial and language minority groups to
elect candidates of their choice. Additionally, the act would establish remedies and penalties—
including local plans for resolution, court action, and judicial preapproval of local election
policies—for violations, and similarly establish remedies—including court-appointed monitors
of local elections—for violations of disabled individuals’ voting rights.
Senate Bill 402 would create the Voting and Elections Database and Institute Act, which would
require the secretary of state (SOS) to enter into an agreement with Michigan universities to
create a database and institute that would collect election information and publish related
records provided by the SOS and local governments.
Senate Bill 403 would create the Language Assistance for Elections Act, which would require
certain local governments to provide election materials in non–English languages and establish
a local remedy process for violations and grounds for court action.
Senate Bill 404 would amend the Michigan Election Law to require local governments and the
SOS to provide notice of certain election-related decisions and other voting information,
expand access to voting assistance for disabled voters and individuals seeking translation
services, and allow individuals to provide food and other items to voters in line at a polling
place or an early voting site.
Senate Bill 401 is tie-barred to the other three bills. Senate Bills 402 and 404 are tie-barred to
SBs 401 and 403. Senate Bill 403 is tie-barred to SBs 401 and 402. A bill cannot take effect
unless every bill it is tie-barred to is also enacted.
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 39
DETAILED SUMMARY:
Senate Bill 401 would create a new act, the State Voting Rights Act. As further described
below, the act would do all of the following:
• Prohibit state and local government officials from taking actions that would create a
disparity in voter participation or impair the right of certain protected classes to elect
candidates of their choice.
• Prohibit local governments from employing methods of election that dilute the voting
power of members of protected classes.
• Provide avenues for local resolution of a violation.
• Prescribe available court-ordered remedies, including the preapproval of any local
voting or election policy.
• Establish avenues for local resolution and court-ordered remedies for violations of laws
related to the rights of disabled voters, including the appointment of monitors to ensure
a local government’s compliance with those rights.
Government official would mean any individual who is elected or appointed to a local
or state office in Michigan or who is authorized to act in an official capacity on behalf
of the state or a local government.
Protected class would mean individuals who are members of a racial, color, or
language minority group, or multiple racial, color, or language minority groups. The
term would include individuals who are members of a racial, color, or language
minority group that has been subject to protection under a consent decree ordered by a
federal court in Michigan in a suit alleging a violation of section 2 of the federal Voting
Rights Act 1 and individuals who are members of a minimum reporting category that
has ever been officially recognized by the United States Census Bureau.
Language minority group would mean, as defined in section 203 of the federal Voting
Rights Act (codified at section 10503 of Title 52 of the United States Code), persons
who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives, or of Spanish heritage.
Local government would mean a county, city, township, village, public school (as
defined in the Revised School Code), public community college, district library, or any
other political subdivision of Michigan, authority, or other public body corporate that
has an elected governing body.
Voter protections
The bill would declare that all statutes, rules and regulations, local laws, and ordinances related
to the right to vote, including the State Voting Rights Act itself, must be liberally construed in
favor of the following:
• Protecting the right to cast a ballot and make that ballot effective.
• Ensuring that qualified registered electors and those who seek to be admitted as
registered electors to vote in an election are not impaired in voting or voter registration.
1
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits voting practices and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race,
color, or membership in a language minority group (see Background, below).
House Fiscal Agency SBs 401 to 404 as reported Page 2 of 39
 • Ensuring that each registered elector is not impaired in voting, including having their
vote counted.
• Making the fundamental right to vote more accessible to qualified electors.
• Ensuring that protected class members have equitable access to opportunities to be
admitted as electors and vote and have equitable opportunities to elect candidates of
their choice.
For purposes of the act, vote (or voting) would include any action necessary to cast a
ballot and make that ballot count in any election, such as registering as an elector,
applying for an absent voter (AV) ballot, or taking any other action required by law as
a prerequisite to casting a ballot and having that ballot counted, canvassed, certified,
and included in the appropriate totals of votes cast in an election.
Disparities and impairments
Local governments, state agencies, and state and local officials would be prohibited from
taking or failing to take any action that does, will, or is intended to result in either of the
following: 2
• A disparity between a protected class and other members of the electorate in voter
participation, access to voting opportunities, or the equal opportunity or ability to
participate in the political process.
• Based on the totality of the circumstances, an impairment in the equal opportunity or
ability of members of a protected class to participate in the political process and
nominate or elect candidates of their choice.
Disparity would mean any statistically significant variance that is supported by
validated methodologies.
The following circumstances could constitute an impairment:
• A local government closing, moving, or consolidating a precinct or clerk’s
office in a manner that impairs protected class members’ right to vote or results
in a disparity in geographic access between a protected class and other voters,
unless the changes are necessary to significantly further a compelling
governmental interest and no alternative would result in a smaller impairment
or disparity.
• A local government closing, moving, or consolidating a polling place, early
voting site, or absentee ballot drop box in a manner that impairs protected class
members’ right to vote or results in a disparity in geographic access between a
protected class and other voters, unless the changes are necessary to
significantly further a compelling governmental interest and no alternative
would result in a smaller impairment or disparity.
• A local government changing the time or date of an election in a manner that
impairs protected class members’ right to vote, including making the change
without providing proper notice in accordance with current law or the
provisions of SB 404.
• A local government failing to use voting or election materials in non–English
languages that are provided by the SOS, as would be required by SB 403.
2
This provision would not apply to the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission.
House Fiscal Agency SBs 401 to 404 as reported Page 3 of 39
 • Implementing a reorganization of local government that alters which electors
are eligible to vote in elections for that local government (such as an
annexation, incorporation, dissolution, consolidation, or division), if the
reorganization is intended to impair or diminish the equal opportunity or ability
of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of their choice or,
based on the totality of the circumstances, results in such an impairment or
diminishment.
Covered actions would include imposing qualifications for voter eligibility or other
prerequisites to voting; imposing ordinances, regulations, or laws regarding the administration
of elections; or imposing other standards, practices, procedures, or policies.
Racially polarized voting and prohibited methods of election
Local governments also would be prohibited from employing or imposing any method of
election that has the effect of impairing the equal opportunity or ability of protected class
members to nominate or elect candidates of their choice by diluting their vote. 3 A local
government would be in violation of this provision if both of the following occur:
• Elections in the local government exhibit racially polarized voting and the candidates
or electoral choices preferred by a protected class would usually be defeated, or
protected class members’ equal opportunity or ability to nominate or elect candidates
of their choice is, based on the totality of the circumstances, impaired.
• A court could order one or more changes to the method of election that would likely
mitigate the impairment. 4
Racially polarized voting would mean voting in which the candidate or electoral choice
preferred by a protected class diverges from the candidate or electoral choice preferred
by other electors.
In determining whether elections in a local government exhibit racially polarized voting, a
court should adhere to the following guidelines:
• Statistical evidence using validated methodologies would be more probative than
nonstatistical evidence, but nonstatistical evidence could be afforded probative value. 5
• Statistical evidence based on election results and inferences about racially polarized
voting from those election results would be more probative than statistical evidence
based on survey data, but statistical evidence based on survey data could be afforded
probative value.
• For claims brought on behalf of a protected class consisting of multiple racial, color,
or language minority groups that are similarly situated because they are politically
cohesive in that local government, members of those groups should be combined to
determine whether voting by those protected class members is polarized from other
electors. It would not be necessary to demonstrate that voting by members of each
minority group is separately polarized from other electors, although empirical evidence
3
This provision would not apply to the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission.
4
If a change to a method of election is a proposed district-based plan that provides protected class members with one
or more reasonably configured districts in which they would have an equal opportunity or ability to nominate or elect
candidates of their choice, it would not be necessary to show that protected class members constitute a majority of the
total population, voting age population, voting eligible population, or registered voter population in any precinct.
5
Probative means tending to prove or establish proof of something. See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probative.
House Fiscal Agency SBs 401 to 404 as reported Page 4 of 39
 could be introduced to show that members of a protected class or multiple protected
classes do not vote in a politically cohesive manner.
• Evidence concerning the causes of or reasons for racially polarized voting would be
irrelevant to the determination of whether racially polarized voting occurs or whether
candidates or electoral choices preferred by a protected class would usually be
defeated.
• Evidence concerning alternate explanations for racially polarized voting patterns or
election outcomes, including partisan explanations, should not be considered, but
evidence concerning those factors could be introduced in considering appropriate
remedies or punitive damages.
• Evidence concerning whether a protected class is geographically compact or
concentrated or concerning projected changes in population or demographics should
not be considered in determining liability but could be considered when determining a
remedy for a violation.
Local remedy process, complaints, and court actions
Any individual aggrieved by an alleged violation and any entity whose membership includes
individuals aggrieved by the alleged violation, whose mission would be frustrated by a
violation, or that would expend resources to fulfill its mission due to a violation could be a
prospective plaintiff in an action against a local government.
However, before commencing the action, a prospective plaintiff would generally have to notify
the clerk and chief administrative officer of the local government by sending a letter by
certified mail that asserts that the local government may be in violation of the act, explains
each allegation in detail, and proposes a remedy for each violation. (As described below,
certain circumstances would allow a prospective plaintiff to file an action without sending a
notification letter.)
Within 30 days after receiving the letter, the clerk and the chief administrative officer or chief
executive of the local government, along with their legal counsel or other individuals the local
government wishes to have attend, could meet with the prospective plaintiff or their
representatives to prepare and agree on a written plan to address the alleged violations. If the
local government does not meet with the prospective plaintiff or their representatives, the
prospective plaintiff could file a complaint with the SOS or commence a court action as
described below. If the local government agrees to the meeting, the prospective plaintiff or
their representatives would have to participate.
A plan to address the alleged violations would have to comply with all of the following:
• Be approved by a resolution of the local government’s governing body.
• Identify each alleged violation.
• Identify a specific remedy for each alleged violation or state that the parties agree that
there is no appropriate remedy for one or more of the alleged violations.
• Affirm the local government’s intent to enact and implement the remedy.
• Establish specific measures that the local government must take to facilitate any needed
approvals to implement each remedy.
• Provide a schedule for the necessary approvals and the implementation of each remedy
that provides enough time for all steps needed to obtain authorization for the remedy.
House Fiscal Agency