MI VOTING RIGHTS ACT; ENACT S.B. 401 (S-3) - 404 (S-2):
SUMMARY AS PASSED BY THE SENATE
Senate Bill 401 (Substitute S-3 as passed by the Senate)
Senate Bills 402 and 404 (Substitute S-2 as passed by the Senate)
Senate Bill 403 (Substitute S-4 as passed by the Senate)
Sponsor: Senator Darrin Camilleri (S.B. 401)
Senator Jeremy Moss (S.B. 402)
Senator Stephanie Chang (S.B. 403)
Senator Erika Geiss (S.B. 404)
Committee: Elections and Ethics
Date Completed: 10-3-24
INTRODUCTION
Collectively, the bills would enact new, and modify existing, election law. Senate Bill 401 (S-
3) would enact the "State Voting Rights Act" (MVRA) to prohibit a local government from
imposing any law, practice, policy, or method of election that led to a disparity in electoral
participation between members of a protected class and other members of the electorate or
otherwise influence the outcome of an election. The bill would establish court proceedings
regarding a violation of the Act and prescribe a process for local governments to remedy
violations. The bill also would allow a court to retain jurisdiction over a local government that
violated the rights of voters and require that local government to seek judicial preapproval of
any voting-related policy, except under emergency circumstances. Additionally, the bill would
allow a disabled elector to bring an action in a county circuit court if the local government in
which elector resided violated a State or Federal law involving the rights of disabled electors.
Lastly, the bill would create a fund and require the Secretary of State (SOS) to reimburse
local governments and plaintiffs for specified expenses in remedying violations.
Senate Bill 402 (S-2) would require the SOS, in partnership with at least one university in the
State, to create the Michigan Voting and Elections Database and Institute to collect election
data and provide research and training on voting systems and election administration. Senate
Bill 403 (S-4) would require certain local governments to provide language assistance for
elections. Senate Bill 404 (S-2) would prescribe the process for a voter unable to enter a
polling place or early voting site to request and receive voting assistance. It also would allow
an individual to provide necessities to waiting voters, provided that the individual did not
interfere with the voting process and at the discretion of a clerk.
BRIEF FISCAL IMPACT
The bills would result in a negative fiscal impact for the Department of State (MDOS) and an
indeterminate fiscal impact for local governments. The MDOS estimates Senate Bill 401 (S-
3) would require the hiring of two additional full-time equivalents (FTEs) to approve MVRA
resolutions. Each FTE would cost an estimated $150,000 annually. Additionally, if funds
appropriated to the Michigan Voting Rights Assistance Fund were insufficient, the MDOS could
incur additional costs to reimburse prospective plaintiffs. The cost to local governments is
indeterminate and variable. Under the bills, local governments could incur costs associated
with reporting election data to the Database and Institute and hiring additional election
inspectors and monitors; however, the local government could be reimbursed from the Fund.
MCL 168.726 et al. (S.B. 404) Legislative Analyst: Abby Schneider
Fiscal Analyst: Joe Carrasco, Jr.; Michael Siracuse
Page 1 of 27 Bill Analysis @ www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa sb401-404/2324
CONTENT
Senate Bill 401 (S-3) would enact the "State Voting Rights Act" to do the following:
-- Prohibit a local government or State agency from imposing any law, practice,
policy, or method of election that would lead to a disparity in voter participation
between a protected class and other members of the electorate or that would
impair the ability of a protected class to participate in the political process.
-- Specify actions taken by a local government that would be considered violations
of the MVRA.
-- Require a prospective plaintiff to send a notification letter to the clerk and chief
administrative officer of a local government, which would have to explain in
detail and propose a remedy for each alleged violation of the MVRA, before
commencing an action.
-- Allow a prospective plaintiff to meet with representatives of the local
government to develop a plan to address the violation and prescribe the
requirements of a plan.
-- Allow a prospective plaintiff to submit a complaint concerning a local
government's alleged violation of the MVRA to the SOS.
-- Prescribe the guidelines a court could use to determine whether racially
polarized voting by protected class members in a local government occurred.
-- Prescribe the guidelines a court could or could not use to determine whether the
political rights of any protected class member had been violated.
-- Grant a court broad authority to order adequate remedies that were tailored to
address a violation in any action brought under the MVRA or Article II of the
State Constitution.1
-- Prescribe remedies for MVRA violations and requirements for punitive damages.
-- Create the Michigan Voting Rights Assistance Fund in the State Treasury, from
which the MDOS could spend money to reimburse prospective plaintiffs and local
governments for certain expenses, not to exceed $50,000.
-- Allow a prospective plaintiff or local government to request reimbursement from
the Fund within 90 days of the enactment or implementation of a required
remedy.
-- Require a local government and the SOS to follow certain notice requirements.
-- Allow a disabled elector, or an organization representing disabled electors, to
bring an action in the circuit court of a county to seek the appointment of a
monitor for future elections conducted by a local government if that local
government had violated State or Federal law involving disabled elector's rights.
-- Prescribe the appointment and duties of election monitors.
-- Repeal Public Act 161 of 1969, which governs actions brought in any circuit court
of the State affecting elections, dates of elections, candidates, qualifications of
candidates, ballots, or questions on ballots.
Senate Bill 402 (S-2) would enact the "Voting and Elections Database and Institute
Act" to do the following:
-- Require the SOS to enter into a 25-year agreement with one or more public
research universities in the State to create the Michigan Voting and Elections
Database and Institute by November 5, 2025.
-- Require the Database and Institute to provide a center for research, training,
and information on voting systems and election administration.
1
Generally, Article II covers elections throughout the State. It provides for the qualifications for electors;
the place, time, and manner of elections; boards of canvassers; State office term limits; and more.
Page 2 of 27 Bill Analysis @ www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa sb401-404/2324
-- Require the Database and Institute to make available all relevant election and
voting data and records for at least the previous 12-year period at no cost, after
which the relevant data and records would have to be permanently maintained
for archival purposes.
-- Require the Database and Institute to protect election and voting data and
records by implementing rigorous cybersecurity standards.
-- Permit the data, information, and estimates maintained by the Database and
Institute to be used as evidence, at the discretion of the court.
-- Require the SOS to transmit to the Database and Institute specified information
within 180 days after an election.
-- Require the SOS to reimburse a local government for the cost of providing
requested election and voting data and records to the SOS upon request by the
local government.
Senate Bill 403 (S-4) would enact the "Language Assistance for Elections Act" to do
the following:
-- Require a local government to provide language assistance for elections
conducted in that local government if a certain percentage of its population
spoke a single shared language and had limited English proficiency.
-- Require the SOS to post on its website, by January 31 of each odd-numbered
year, a list of each local government required to provide language assistance, as
well as the required languages, and notify each local government.
-- Require the SOS to provide language assistance equal in quality to English for
elections in each designated language and provide related materials in each
designated language as translated by a certified translator.
-- Require the SOS to reimburse a local government for certain costs related to
tabulating translated ballots.
-- Create the Language Advisory Council in the MDOS.
-- Require a prospective plaintiff to send a notification letter to the SOS or to the
clerk and chief administrative officer of the local government and meet with the
SOS or representatives of the local government to prepare and agree on a written
plan before an aggrieved party could commence a civil action under the Act.
-- Allow any individual or entity aggrieved by a violation of language assistance
requirements to file a cause of action if discussion failed.
-- Allow the Attorney General (AG) to file an action in the circuit court of the county
in which the local government was located to compel compliance with and seek
an appropriate remedy under the Act.
-- Require the MDOS to reimburse a prospective plaintiff or a local government
using money from the Michigan Voting Rights Assistance Fund if that local
government enacted or implemented a remedy to a potential violation of the Act.
-- Grant actions brought under the Act expedited trial proceedings, allow them to
receive an automatic calendar preference, and prescribe remedies and
restitution for them depending on their outcomes.
Senate Bill 404 (S-2) would amend the Michigan Election Law to do the following:
-- Beginning January 1, 2026, require a local government to provide notice to the
SOS, within certain time periods, of various changes undertaken by or proposed
to be undertaken by the local government, such as a governmental
reorganization or a change to the local government's method of election, or of
requests or notifications made by electors and received by the local government,
such as a request to view voting equipment.
Page 3 of 27 Bill Analysis @ www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa sb401-404/2324
-- Beginning January 1, 2026, require a local government to provide to the SOS, at
least 14 days before an election, a list of any organization or committee whose
authorization to appoint election challengers had been approved or denied.
-- Require the SOS to prescribe the form of these notices and, within five days after
receiving such a notice, post the notice on the MDOS website; if a local
government failed to submit a required notice, the SOS would have to post that
violation on the MDOS website.
-- Prescribe additional notice requirements for the SOS, to begin January 1, 2026.
-- Allow an elector who was unable to enter a polling place or early voting site to
request voting assistance from the elector's county, city, or township clerk or
precinct board of election inspectors.
-- Prescribe the process for providing voting assistance.
-- Allow an elector to seek language assistance for election purposes.
-- Allow an individual to provide necessities to electors at a polling place location,
early voting site, or city or township clerk's office, provided that the individual
did not interfere with the voting process and at the discretion of the clerk.
-- Repeal Section 579 of the Law, which requires a board of election inspectors to
reject the ballot of an individual who allows another individual to view the ballot.
Senate Bills 401, 402, and 403 are tie-barred. Senate Bill 404 is tie-barred to Senate Bills
401 and 403. Senate Bill 401 also is tie-barred to Senate Bill 404.
Senate Bill 401 (S-3)
General Prohibition Against Election Impairment
The bill would enact the MVRA. Generally, it would prohibit any local government from
impairing an elector's ability to participate in an election, focusing specifically on members of
protected classes.
"Local government" would mean a county, a city, a township, a village, a public school, a
public community college, a district library, or any other political subdivision of the State,
authority, or other public body corporate that has an elected governing body.
"Protected class" would mean individuals who are members of a racial, color, or language
minority group, or two or more racial, color, or language minority groups, and includes any
of the following:
-- 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 the State in a
suit alleging a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (see BACKGROUND).
-- Individuals who are members of a minimum reporting category that has ever been
officially recognized by the United States Census Bureau (see BACKGROUND).
"Language minority group" would mean that term as defined in 52 USC 10503: persons who
are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives, or of Spanish heritage.
Specifically, the bill would prohibit a local government, State agency, or State or local
government official from imposing any qualification for eligibility to be an elector; any other
prerequisite to voting;2 any ordinance, regulation, or other law regarding the administration
2
"Vote" or "voting" would include any action necessary to cast a ballot and make that ballot count in an
election, including registering as an elector, applying for an absent voter ballot, and any other action
Page 4 of 27 Bill Analysis @ www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa sb401-404/2324
of elections; or any standard, practice, procedure, or policy; or take or fail to take any other
action, including a reorganization of a local government, such as an annexation or division, in
a manner that resulted in, would result in, or was intended to result in, either of the following:
-- A disparity in voter participation, access to voting opportunities, or the equal opportunity
or ability to participate in the political process between members of a protected class and
other members of the electorate.
-- Based on the totality of the circumstances, an impairment of the equal opportunity or
ability of members of a protected class to participate in the political process and nominate
or elect candidates of the protected class members' choice.
The bill provides the following examples of an election impairment:
-- A local government closed, moved, or consolidated one or more precincts, clerk's offices,
polling places, early voting sites, or absent voter ballot drop boxes in a manner that
impaired the right to vote of members of a protected class or resulted in a disparity in
geographic access between members of a protected class and other members of the
electorate, unless the changes were necessary to significantly further a compelling
governmental interest and there was no alternative that resulted in a smaller impairment
or disparity.
-- A local government changed the time or date of an election in a manner that impaired the
right to vote of members of a protected class, including making the change without proper
notice as required by law.
-- A local government failed to use voting or election materials in languages other than
English that were provided to the local government by the SOS, as required by State law
(see Senate Bill 403 (S-4)).
-- A local government implemented a reorganization of that local government that altered
which electors were eligible to vote in elections for that local government if 1) the
reorganization was intended to impair or diminish the equal opportunity or ability of
protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class members’
choice, or 2) based on the totality of the circumstances, the equal opportunity or ability
of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of their choice was impaired
or diminished as a result of the reorganization.
Under the bill, "disparity" would mean any statistically significant variance that is supported
by validated methodologies.
These provisions would not apply to the Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission
established under Section 6 of Article IV of the State Constitution (see BACKGROUND).
Impairment in Methods of Election
Under the bill, a local government could not employ or impose any method of election that
impaired the equal opportunity or the ability of protected class members to nominate or elect
candidates of the protected class members' choice by diluting the vote of those protected
class members. This prohibition would not apply to the Citizens Independent Redistricting
Commission.
A local government would violate this prohibition if elections in that local government made
one or more changes to the method of election that would likely impair the equal opportunity
required by law as a prerequisite to casting that ballot and having that ballot counted, canvassed,
certified, and included in the appropriate totals of votes cast with respect to an election.
Page 5 of 27 Bill Analysis @ www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa sb401-404/2324
or ability of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class
members' choice and either of the following occurred:
-- Elections in the local government exhibited racially polarized voting and the method of
election resulted in a dilutive effect on members of a protected class.
-- Based on the totality of the circumstances, the ability of protected class members to
nominate or elect candidates of the protected class member's choice was impaired.
"Racially polarized voting" would mean voting in which the candidate or electoral choice
preferred by protected class members diverges from the candidate or electoral choice
preferred b