Bill Summary – FastDemocracy

Legislative Analysis
                                                                                      Phone: (517) 373-8080
PROCEDURES FOR CONTESTING ELECTIONS
                                                                                      http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
Senate Bills 590 (S-2) and 591 (S-2) as passed by the Senate            Analysis available at
Sponsor: Sen. Mary Cavanagh                                             http://www.legislature.mi.gov
House Committee: Elections
Senate Committee: Elections and Ethics
Complete to 11-7-23
                                                     (Enacted as Public Acts 255 and 256 of 2023)
SUMMARY:
         Together, Senate Bills 590 and 591 would modify the procedures by which an election can be
         contested and would allow the results of a presidential election to only be challenged in the
         state supreme court.
         Senate Bill 590 would amend the Michigan Election Law to provide a process by which an
         erroneous certification or determination made by the Board of State Canvassers (BSC) on the
         results of a presidential election can be remedied by the state supreme court.
         A candidate for president or vice president who is aggrieved by an error in the BSC’s
         certification or determination of the results of a presidential election could seek judicial review
         by filing a complaint for mandamus that names the BSC as a defendant with state supreme
         court within 48 hours of the applicable determination. 1 (A candidate would be considered
         aggrieved if they would have received the most votes in the election if not for the error.) The
         governor, the attorney general, the secretary of state, and the candidate certified or determined
         by the BSC to be the winner of the election could intervene in the proceeding.
         The supreme court would have original and exclusive jurisdiction to consider such a complaint,
         and the court would have to issue its final order by the day before the presidential electors
         convene to have conclusive effect on the determination of electors appointed by the state. 2 A
         party in a proceeding would not be allowed to seek preliminary relief, and the proceeding
         would be the exclusive means of seeking judicial relief from an erroneous BSC decision.
         A proceeding would not be considered an election audit and could not delay the BSC’s
         certification or determination of the results of a presidential election, the governor’s issuance
         of a certificate of ascertainment of Michigan’s presidential electors, or a recount.
         The bill is tie-barred to Senate Bill 529, a bill that would modify Michigan’s presidential elector
         certification process, 3 and to Senate Bill 591, which means that it could not take effect unless
         SBs 529 and 591 were also both enacted.
         MCL 168.13 (amended); MCL 168.845a (proposed)
1
  Any deadline in these provisions that falls on a weekend or holiday would not be extended to the next business day.
2
  Federal law requires Electoral College electors to meet on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December.
3
  For a summary of Senate Bill 529 as reported from House committee, see:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/billanalysis/House/pdf/2023-HLA-0529-6E44E5E7.pdf.
House Fiscal Agency                                                                                       Page 1 of 2
       Senate Bill 591 would amend the Revised Judicature Act to clarify the available procedures
       by which the results of a presidential election or other election for public office can be
       challenged in court. The bill is tie-barred to Senate Bill 590.
       The act currently authorizes circuit court action to address fraud or error in an election
       regarding a constitutional amendment, ballot question, or proposition. Senate Bill 591 would
       specify that this provision does not apply to or authorize such an action relating to an election
       for public office. It would also prohibit a private person from bringing an action for quo
       warranto to challenge a person’s right to the office of presidential and vice-presidential elector.
        MCL 600.4501 and 600.4545
FISCAL IMPACT:
        Senate Bills 590 and 591 would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on the state and on local
        court systems. The fiscal impact would depend on how provisions of the bills affected court
        caseloads and related administrative costs. Under SB 591, prohibiting private persons from
        bringing actions that challenge applicable authority could result in fewer court cases.
                                                            Legislative Analyst: Holly Kuhn
                                                                 Fiscal Analyst: Robin Risko
■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency staff for use by House members in their
deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.
House Fiscal Agency                          SBs 590 (S-2) and 591 (S-2) as passed by the Senate   Page 2 of 2
Statutes affected: 
Substitute (S-2): 168.13
Senate Introduced Bill: 168.13
As Passed by the Senate: 168.13
As Passed by the House: 168.13
Public Act: 168.13
Senate Enrolled Bill: 168.13