Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
RECOUNT PROCEDURES
http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
Senate Bill 603 (H-2) as reported from House committee Analysis available at
Sponsor: Sen. Stephanie Chang http://www.legislature.mi.gov
Senate Bill 604 (S-1) as reported from House committee
Sponsor: Sen. Jeremy Moss
(Enacted as Public Acts 74 and 75 of 2024)
House Committee: Elections
Senate Committee: Elections and Ethics
Complete to 5-28-24
BRIEF SUMMARY: Senate Bill 603 would amend the Michigan Election Law to modify the
requirements for requesting and conducting a recount. Among other changes, the bill would
specify that a recount is an administrative process; modify the threshold for an automatic
recount; allow ballot question committees to petition for a recount; provide a standard form to
be used when filing a recount petition or counter petition; require a petitioner to allege an error,
rather than fraud or mistake, in the election results and require enough votes to be recounted to
change the results; amend the requirements for whether votes in a precinct can be recounted;
and increase the deposit for filing a recount petition. Senate Bill 604 would make
complementary changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure.
FISCAL IMPACT: Senate Bill 603 would potentially provide additional deposit revenue for
conducting election recounts and would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on the state and
on local units of government (see Fiscal Information, below). Senate Bill 604 is a companion
bill that would not have a direct fiscal impact on the state or on local units of government.
THE APPARENT PROBLEM:
In 2016, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein requested a recount of ballots in
Michigan, even though she received approximately 1.07% of the vote in the state.
Additionally, two petitions were filed in 2022 requesting state-level recounts of Proposal 2 and
Proposal 3 due to alleged voter fraud. Neither petition requested a recount of enough votes to
impact the results, and the cost of conducting the recount was reportedly much higher than the
collected deposit. The recount of Proposal 2, which was originally approved by over 860,000
votes, resulted in a net change of six no votes, and the recount of Proposal 3, which was
originally approved by over 580,000 votes, resulted in a net change of 111 yes votes.
Although many feel that these recounts were frivolous, they were required to be conducted
because the petitions were filed legally. As a result, it has been suggested that the Michigan
Election Law be amended to discourage similar requests and to clarify recount procedures.
THE CONTENT OF THE BILLS:
Senate Bill 603 would make several changes to the recount process at both the county and
statewide level and would increase the per-precinct deposit fee to be paid by a petitioner.
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 13
 Certification deadlines
County canvass boards are currently required to complete their canvass as soon as possible and
no later than the fourteenth day after the election; otherwise, the county canvass board must
deliver all records and other information pertaining to the election to the Board of State
Canvassers (BSC), which must certify the results by the twentieth day after the election. Senate
Bill 603 would specify that these provisions are subject to the deadlines that apply for an
expedited canvass for a presidential election, which occurs when there are fewer than 25,000
votes differentiating between the top two slates of presidential electors.
For an expedited canvass for a presidential election, the secretary of state (SOS) can require
county canvass boards to certify the results by the seventh day after the election (or by an
alternative date before the fourteenth day after the election), and the BSC must complete its
expedited canvass and announce its determination no later than the twentieth day after the
election. Senate Bill 603 would instead provide that the SOS could require county canvass
boards to certify the results on or before the tenth day after the election, and the BSC would
have to determine the results on or before the thirteenth day after the election.
The bill would also require the BSC to conduct an expedited canvass, on a date appointed by
the SOS, for any statewide primary with an unofficial vote differential of 1,500 or fewer votes.
The BSC’s certification of any election result would be final and subject to only a post-
certification court order or a post-certification BSC-supervised recount.
Documentation
After the completion of a county canvass, clerks of county boards of canvassers currently must
provide the SOS with certified copies of all statements of votes related to an election on any
proposed constitutional amendment or ballot question and an election for state office,
presidential elector, United States senator or representative, circuit court judge, and state
legislator. Senate Bill 603 would extend this requirement to statements related to an election
for supreme court justice, court of appeals judge, probate judge, district court judge, member
of the State Board of Education, member of the Board of Regents of the University of
Michigan, member of the Michigan State University Board of Trustees, and member of the
Wayne State University Board of Governors.
Currently, the clerk of a county that alone constitutes one or more senatorial or representative
districts must mail the SOS a copy of the certificate of determination of election results, along
with the SOS the address of each individual elected to a county office or to the state legislature.
The bill would instead require the SOS to inform county clerks of whether they must transmit
the certificate electronically or by mail.
Automatic recounts
Senate Bill 603 would require an automatic recount of all precincts in the state if the BSC
certifies a statewide election as having been determined by a vote differential of 0.1% or less
of the total number of votes cast, rather than 2,000 or fewer votes as is current law. 1 The bill
would also require an automatic recount of all precincts in a special or general election for a
state senate district that is certified as having been determined by 75 or fewer votes and for a
state representative district that was determined by 25 or fewer votes.
1
As is current law, this provision would not apply to partisan offices to which more than one individual is elected.
House Fiscal Agency SBs 603 (H-2) and 604 (S-1) as reported Page 2 of 13
 To determine the procedures for an automatic recount of a ballot question, the BSC would have
to meet as soon as practicable after certification, rather than on the seventh day following
certification. The bill would also specify that the BSC must notify each participating ballot
question committee of the time and place of the meeting.
If a losing candidate or ballot question committee files a written statement with the SOS within
48 hours after the election is certified that requests for the recount not to be conducted, the
automatic recount would not occur.
Recount administration
Under the bill, the BSC would be authorized to promulgate rules pursuant to the Administrative
Procedures Act for conducting recounts. Senate Bill 603 would also specify that a county board
of canvassers is authorized to conduct post-certification recounts of local election results and
that all local recounts must be conducted under the procedures described in Chapter XXXIII
(Recounts; County, City, Township, and Village Boards of Canvassers) of the Michigan
Election Law. The bill would state that Chapter XXXIII is to be liberally construed to achieve
the purpose of fair, impartial, uniform, and expeditious recounts.
Senate Bill 603 would remove a provision requiring county canvass boards to investigate the
facts set forth in a recount petition, in addition to a provision stating that remedy by quo
warranto (a legal challenge to an individual’s right to hold an office) remains in full force
alongside other existing remedies for illegal or fraudulent voting or for tampering with election
materials prior to a recount. It would also remove a provision requiring the BSC to investigate
the facts and allegations set forth in a recount petition and conduct a recount as early as possible
after receiving a petition and accompanying deposit.
The bill would provide that a county canvass board recount is an administrative process that is
limited to determining the number of votes cast for each candidate or for or against a ballot
question and not an investigation, audit, or assessment of the qualifications of participating
voters or the manner in which ballots are applied for or issued. A board would have to deny a
petition to investigate or audit an election, a petition to assess the qualifications of voters
participating in an election or the manner in which ballots are applied for or issued, or a petition
to do anything other than an administrative recount.
The bill would also add a new section stating that any proceeding intended to restrain, enjoin,
modify, control, reverse, or otherwise interfere with the action of a board of county canvassers
or a representative operating under the board’s supervision could be instituted only against the
board of county canvassers and only by mandamus (a court order issued to a public official to
fulfill their duties).
If an individual in charge of ballots, ballot containers, or other election materials fails to deliver
those materials to a board of county canvassers upon the board’s request, the board could issue
a subpoena to compel delivery. (Currently, the law grants county canvass boards the power to
subpoena an individual to compel them to bring the ballot boxes used in each precinct, in
addition to other election documents and reports, for the purposes of a recount investigation.)
An individual who is subpoenaed and fails to produce the requested materials would be guilty
of a misdemeanor. 2
2
This provision currently only applies to a subpoenaed individual who fails to appear and produce a ballot box.
House Fiscal Agency SBs 603 (H-2) and 604 (S-1) as reported Page 3 of 13
 Any individual who willfully interferes with a recount or related activities would be guilty of
a felony. (Currently, this penalty only applies to an officer, assistant, clerk, or employee
engaged in the conduct of a recount that willfully interferes with a fair and impartial recount.)
Recount petition forms
Senate Bill 603 would provide the content of the forms to be used for a petition or a counter
petition by a candidate or a ballot question committee.3 A candidate petition and counter
petition for a recount would list the petitioner’s name and address, the body being petitioned,
the office and precincts the recount is requested for, the error in the canvass or returns of votes,
and the required deposit. A candidate petition for a recount would also include a statement that
the petitioner has a good-faith belief that. if not for the error, they would have had a reasonable
chance of winning election and a statement that the petitioner is requesting a recount of enough
votes to change the result of the election. The form would have to be signed and dated by the
candidate and notarized. An authorized representative of a ballot question committee would
have to provide the same information for a petition or counter petition for a recount on a ballot
measure, except that they would specify the ballot question that a recount is requested for rather
than an elected office.
The SOS would have to modify the forms for a ballot question committee petition for a recount
or counter petition in order to allow a voter to file either petition in the absence of a ballot
question committee.
Senate Bill 603 would add a provision stating that a candidate, ballot question committee, or
elector may withdraw a recount petition or counter recount petition at any time.
Candidate recount petitions
Currently, a losing candidate who believes that they are aggrieved on account of fraud or
mistake in the canvass or returns of the votes can petition for a recount of the votes cast for
that office in any precinct. The candidate must be able to allege a good-faith belief that they
would have had a reasonable chance of winning if not for the fraud or mistake. A candidate
filing a petition for a BSC-conducted recount additionally must provide specific allegations of
wrongdoing with any available evidence, set forth the nature and character of the fraud or
mistake, and specify the counties, townships, and precincts in which the recount is requested.4
Candidates filing for a state-level recount must generally file a signed and sworn petition with
the SOS within 48 hours following the completion of the canvass, and if the candidate ran for
a state legislative office, they must also file a copy of the petition with the clerk of the House
of Representatives or the secretary of the Senate, as applicable.
Senate Bill 603 would instead provide that a candidate who alleges a good-faith belief that they
would have had a reasonable chance of winning the election if not for an error in the canvass
or returns of the votes may petition for a recount. A candidate would have to use the required
form, described above, and the number of votes requested to be recounted would have to be
greater than the difference in votes between the petitioner and the winning candidate. Petitions
3
Currently, recount petitions must swear to and describe the alleged mistake or fraud, list the city, ward, township,
village, and precinct in which the mistake or fraud is alleged to occurred, and ask for a correction, but the Michigan
Election Law does not provide the form for the petition.
4
Candidates file a state-level recount petition for an office canvassed by the BSC and offices for congressional
representative or state legislator for a district located wholly within one county.
House Fiscal Agency SBs 603 (H-2) and 604 (S-1) as reported Page 4 of 13
 for a state-level recount would have to be filed by 5:00 p.m. on the second day after the BSC
certifies the election results.
Ballot question recount petitions
Currently, a voter who participated in a local election and believes that fraud or error occurred
in relation to a proposed ballot question can petition the county canvass board for a recount of
the votes cast on that ballot question in any precincts. For a proposed constitutional amendment
or statewide ballot proposal, a Michigan voter who believes there has been fraud or error can
file a recount petition with the SOS within two days after the BSC’s final certification. The
petition must clearly set forth the nature and character of the alleged fraud or error and the
counties, cities, townships, or precincts in which it is believed that error or fraud occurred.
Senate Bill 603 would instead allow a ballot question committee to file a recount petition for
the votes cast on that ballot question in any precincts if the committee believes that an error
occurred which led to the opposite result in the election. Recount petitions would have to be
filed in good faith and using the required form, and the number of votes requested to be
recounted would have to be greater than the difference between the “yes” and “no” votes on
that ballot question. A ballot committee that participates in a statewide ballot question would
have to file the recount petition by 5:00 p.m. on the second day after the BSC certifies the
election results. If a ballot question committee did not participate in an election in which there
was a ballot question on the ballot, any individual who voted in that election could file a recount
petition concerning the ballot question under these same provisions.
Petition deposit fees
Current law requires a petitioner to deposit $25 with the appropriate board of county canvassers
clerk (for local elections) or State Bureau of Elections (for state elections) for each precinct for
which a recount is requested. If, however, the number of votes separating the presumptive
winner and the petitioner is more than 50 votes or 0.5% of the total number of votes cast in the
race, whichever is greater, the petitioner must deposit $125 for each precinct. If the number of
votes separating the presumptive winner and the petitioner is more than 75 votes or 5.0% of
the total number of votes cast, the petitioner must deposit $250 per precinct. (For races where
more than one candidate is to be elected, the vote differential is determined based on the
number of votes cast for the presumptive winner with the fewest votes, the number of votes
cast for th