Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
TERM LIMITS FOR VILLAGE OFFICERS
http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
House Bill 4788 as reported from committee Analysis available at
Sponsor: Rep. Gregory Markkanen http://www.legislature.mi.gov
Committee: Elections and Ethics
Complete to 7-30-21
SUMMARY:
House Bill 4788 would amend the General Law Village Act to allow villages to institute term
limits on elected village officers. If approved by a majority of village electors, the village would
limit terms of office of elected officers as described below.
To initiate the process, a petition requesting a vote on the question of term limits would have
to be signed by at least 10% of the village’s registered electors and filed with the township
clerk. The petition would provide that a person could not be elected to the same village office
more than four times for an office with a two-year term or more than two times for an office
with a four-year term. A partial appointed or elected term would be considered a full term for
purposes of term limits if the person served more than half of the term.
Within 14 days after the petition’s filing, the township clerk would have to verify the signatures
and determine the sufficiency of the petition. If the clerk determined the petition to be
sufficient, the question of term limits would have to appear on the next general or special
election ballot in substantially the following form:
Shall the terms of office of elected village officers in the village of ______ be limited
so that an official shall not be elected to the same village office more than 4 times for
an office with a 2-year term of office or more than 2 times for an office with a 4-year
term of office?
( ) Yes
( ) No
The county election commission of the county in which the greatest number of village electors
reside would provide the ballots for the election. The clerk and township election officials
would conduct the election.
If the village term limit question were held in conjunction with a general election or with a
state primary election immediately before a general election, the notices of the close of
registration and election would have to be published as provided by state election law.
Otherwise, the clerk of the county where the greatest number of village electors reside would
publish the notices. The notices would have to include the ballot language specified above.
The results of the village term limit question would have to be canvassed by the board of county
canvassers of the county in which the village is located.
Proposed MCL 62.5b
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 2
BRIEF DISCUSSION:
Those advancing the bill argued that term limits under the bill would be entirely at the
discretion of citizens of a local unit—the ballot question could be considered only if supported
by 10% of registered voters, and would then need a majority vote to be instituted. Such a
measure could keep long-time politicians from retaining power. Because people are least likely
to know, follow, and understand local issues, local politicians may now be able to wield untold
power with minimal checks on that power. The bill would ensure that no single politician
becomes entrenched on a village board.
However, the same considerations that may be benefits—that the question of term limits would
be decided at the local level—caused some concern. After all, small and sparsely populated
villages would require a very small number of signatures to put the issue on the ballot and to
have it prevail, thereby drastically changing the functioning of the village. Also, recruiting
individuals to run for those seats is already difficult; it would be even more difficult if, once
recruited, individuals could serve only for a maximum of eight years.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The bill would have no fiscal impact on the state and would not result in significant costs for
townships or counties. Should a petition succeed in placing the question on the ballot, it would
be voted on only at an election already to be held and would not require a township to incur
costs to hold a special election that it otherwise would not.
POSITIONS:
U.S. Term Limits indicated support for the bill. (6-15-21)
The following entities indicated a neutral position on the bill (6-22-21):
Department of State
Michigan Municipal League
Legislative Analyst: Jenny McInerney
Fiscal Analyst: Michael Cnossen
■ 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 HB 4788 as reported from committee Page 2 of 2


Statutes affected:
House Introduced Bill: 61.1, 74.25
As Passed by the House: 61.1, 74.25