Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
JOIN NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE AGREEMENT
http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
House Bill 4156 as reported from committee Analysis available at
Sponsor: Rep. Carrie A. Rheingans http://www.legislature.mi.gov
Committee: Elections
Complete to 6-11-23
SUMMARY:
House Bill 4156 would enter Michigan into the Agreement Among the States to Elect the
President by National Popular Vote, also known as the National Popular Vote (NPV)
Compact. 1
Under the bill, the agreement itself would be enacted into Michigan law. Currently, 16 states
and the District of Columbia—together representing 205 electoral votes—have signed on to
the compact, pledging to allocate their electoral votes to whoever wins the nationwide, rather
than statewide, popular vote. 2 (See Background, below.)
If enough states join, the presidential candidate receiving the most votes nationwide will
receive all electoral votes from member states and will thus be guaranteed enough votes to
become president.
Current practice
The Electoral College, which since 1964 has had 538 electors, is a form of indirect election, an
idea referenced in the U.S. Constitution and originated when the framers were wary of giving
the people the power to elect the president directly. As an indirect election, voters elect not the
person running for president but instead an elector who is pledged to vote for a specific person
for president. The U.S. Constitution (in Section 1 of Article II and in the Twelfth Amendment)
allows the states, through their legislatures, to determine how the electoral votes within a state
are assigned.
Forty-eight states have a “winner takes all” system. Two—Nebraska and Main—award their
Electoral College votes based on the popular vote in their congressional districts. Michigan is
a “winner takes all” state, so the presidential slate receiving the highest number of popular
votes is assigned all 15 of the state’s electoral votes. Then, when the Electoral College electors
convene, all 15 Electoral College votes go to the winner of the state’s popular vote.
Proposed popular vote
Enactment of the bill would enter Michigan into the National Popular Vote Compact, which
would replace the current practice for electing the president and vice president if states
representing 270 electoral votes collectively entered into it. If it took effect, each member state
would conduct a statewide popular election for president and vice president (who together
1
The National Popular Vote organization offers more information on the agreement, which can be found here:
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/bill-text.
2
For purposes of the agreement (and this summary), “state” includes the District of Columbia and its three electoral
votes.
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 4
 compose a “presidential slate”), as is currently done. However, the bill would change the way
those votes would determine who won the presidency. At least six days before the meeting of
the presidential electors, the chief election official of each state would make a final
determination of the number of votes cast for each presidential slate in their respective state.3
Each member state would communicate its determination to the other member states, and,
added together, those votes would produce a “national popular vote total” for each presidential
slate. The slate receiving the largest vote total would be declared the national popular vote
winner. Chief election officials would be required to immediately release all vote counts or
related documentation to the public.
Chief election official would mean the official or body responsible for certifying the
number of votes received by each presidential ticket. In Michigan, the chief election
official would be the Board of State Canvassers. 4
The presidential elector certifying officials of each member state would then be required to
honor this determination and approve the electors pledged to the presidential candidate who
received the most votes nationwide.
Presidential elector certifying official would mean the official or body authorized to
certify the appointment of a state’s presidential electors. In Michigan, this official
would be the Governor. 5
In the case of a tie for the national popular vote winner, then each member state would appoint
electors pledged to the candidate that won the popular vote in that state. (This is the “winner
takes all” system currently used by most states.)
If the number of presidential electors nominated in a member state to represent the national
popular vote winner did not match that state’s number of allocated electoral votes, then the
winning candidate of the national popular vote could nominate the electors for that state, and
the state’s certifying official would be required to certify the appointment of those electors. 6
NPV in Michigan
The bill would state that is the public policy of the state of Michigan that the one-person, one-
vote principle requires that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide should
become the President of the United States.
The Board of State Canvassers would be required to designate the slate of presidential electors
that received the most votes nationwide as the national popular vote winner, and the governor
would be required to certify these electors to the United States Secretary of State as Michigan’s
elector slate. In the event of a tie for the national popular vote winner, the governor would
certify the slate of whichever candidate received the most votes in Michigan.
3
This is the “safe harbor” deadline required by federal law for states to have resolved any controversies over the
appointment of electors before those electors meet in their respective states:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2021-title3/pdf/USCODE-2021-title3-chap1-sec5.pdf. Electors
meet on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.
4
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(cd1asdn1sgvfokhruzmpjh4g))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-168-841.pdf.
5
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(cd1asdn1sgvfokhruzmpjh4g))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-168-46.pdf.
6
According to the National Popular Vote organization, this provision ensures that the national popular vote winner
would receive all electoral votes from a member state, despite any potential ambiguities in state law.
House Fiscal Agency HB 4156 as reported Page 2 of 4
 The bill would be considered effective in Michigan 90 days after it is enacted. Once the
compact reached the 270-vote threshold and went into effect, it would take precedence over
any conflicting state law.
Enactment and withdrawal
The agreement would be operational if it has been enacted in substantially the same form by
states that possess a majority of the total Electoral College votes by July 20 of a presidential
election year. A state’s electoral vote allocation would not be counted until the law entering
the agreement has gone into effect.
Member states could withdraw from the agreement at any time, but withdrawals that occur
within six months of the end of a president’s term (between July 20 and January 20) generally
could not take effect until the term ended. 7
Governors (or the mayor of D.C., when applicable) would be required to provide notice to all
other states when the compact has taken effect in their state, when their state’s withdrawal has
taken effect, and when the compact has taken effect generally.
If any provision of the compact were held to be invalid, the remaining provisions would not be
affected. The agreement would terminate if the Electoral College were abolished.
BACKGROUND:
The NPV compact has been enacted into law in sixteen states—California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington—and the District
of Columbia. 8 If Michigan joined the compact and all current member states remained, the
agreement would need approval in states possessing at least 50 electoral votes before it could
take effect.
In 2008, the House considered and passed a bill that would have entered Michigan into the
compact. House Bill 6610 of 2008 was passed by the full House on December 11, 2008, and
was not considered by the Senate. 9 Another bill was introduced in 2018 that received testimony
in the House Elections and Ethics committee but did not advance. 10 Other bills have been
introduced since 2008 in both the House and Senate but have not moved beyond their
respective committees.
7
A presidential term ends on January 20, but the compact requires that withdrawals within this window cannot go
into effect until a president or vice president is “qualified to serve the next term” in accordance with section 3 of the
Twentieth Amendment, even if that occurs after the end of a presidential term.
8
An overview of other states’ NPV status as of January 2023 can be found here: https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-
campaigns/national-popular-vote.
9
A summary of House Bill 6610 of the 2007-08 legislative session can be found here:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billanalysis/House/pdf/2007-HLA-6610-3.pdf.
10
A summary of House Bill 6323 of the 2017-18 legislative session can be found here:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2017-2018/billanalysis/House/pdf/2017-HLA-6323-DA9E59DA.pdf.
House Fiscal Agency HB 4156 as reported Page 3 of 4
FISCAL IMPACT:
The bill would have no fiscal impact on the Department of State or local units of government.
The department would require no additional resources to collect or share information as
required by the bill.
POSITIONS:
Representatives of the following entities testified in support of the bill:
• American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan (3-7-23)
• Common Cause Michigan (3-7-23)
• Conservatives for National Popular Vote (3-7-23)
• League of Women Voters (3-7-23)
• Mothering Justice (3-7-23)
• National Popular Vote (3-7-23)
• Pride at Work Michigan (6-6-23)
The following entities indicated support for the bill:
• Michigan Department of State (3-7-23)
• Clean Water Action (3-7-23)
• Michigan Democratic Party (6-6-23)
• Michigan League of Conservation Voters (6-6-23)
• NextGen America (6-6-23)
• Voters Not Politicians (6-6-23)
Representatives of the following entities testified in opposition to the bill (3-7-23):
• Keep Our 50 States
• Pure Integrity for Michigan Elections
• Save Our States
The following entities indicated opposition to the bill:
• Democrats for the Electoral College (6-6-23)
• Michigan Farm Bureau (3-7-23)
• Heritage Action for America (3-7-23)
• Mackinac Center for Public Policy (3-7-23)
Legislative Analyst: Holly Kuhn
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 4156 as reported Page 4 of 4