Laws governing the initiative process in Michigan

## Contents

* 1 Laws and procedures
* 1.1 Crafting an initiative
* 1.1.1 Single-subject rule
* 1.1.2 Subject restrictions
* 1.1.3 Veto referendums on emergency legislation
* 1.1.4 Competing initiatives
* 1.2 Starting a petition
* 1.2.1 Applying to petition
* 1.2.2 Proposal review/approval
* 1.2.3 Petition format
* 1.2.4 Fiscal review
* 1.3 Collecting signatures
* 1.3.1 Number required
* 1.3.2 Distribution requirements
* 1.3.3 Restrictions on circulators
* 1.3.3.1 Circulator requirements
* 1.3.3.2 Pay-per-signature
* 1.3.3.3 Out-of-state circulators
* 1.3.3.4 Badge requirements
* 1.3.4 Electronic signatures
* 1.3.5 Deadlines for collection
* 1.4 Getting on the ballot
* 1.4.1 Signature verification
* 1.4.2 Ballot title and summary
* 1.5 The election and beyond
* 1.5.1 Supermajority requirements
* 1.5.2 Effective date
* 1.5.3 Litigation
* 1.5.4 Legislative alteration
* 1.5.5 Re-attempting an initiative
* 1.6 Funding an initiative campaign
* 1.7 State initiative law
* 1.8 External links
* 1.9 Footnotes
* 2 Changes in the law
* 2.1 Proposed changes by year
* 2.1.1 2022
* 2.1.2 2021
* 2.1.3 2020
* 2.1.4 2019
* 2.1.5 2018
* 2.1.6 2017
* 2.1.7 2016
* 2.1.8 2015
* 2.1.9 2014
* 2.1.10 2013
* 2.1.11 2012
* 2.1.12 2011
* 2.1.13 2010

# Laws and procedures[edit]

Laws governing ballot measures in the U.S.

* * *

Laws governing ballot measures in the U.S.

Changes to laws governing ballot measures

Types of ballot measures

Ballot measure policy topics

* * *

Select a state from the dropdown to learn more about laws governing ballot measures in that state.

Select a state Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Contents

1 Laws and procedures
1.1 Crafting an initiative
1.1.1 Single-subject rule
1.1.2 Subject restrictions
1.1.3 Competing initiatives
1.2 Starting a petition
1.2.1 Applying to petition
1.2.2 Proposal review/approval
1.2.3 Fiscal review
1.3 Collecting signatures
1.3.1 Number required
1.3.2 Distribution requirements
1.3.3 Restrictions on circulators
1.3.4 Electronic signatures
1.3.5 Deadlines for collection
1.4 Getting on the ballot
1.4.1 Signature verification
1.4.2 Ballot title and summary
1.5 The election and beyond
1.5.1 Supermajority requirements
1.5.2 Effective date
1.5.3 Litigation
1.5.4 Legislative alteration
1.5.5 Re-attempting an initiative
1.6 Funding an initiative campaign
1.7 State initiative law
2 Changes in the law

Citizens of Michigan may initiate legislation as either an  indirectly initiated state statute or a directly initiated constitutional amendment. For statutes, if the petition receives enough valid signatures, then the state legislature has 40 days to adopt or reject the proposal. If the legislature rejects the law, then the measure is placed on the next general election ballot. For amendments, if the petition contains sufficient signatures, then the measure is placed directly on the next general election ballot. In addition, residents have the power to repeal legislation via veto referendum. The Michigan State Legislature can also place measures on the ballot as legislatively referred constitutional amendments.

## Crafting an initiative[edit]

Of the 24 states that allow citizens to initiate legislation through the petition process, several states have adopted restrictions and regulations that limit the allowable scope and content of initiated proposals. These regulations may include laws that mandate that initiatives address only one topic, restrict the range of acceptable topics for proposed laws, prohibit unfunded mandates and establish guidelines for adjudicating contradictory measures.

### Single-subject rule[edit]

See also: Single-subject rule

Michigan does not have a single-subject rule for ballot initiatives.

The courts have interpreted the state constitution as making a distinction between constitutional amendments and constitutional revisions. Both the state legislature, through the referral process, and citizens, through the initiative process, can propose constitutional amendments. However, a constitutional convention is needed to propose a general revision to the Michigan Constitution.

In 2008, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that a ballot initiative designed to make several changes to the state legislative and judicial systems was a general revision, not an amendment, and thus could not appear on the ballot. The court's ruling stated, "It proposes fundamentally to redesign the very framework of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, which emerged after an historic convention and subsequent voter approval."[1] In 2018, the Michigan Supreme Court heard a case in which plaintiffs argued that a ballot initiative to create an independent redistricting committee was a general revision, rather than an amendment. The state Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ballot initiative, with the four-justice majority writing that "a voter-initiated amendment under Const 1963, art 12, § 2 is permissible if it does not significantly alter or abolish the form or structure of our government, making it tantamount to creating a new constitution."[2]

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 and Article XII, Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4

### Subject restrictions[edit]

See also: Subject restrictions (ballot measures)

In Michigan, citizens can initiate statutes and constitutional amendments that the legislature could also enact under the Michigan Constitution.

Citizens cannot initiate referendums against bills that included appropriations for state institutions or state funds.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9

### Veto referendums on emergency legislation[edit]

In Michigan, veto referendums can be used on emergency legislation. Signatures are due 90 days following the final adjournment of the legislative session at which the law was passed.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9

### Competing initiatives[edit]

See also: Superseding initiative; "Poison pills"; List of Michigan ballot measures

In Michigan, when two ballot measures approved at the same election are in conflict, the measure with the most affirmative votes supersedes the other.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 and  Article XII, Section 2

## Starting a petition[edit]

Each initiative and referendum state employs a different procedure for filing petition applications. Some states require preliminary signatures while others do not. In addition, several states review each proposed statute, verifying that the law conforms to the style and conventions of state law and recommending alterations to initiative proponents. Some of these states also review the law for more substantive considerations of content and consistency. Also, many states conduct a review of the ballot title and summary, and several states employ a fiscal review process which analyzes proposed laws to determine their impact on state finances.[3][4][5]

### Applying to petition[edit]

See also: Approved for circulation

In Michigan, proponents of an initiative are required to file their measure with the secretary of state before collecting signatures.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 ; Article XII, Section 2; and MCL 168.483a

### Proposal review/approval[edit]

See also: Approved for circulation

In Michigan, petitions for ballot initiatives need to follow a specific format. Proponents have the option of submitting a draft petition to the Board of State Canvassers for approval or rejection based on formatting technicalities. According to the secretary of state's office, "While Michigan election law does not require the pre-approval of the petition form, such approval greatly reduces the risk that signatures collected on the form will be ruled invalid due to formatting defects."[6]

In 2018, House Bill 6959 added the option of having the Board of State Canvassers review a petition summary to determine if it is misleading or deceptive.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 ; Article XII, Section 2 and MCL Chapter 168.482b

### Petition format[edit]

Petitions for citizen-initiated measures need to follow a specific format. The instructions for the format are as follows:

(1) Each petition under this section must be 8-1/2 inches by 14 inches in size.

(2) If the measure to be submitted proposes a constitutional amendment, initiation of legislation, or referendum of legislation, the heading of each part of the petition must be prepared in the following form and printed in capital letters in 14-point boldfaced type:

INITIATIVE PETITION AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OR INITIATION OF LEGISLATION OR REFERENDUM OF LEGISLATION PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION

(3) The full text of the amendment so proposed shall follow and be printed in 8-point type. If the proposal would alter or abrogate an existing provision of the constitution, the petition shall so state and the provisions to be altered or abrogated shall be inserted, preceded by the words:

"Provisions of existing constitution altered or abrogated by the proposal if adopted."

(4) The following statement must appear beneath the petition heading: “We, the undersigned qualified and registered electors, residents in the ____________________________ congressional district in the state of Michigan, respectively petition for (amendment to constitution) (initiation of legislation) (referendum of legislation) (other appropriate description).”

(5) The following warning must be printed in 12-point type immediately above the place for signatures, on each part of the petition:

WARNING

A person who knowingly signs this petition more than once, signs a name other than his or her own, signs when not a qualified and registered elector, or sets opposite his or her signature on a petition, a date other than the actual date the signature was affixed, is violating the provisions of the Michigan election law.

(6) Subject to subsections (7) and (8), the remainder of the petition form must be as provided following the warning to electors signing the petition in section 544c(1). In addition, the petition must comply with the requirements of section 544c(2).

(7) Each petition under this section must provide at the top of the page check boxes and statements printed in 12-point type to clearly indicate whether the circulator of the petition is a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer signature gatherer.

(8) Each petition under this section must clearly indicate below the statement required under subsection (7) and be printed in 12-point type that if the petition circulator does not comply with all of the requirements of this act for petition circulators, any signature obtained by that petition circulator on that petition is invalid and will not be counted.

|

See law: MCL Chapter 168.482

### Fiscal review[edit]

See also: Fiscal impact statement

Michigan does not conduct a fiscal review of ballot measures.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 ; Article XII, Section 2 and MCL Chapter 168

## Collecting signatures[edit]

Each initiative and referendum state employs a unique method of calculating the state's signature requirements. Some states mandate a certain fraction of registered voters while others base their calculation on those who actually voted in a preceding election. In addition, many states employ a distribution requirement, dictating where in the state these signatures must be collected. Beyond these overarching requirements, many states regulate the manner in which signatures may be collected and the timeline for collecting them.

### Number required[edit]

See also: Michigan signature requirements

In Michigan, the number of signatures needed to place a measure on the ballot is based on the total number of votes cast for the governor in the preceding election.

The following are the requirements for the types of citizen-initiated measures in Michigan:

* initiated constitutional amendment (ICA): 10 percent of the votes cast for governor
* initiated state statute (ISS): 8 percent of the votes cast for governor
* veto referendum (VR): 5 percent of the votes cast for governor

The chart below shows election years and the signature requirement for initiatives designed to appear on the ballot in that year, with gubernatorial years bolded.

Year  | Amendment  | Statute  | Referendum

|
|
|

2026 | 446,198  | 356,958  | 223,099
2024 | 446,198  | 356,958  | 223,099
2022 | 425,059  | 340,047  | 212,529
2020 | 425,059  | 340,047  | 212,529
2018 | 315,654  | 252,523  | 157,827
2016 | 315,654  | 252,523  | 157,827
2014 | 322,609  | 258,087  | 161,304
2012 | 322,609  | 258,087  | 161,304
2010 | 380,126  | 304,101  | 190,063
2008 | 380,126  | 304,101  | 190,063
2006 | 317,757  | 254,206  | 158,879
2004 | 317,757  | 254,206  | 158,879
2002 | 302,711  | 242,169  | 151,356
2000 | 302,711  | 242,169  | 151,356
1998 | 308,908  | 247,127  | 154,454
1996 | 308,908  | 247,127  | 154,454
1994 | 256,457  | 205,166  | 128,229
1992 | 256,457  | 205,166  | 128,229
1990 | 239,657  | 191,726  | 119,829
1988 | 239,657  | 191,726  | 119,829
1986 | 304,001  | 243,201  | 152,001
1984 | 304,001  | 243,201  | 152,001
1982 | 286,722  | 229,377  | 143,361
1980 | 286,722  | 229,377  | 143,361
1978 | 265,702  | 212,562  | 132,851
1976 | 265,702  | 212,562  | 132,851

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 & Article XII, Section 2

### Distribution requirements[edit]

See also: Distribution requirements

The Michigan State Legislature approved and Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed Michigan House Bill 6595 on December 28, 2018. HB 6595 was designed to create a distribution requirement for initiative signature petitions in Michigan limiting the number of signatures collected in any one congressional district to 15 percent of the total required. This would effectively require valid signatures from a minimum of seven different congressional districts for a successful initiative petition. This bill, however, was overturned by a court ruling.[7]

See also: Changes in 2019: Michigan's distribution requirement

On May 22, 2019, Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) released an opinion stating that certain provisions of HB 6595, including the distribution requirement, were unconstitutional. The opinion is binding on state officials unless it is overturned by a court ruling. In response to Nessel's opinion, Rep. Jim Lower (R), who sponsored HB 6595, said, “I don’t think anybody’s surprised. I disagree with the conclusions she has come to, and I think it will be litigated.”[8][9]

Lawsuits were filed against Nessel's official opinion by the Michigan House and Senate and the Michigan League of Women Voters. In September 2019, the court upheld Nessel's ruling. Rep. Lower appealed the decision.[10]

On January 27, 2020, the Michigan Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling, decided that the state constitution's signature requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures are self-executing. The Michigan State Legislature, according to the court, cannot "impose additional obligations on a self-executing constitutional provision." The Court of Appeals ruled that the distribution requirement was an "unreasonable restraint on the constitutional right of the people to initiate laws."[11]

On January 24, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the distribution requirement was unconstitutional. Justice Megan Cavanagh said, "It would run directly contrary to the clear intention that nothing more than a minimum number of signatures from the statewide population is necessary to propose changes to Michigan’s laws." The court also overturned a requirement that paid signature gatherers register with the state but said requiring paid circulators to identify that they are paid on their petitions forms is constitutional.[12]

See also: Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's 2019 opinion invalidating parts of HB 6595

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9,  Article XII, Section 2 and Public Act 608-18

### Restrictions on circulators[edit]

#### Circulator requirements[edit]

See also: Petition circulator

In Michigan, a person who collects signatures, known as a circulator, must sign a statement that he or she witnessed each act of signing the petition. Circulators are themselves allowed to sign the petition being circulated.

Once circulation is completed, the signatures are submitted to the secretary of state.[13]

See law: Michigan Statutes and Codes, Sec. 168.544c and Michigan Statutes and Codes, Sec. 168-471

#### Pay-per-signature[edit]

See also: Pay-per-signature

Michigan allows paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected.[14]

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 ; Article XII, Section 2 & Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 168 (Act 116)

#### Out-of-state circulators[edit]

See also: Residency requirements for petition circulators

Michigan does not require circulators to be residents of the state. Circulators who are not residents of the state must indicate this on their circulator certificate.

See law: Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 168, Section 544c

#### Badge requirements[edit]

See also: Badge requirements

In 2018, the state legislature passed and the governor signed House Bill 6595 requiring petitions to disclose whether a circulator is paid or volunteer. Circulators who are paid were also required to sign an affidavit stating that he or she is a paid to gather signatures, but it was blocked from enforcement by an attorney general opinion. Signatures collected by paid circulators that did not sign an affidavit are considered invalid under the bill, and, if a circulator makes a false statement about his or her status as a paid circulator, that person would be charged with a misdemeanor. Prior to 2018, Michigan law did not require paid and volunteer circulators to be identified as such on badges or petitions.[15][7]

In May 2019, Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) issued an opinion stating that the provisions of HB 6595 requiring petitioners to identify their paid or volunteer status were unconstitutional. The AG opinion is binding on state official unless it is overturned by a court ruling.[9]

Circulators also need to provide their address on their certificate to circulate. Signatures collected by a circulator who provided a false address are considered invalid.[7]

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 ; Article XII, Section 2 and Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 168 (Act 116)

### Electronic signatures[edit]

See also: Electronic petition signatures

Since electronic signatures are an emerging technology, the constitutionality of bans on e-signatures and the legality of e-signatures in states without bans is largely untested. Michigan law does mandate that signatures be collected in person.

See law: Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 168, Section 544c

### Deadlines for collection[edit]

See also: Petition drive deadlines; Initiative petition circulation periods

In Michigan, petitioners have 180 days to collect the required signatures for an initiated statute or an initiated constitutional amendment. Signatures older than 180 days at the time of filing are considered invalid. In addition, any signatures collected before a November election where a governor is elected, cannot be submitted after that election. Amendment petitions must be filed 120 days prior to the election. Petitions for statutes must be filed 160 days prior to the election, allowing the legislators 40 days to pass the proposed law.

Signatures for veto referendums are due 90 days following the final adjournment of the legislative session at which the targeted bill was passed.

Prior to 2016, signatures older than 180 days were considered "stale and void," but petitioners could go through a process to prove that signatures older than 180 days were valid. The process had proved difficult for many petitioners and involved working with local clerks and election officials. In 2016, two groups of petitioners asked the elections board to change the rules for this verification process to make it easier by allowing the use of the state's electronic voter registration database. In the 2016 legislative session, however, state legislators removed the possibility of proving signatures older than 180 days valid.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9; Article XII, Section 2; Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 168, Section 471 and Section 473b

## Getting on the ballot[edit]

Once signatures have been collected, state officials must verify that requirements are met and that fraudulent signatures are excluded. States generally employ a random sample process or a full verification of signatures. After verification, the issue must be prepared for the ballot. This often involves preparing a fiscal review and ballot summary.

### Signature verification[edit]

See also: Signature certification

In Michigan, signatures are filed with the secretary of state and verified by the bureau of elections using a random sample method of verification. The Board of State Canvassers then votes on whether or not to certify the signatures. An action by the Board of State Canvassers requires a vote of three of four members.

See law: Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 168, Section 475; Section 476; Section 477 and Section 478

### Ballot title and summary[edit]

See also: Ballot title

In Michigan, each ballot measure receives a generic title, consisting of the four digits of the year and a number designating the order in which it was filed to appear on the ballot (e.g. Proposal 2024-1, Proposal 2024-2, Proposal 2024-3...). For a primary or special election, "-P" or "-S" are added at the end of the number designation. Numbers must be assigned to ballot measures not less than 60 days before the election.

In addition, each measure receives a summary of 100 words or less, objectively describing the purpose of the measure. This summary is drafted by the Director of Elections and approved by the Board of State Canvassers.

See law: Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 168, Section 474 and Section 474a

## The election and beyond[edit]

Ballot measures face additional challenges beyond qualifying for the ballot and receiving a majority of the vote. Several states require ballot measures to get more than a simple majority. While some states mandate a three-fifths supermajority, other states set the margin differently. In addition, ballot measures may face legal challenges or modifications by legislators. If a ballot measure does fail, some states limit how soon that initiative can be re-attempted.

### Supermajority requirements[edit]

See also: Supermajority requirements

Michigan ballot measures do not require a supermajority for approval. This includes initiated statutes, initiated amendments, and referendums. A simple majority of all votes cast on the measure is required for approval.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 and  Article XII, Section 2

### Effective date[edit]

Approved statutes take effect 10 days after the official declaration of election results. Approved amendments take effect 45 days after the election date.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 and  Article XII, Section 2

### Litigation[edit]

See also: Ballot measure lawsuit news

A person who believes that they have been aggrieved by a decision of the Board of State Canvassers may challenge the decision in the Michigan Supreme Court. The person must file the legal challenge within 7 business days after the Board certifies signatures or 60 days before the election, whichever occurs first.

See law: Michigan Compiled Laws, Chapter 168, Section 479

### Legislative alteration[edit]

See also: Legislative alteration

The Michigan State Legislature may only change or repeal initiated statutes by a three-fourths supermajority vote in each house. In the case of amendments, the Legislature must pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority and place it on the ballot -- the same process that is required for ordinary legislatively referred constitutional amendments.

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 and  Article XII, Section 2

### Re-attempting an initiative[edit]

Michigan does not limit how soon an initiative can be re-attempted.[16]

See law: Michigan Constitution, Article II, Section 9 and  Article XII, Section 2

## Funding an initiative campaign[edit]

Main article: Campaign finance requirements for Michigan ballot measures

Some of the notable features of Michigan's campaign finance laws are:

* A ban on all campaign contributions from people that have a ownership stake in a casino/gambling establishment.
* A requirement that individuals who raise or spend $500 to support or defeat a referendum to register with the Michigan secretary of state.
* A provision requiring all campaigns to use checks for all expenditures over $50.
* No prohibition of contributions from corporations and labor unions to support or oppose a referendum.

## State initiative law[edit]

The laws governing the initiative process are outlined in the Michigan Constitution and Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL).

Constitution: Section 9 of Article II and Section 2 of Article XII of the Michigan Constitution provide for the initiative and referendum process in Michigan.

Statute: Section 168 of Michigan Election Code provides additional rules for the initiative and referendum process in Michigan.

## External links[edit]

* Michigan Department of State, "Initiative and Referendum Petitions," June 2019

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ Michigan Court of Appeals, "Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Secretary of State," August 20, 2008
2. ↑ Michigan Supreme Court, "Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Secretary of State," July 31, 2018
3. ↑ NCSL, "Drafting the Initiative Proposal," accessed May 19, 2011
4. ↑ NCSL, "Preparation of a Fiscal Analysis," accessed May 19, 2011
5. ↑ NCSL, "Preparation of a Ballot Title and Summary," accessed May 19, 2011
6. ↑ Michigan Manual 2009-2010, "HOW AN ISSUE BECOMES A BALLOT PROPOSAL," accessed December 1, 2021
7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Michigan State Legislature, "House Bill 6595," accessed December 31, 2018
8. ↑ U.S. News, "Benson Questions GOP Law Making It Harder for Ballot Drives," January 22, 2019
9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 AP News, "Michigan AG: Lame-duck ballot drive law is unconstitutional," May 22, 2019
10. ↑ Michigan Advance, "Court upholds Nessel opinion on ballot petitions," accessed September 27, 2019
11. ↑ Michigan Court of Appeals, "Senate and House of Representatives v. Secretary of State," January 27, 2020
12. ↑ Detroit CBS, "Michigan Supreme Court Strikes Law To Make Petition Drives Harder," January 24, 2022
13. ↑ State of Michigan Legislature, “Michigan Statutes Sec. 168-471”, accessed September 6, 2013
14. ↑ NCSL, "Paid vs. Volunteer Petitioners," December 1, 2021
15. ↑ NCSL, "Paid vs. Volunteer Petitioners," December 1, 2021
16. ↑ NCSL, "Banning Same or Similar Measures from the Ballot for a Specified Period of Time," May 2009

Laws governing ballot measures in the United States

Laws governing ballot measures

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Changes to laws governing ballot measures

2026 • 2025 • 2024 • 2023 • 2022 • 2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018

Types of ballot measures

Citizen-initiated ballot measures • Legislatively referred ballot measures • Automatically referred ballot measures • Commission-referred ballot measures • Convention-referred constitutional amendments

Ballot measure policy terms

Glossary of ballot measure policy terms

v • e

State of Michigan
Lansing (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

# Changes in the law[edit]

Contents

1 Laws and procedures
2 Changes in the law
2.1 Proposed changes by year
2.1.1 2022
2.1.2 2021
2.1.3 2010
2.1.4 2019
2.1.5 2018
2.1.6 2017
2.1.7 2016
2.1.8 2015
2.1.9 2014
2.1.10 2013

The following laws have been proposed that modify ballot measure law in Michigan. If a box is empty for any given year, it means Ballotpedia did not track any ballot measure or recall-related laws in that year.

## Proposed changes by year[edit]

### 2022[edit]

See also: Changes in 2022 to laws governing ballot measures

* House Bill 5252: The legislature required the Michigan secretary of state to post on the department's website a summary of a ballot measure petition and the date the petition was filed.[1]

1. ↑ Michigan State Legislature, "House Bill 5252," accessed June 13, 2023

#### League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State[edit]

See also: Michigan Supreme Court, League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State, January 24, 2022

On January 24, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the state's signature distribution requirement was unconstitutional. Justice Megan Cavanagh said, "It would run directly contrary to the clear intention that nothing more than a minimum number of signatures from the statewide population is necessary to propose changes to Michigan’s laws." The court also overturned a requirement that paid signature gatherers register with the state.[1] [2]

In 2018, the Michigan State Legislature passed a bill enacting a distribution requirement for citizen initiatives in Michigan. The legislation—House Bill 6595—also enacted certain requirements for petition circulators. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) released an opinion stating that the requirement was unconstitutional in May 2019. In June 2019, the Michigan House and Senate filed lawsuits against Nessel. The League of Women Voters in Michigan also filed a lawsuit against provisions of HB 6595. In September 2019, Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens decided that the House and Senate lacked standing to challenge Nessel. The ruling was appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

On January 27, 2020, the Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that the state constitution's signature requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures are self-executing. The Legislature, according to the court, cannot "impose additional obligations on a self-executing constitutional provision." The Court of Appeals ruled that the distribution requirement was an "unreasonable restraint on the constitutional right of the people to initiate laws." The ruling also found several other petition circulator requirements in HB 6595 unconstitutional.[3] The decision was appealed to the state Supreme Court.

#### Mothering Justice et al. v. Nessel[edit]

See also: Michigan Supreme Court, Mothering Justice et al. v. Michigan, July 31, 2024

On July 31, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that legislators adopting a citizen-initiated statute, and then amending the initiative during the same legislative session, violated the Michigan Constitution. The decision was along partisan lines, with the court's four Democrats ruling against adopt-and-amend. The court's three Republicans dissented.[4]

Justice Elizabeth Welch (D) wrote the court's opinion, which said, "[W]e hold that Article 2, § 9 provides the Legislature with three—and only three—options upon receiving a valid initiative petition. Any legislative response to a valid initiative petition that falls outside those three discrete options is unconstitutional and impermissibly infringes upon the people’s reserved power." The three options are: (1) enact the law “without change or amendment” within 40 days; (2) “reject the proposed law, in which case the proposed law will appear on the ballot;” or (3) propose a competing measure to appear on the ballot alongside the initiative.

Justice Elizabeth Clement (R), in her dissent, wrote, "There is certainly reason to be frustrated by the Legislature’s actions here... But nothing in Article 2, § 9 restricts the Legislature from doing so. And as tempting as it might be to step into the breach, this Court lacks the power to create restrictions out of whole cloth."

In 2018, two indirect initiated state statutes — one to increase the minimum wage, and the other to require paid sick leave — received enough signatures to appear on the ballot in Michigan. These proposed ballot measures were indirect initiated state statutes. In Michigan, citizen-initiated statutes that receive enough valid signatures are sent to the Legislature, which then has 40 days to pass the initiative into law. Otherwise, the initiative appears on the next general election ballot.

On September 5, 2018, the House and Senate voted to pass the indirect initiatives, enacting them into law. On December 4, 2018, the Legislature voted to amend the enacted initiatives, and Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed the bills on December 13.

Michigan One Fair Wage and Michigan Time to Care — the campaigns behind the two initiatives — sued the state of Michigan. Plaintiffs described the legislative amendments as an adopt-and-amend tactic that violated Section 9 of Article 2 of the Michigan Constitution. Defendants argued that nothing prohibited the Legislature from amending enacted indirect initiatives.[5]

On July 19, 2022, Court of Claims Judge Douglas Shapiro ruled against the state, holding that the legislature's amendments to the enacted initiatives were unconstitutional. Judge Shapiro wrote, "Both the letter and spirit of Article 2, § 9 support the conclusion that the Legislature has only three options to address voter-initiated legislation within the same legislative session—adopt it, reject it, or propose an alternative. Once the Legislature adopted the Earned Sick Time Act and the Improved Workforce Opportunity Act, it could not amend the laws within the same legislative session. To hold otherwise would effectively thwart the power of the People to initiate laws and then vote on those same laws—a power expressly reserved to the people in the Michigan Constitution."[5] Judge Shapiro stayed the court's order until February 19, 2023.[6]

On January 26, 2023, a three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's ruling, upholding the legislative action as constitutional. Judge Christopher Murray said, "The constitutional convention record squarely supports the conclusion that there was no intention to place a temporal limit on when the Legislature could amend initiated laws enacted by the Legislature."[7][8] Attorney General Dana Nessel (D), as well as the campaigns behind two affected initiatives, appealed the ruling to the Michigan Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case on June 21, 2023.[9][10][11] On December 7, 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the adopt-and-amend legislative action.[12]

On July 31, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that adopt-and-amend was unconstitutional. As the legislature's actions were ruled unconstitutional, the court ordered that the ballot initiatives go into effect on Feb. 21, 2025, with amended timelines for implementation. On February 21, 2025, House Bill 4002, which amended the expanded paid sick leave requirement, and Senate Bill 8, which adjusted the state's minimum and tipped wages, were signed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.[13]

1. ↑ Detroit CBS, "Michigan Supreme Court Strikes Law To Make Petition Drives Harder," January 24, 2022
2. ↑ Michigan Supreme Court, "League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State," January 24, 2022
3. ↑ Michigan Court of Appeals, "Senate and House of Representatives v. Secretary of State," January 27, 2020
4. ↑ Michigan Supreme Court, "Mothering Justice et al. v. Michigan, July 31, 2024
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Michigan Court of Claims, "Mothering Justice et al. v. Nessel," July 19, 2022
6. ↑ JDSUPRA, "Michigan Court Reinstates Minimum Wage and Sick Leave Initiative Unconstitutionally Amended by State Legislature," August 2, 2022
7. ↑ Michigan Court of Appeals, Mothering Justice et al. v. Nessel, January 26, 2023
8. ↑ Detroit Free Press, "Michigan minimum wage increase, paid sick leave wiped out after appeals panel ruling," January 26, 2023
9. ↑ Michigan Attorney General, "AG Nessel asks Michigan Supreme Court to Weigh in on Adopt and Amend," March 10, 2023
10. ↑ Detroit Free Press, "Group appeals minimum wage, sick time ruling to Michigan Supreme Court," February 10, 2023
11. ↑ The Center Square, "Michigan Supreme Court will hear minimum wage appeal," June 21, 2023
12. ↑ NPR, "Michigan Supreme Court to hear arguments on 'adopt-and-amend'," December 7, 2023
13. ↑ Fox 17, "Governor Whitmer signs bills to modify minimum wage increases, paid sick leave'," February 21, 2025

|

### 2021[edit]

See also: Changes in 2021 to laws governing ballot measures

* Senate Bill 280 (Vetoed): The legislation would have required initiative petition signatures to be submitted 200 days, rather than 160 days, before the targeted election and required the board of state canvassers to make a determination regarding the sufficiency of the petition within 100 days.[1]

1. ↑ Michigan State Legislature, "Senate Bill 280," accessed June 20, 2023

|

### 2020[edit]

See also: Changes in 2020 to laws governing ballot measures

#### League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State[edit]

See also: Michigan Supreme Court, League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State, January 24, 2022

On January 24, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the state's signature distribution requirement was unconstitutional. Justice Megan Cavanagh said, "It would run directly contrary to the clear intention that nothing more than a minimum number of signatures from the statewide population is necessary to propose changes to Michigan’s laws." The court also overturned a requirement that paid signature gatherers register with the state.[1] [2]

In 2018, the Michigan State Legislature passed a bill enacting a distribution requirement for citizen initiatives in Michigan. The legislation—House Bill 6595—also enacted certain requirements for petition circulators. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) released an opinion stating that the requirement was unconstitutional in May 2019. In June 2019, the Michigan House and Senate filed lawsuits against Nessel. The League of Women Voters in Michigan also filed a lawsuit against provisions of HB 6595. In September 2019, Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens decided that the House and Senate lacked standing to challenge Nessel. The ruling was appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

On January 27, 2020, the Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that the state constitution's signature requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures are self-executing. The Legislature, according to the court, cannot "impose additional obligations on a self-executing constitutional provision." The Court of Appeals ruled that the distribution requirement was an "unreasonable restraint on the constitutional right of the people to initiate laws." The ruling also found several other petition circulator requirements in HB 6595 unconstitutional.[3] The decision was appealed to the state Supreme Court.

1. ↑ Detroit CBS, "Michigan Supreme Court Strikes Law To Make Petition Drives Harder," January 24, 2022
2. ↑ Michigan Supreme Court, "League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State," January 24, 2022
3. ↑ Michigan Court of Appeals, "Senate and House of Representatives v. Secretary of State," January 27, 2020

|

### 2019[edit]

See also: Changes in 2019 to laws governing ballot measures

#### League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State[edit]

See also: Michigan Supreme Court, League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State, January 24, 2022

On January 24, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the state's signature distribution requirement was unconstitutional. Justice Megan Cavanagh said, "It would run directly contrary to the clear intention that nothing more than a minimum number of signatures from the statewide population is necessary to propose changes to Michigan’s laws." The court also overturned a requirement that paid signature gatherers register with the state.[1] [2]

In 2018, the Michigan State Legislature passed a bill enacting a distribution requirement for citizen initiatives in Michigan. The legislation—House Bill 6595—also enacted certain requirements for petition circulators. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) released an opinion stating that the requirement was unconstitutional in May 2019. In June 2019, the Michigan House and Senate filed lawsuits against Nessel. The League of Women Voters in Michigan also filed a lawsuit against provisions of HB 6595. In September 2019, Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens decided that the House and Senate lacked standing to challenge Nessel. The ruling was appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

On January 27, 2020, the Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that the state constitution's signature requirements for citizen-initiated ballot measures are self-executing. The Legislature, according to the court, cannot "impose additional obligations on a self-executing constitutional provision." The Court of Appeals ruled that the distribution requirement was an "unreasonable restraint on the constitutional right of the people to initiate laws." The ruling also found several other petition circulator requirements in HB 6595 unconstitutional.[3] The decision was appealed to the state Supreme Court.

1. ↑ Detroit CBS, "Michigan Supreme Court Strikes Law To Make Petition Drives Harder," January 24, 2022
2. ↑ Michigan Supreme Court, "League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State," January 24, 2022
3. ↑ Michigan Court of Appeals, "Senate and House of Representatives v. Secretary of State," January 27, 2020

|

### 2018[edit]

See also: Changes in 2018 to laws governing ballot measures

* House Bill 6107: The legislation criminalized making a false signature on a recall, initiative, or referendum petition as a misdemeanor.[1]

* House Bill 6595: The legislation made changes to laws governing the initiative process in Michigan, including:[2]

* creating a distribution requirement requiring that no more than 15 percent of required signatures come from a given congressional district;
* requiring the Board of State Canvassers to officially determine whether an initiative petition is sufficient or insufficient no later than 100 days prior to the election;
* requiring initiative petitions to include a summary of the proposal that is no longer than 100 words;
* providing that petitions must say whether the circulator is a paid or volunteer signature gatherer; and
* requiring paid circulators to submit a signed affidavit, among other changes.

* Senate Bill 809: The legislation made several changes to election policies in Michigan, including requiring that a special election for a ballot measure must occur at a regular election date. The legislation also provided that a person collecting signatures for a recall petition needs to be at least 18 years old and a U.S. citizen, rather than a registered voter in the electoral district of the official being recalled, among other changes.[3]

1. ↑ Michigan State Legislature, "House Bill 6107," accessed June 28, 2023
2. ↑ Michigan State Legislature, "House Bill 6595," accessed June 28, 2023
3. ↑ Michigan State Legislature, "Senate Bill 809," accessed June 28, 2023

|

### 2017[edit]

See also: Changes in 2017 to laws governing ballot measures

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Michigan

Michigan House Bill 4635 was designed to amend state law to make it a misdemeanor for a circulator of a petition for initiative, referendum, constitutional amendment, or recall to make "a false statement or misrepresentation concerning the contents, purport, or effect of" the petition.

Michigan Senate Bill 0395 was designed to amend state law to make it a misdemeanor for a circulator of a petition for initiative, referendum, constitutional amendment, or recall to make "a false statement or misrepresentation concerning the contents, purport, or effect of" the petition.

Michigan House Bill 5211 was designed to amend state law find an organization guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $10,000 fine for employing an individual who, while circulating a petition for initiative, referendum, constitutional amendment, or recall, was found to have made "a false statement or misrepresentation concerning the contents, purport, or effect of" the petition.

Michigan House Bill 5214 was designed to amend Michigan law to state that if the signature of the same voter appears on a petition for recall, constitutional amendment, initiative, or referendum more than once, only the first signature would be counted.

Michigan House Bill 5208 was designed to establish a process by which a voter may remove his or her signature from a referendum, initiative, constitutional amendment, or recall petition.

Michigan House Bill 5209 was designed to prohibit organizations from employing individuals who have been convicted of elections crimes as petition signature gatherers for recall, referendum, initivative, or constitutional amendment.

Michigan House Bill 5210 was designed to prohibit organizations employing recall, referendum, initiative, or constitutional amendment petition signature gatherers from paying a fixed rate per signature or per signature sheet. The bill would require compensation to be set at an hourly rate.

Michigan House Bill 5212 was designed to require paid petition circulators for initiatives, referendums, recalls, or constitutional amendments to wear identification badges that state they are being paid and identify the entity compensating them.

Michigan House Bill 5213 was designed to require organizations employing signature gatherers to register with the secretary of state's office and to establish penalties for organizations unable to provide the office with records of its employees.

|

### 2016[edit]

See also: Changes in 2016 to laws governing ballot measures

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Michigan

1. a Michigan Senate Bill 776: Was designed to eliminate a state elections code provision that allows initiative petitioners to prove signatures collected outside of the standard 180-day window are valid and use them to qualify initiatives for the ballot, thereby limiting the circulation window for initiatives strictly to 180 days.
2. d Michigan Senate Bill 535: Was designed to prohibit and establish penalties for "a circulator misrepresenting the contents of a ballot question or recall petition and a circulator misrepresenting whether he or she is a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer."
3. d Michigan Senate Joint Resolution K: This bill was designed to clarify the state's already existing provision preventing the use of the veto referendum power against appropriation bills.
4. d Michigan House Bill 4756: Was designed to dictate that both bills and indirect initiatives approved by the legislature take effect 90 days after they are filed with the secretary of state, unless they are approved by an immediate effect vote, which requires a two-thirds (66.67%) vote of the legislature.
5. d Michigan House Joint Resolution U: Was designed to dictate that both bills and indirect initiatives approved by the legislature take effect 90 days after they are filed with the secretary of state, unless they are approved by an immediate effect vote, which requires a two-thirds (66.67%) vote of the legislature.
6. d Michigan Senate Bill 640: Repealing the requirement that recall petitioners be registered voters in Michigan.
7. d Michigan House Bill 5696: The official title of the bill was "Elections; petitions; process for counting duplicate petition signatures; provide for, and eliminate penalties."
8. d Michigan House Bill 5700: The official title was "Elections; recall; board of county election commissioners to determine if reasons in recall petition against a county officer are factual and of sufficient clarity; provide for, and modify time to notify an officer whose recall is sought of the recall petition."
9. d Michigan House Bill 5703: The official title was "Elections; recall; provision related to recalled candidate as the nominee of the party; remove, and eliminate recall primary election."

|

### 2015[edit]

See also: Changes in 2015 to laws governing ballot measures

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Minnesota

1. a Michigan Senate Bill 571: This law was designed to prevent the use of public funds to support or oppose ballot measures. It also contained other provisions concerning campaign finance and elections.[1][2]
2. Senate Bill 535: Was designed to prohibit and establish penalties for "a circulator misrepresenting the contents of a ballot question or recall petition and a circulator misrepresenting whether he or she is a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer."
3. Senate Joint Resolution K: This bill was designed to clarify the state's already existing provision preventing the use of the veto referendum power against appropriation bills.
4. House Bill 4756: Was designed to dictate that both bills and indirect initiatives approved by the legislature take effect 90 days after they are filed with the secretary of state, unless they are approved by an immediate effect vote, which requires a two-thirds (66.67%) vote of the legislature.
5. House Joint Resolution U: Was designed to dictate that both bills and indirect initiatives approved by the legislature take effect 90 days after they are filed with the secretary of state, unless they are approved by an immediate effect vote, which requires a two-thirds (66.67%) vote of the legislature.

1. ↑ Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `MSBOpen`
2. ↑ Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `MSBArticle`

|

### 2014[edit]

See also: Changes in 2014 to laws governing ballot measures

The following bills were introduced in the Michigan State Legislature:

1. d HB 4046: Prohibits circulators being paid for each petition signature collected, and requires petition circulators to wear identification badges.
2. d HB 4883: Requires that proposals be placed on the ballot before candidate names, with local proposals first, then county, then statewide.
3. d HJR E: Protects legislation making appropriations by reducing spending, from referendum.
4. d HJR Q: Provides for a constitutional amendment clarifying appropriation bills subject to referendum.
5. d SB 10: Requires the name of individual or organization providing compensation to a circulator of a ballot question petition to be printed on the front of the petition.
6. d SJR C: Provides for a constitutional amendment that clarifies appropriations bills subject to referendum.
7. d SJR X: Provides for a constitutional amendment that requires two-thirds majority vote of the legislature for passage of a law that is the same or similar to a law rejected by a referendum.

|

### 2013[edit]

See also: Changes in 2013 to laws governing ballot measures

The following bills were introduced in the Michigan State Legislature:

HB 4046: Prohibits being paid for each petition signature collected, and require petition circulators to wear identification badges.

HB 4883: Requires that proposals be placed on the ballot before candidate names, with local proposals first, then county, then statewide.

HJR E: Protects legislation making appropriations by reducing spending, from referendum.

HJR Q: Provides for a constitutional amendment clarifying appropriation bills subject to referendum.

SB 10: Requires the name of individual or organization providing compensation to a circulator of a ballot question petition to be printed on the front of the petition.

SJR C: Provides for a constitutional amendment that clarifies appropriations bills subject to referendum.

SJR X: Provides for a constitutional amendment that requires two-thirds majority vote of the legislature for passage of a law that is the same or similar to a law rejected by a referendum.

|

### 2012[edit]

See also: Changes in 2012 to laws governing ballot measures

The following bills were introduced in the Michigan State Legislature:

a Michigan House Bill 6060 (2012): Tightens recall laws, making it more difficult to recall elected officials.

a Michigan Senate Bill 0824 (2012): Revises the Michigan Campaign Finance Act with new specifications of the secretary of state's duties, as well as, new definitions and punishments for late reporting of campaign contributions.

|

### 2011[edit]

See also: Changes in 2011 to laws governing ballot measures

The following bills were introduced in the Michigan State Legislature:

Michigan Senate Bill 5063

Michigan Senate Bill 88: SB 88 would require that petitions indicate whether the circulator is paid and by whom he or she is employed.

Michigan Senate Bill 629

HB 5059

HJR GG

SB 823

|

### 2010[edit]

See also: Changes in 2010 to laws governing ballot measures

The following bills were introduced in the Michigan Legislature:

d HB 4364: Would require the name of a petition circulator to be printed on the official petition.

d HB 4560: Would make revisions to Michigan's recall law.

d SB 1357: Would require campaigns for or against constitutional conventions to follow campaign disclosure laws.

d SB 1358: Would set a campaign disclosure reporting schedule for constitutional convention campaigns. d SB 7: Would increase penalties on petition circulators who fraudulently obtain signatures.

d SB 9: Would make revision's to Michigan's recall law.

d SB 144: Would switch the campaign finance reporting deadlines for Ballot Measure Committees.

d SB 394: Would increase restrictions to Michigan's recall law only allowing the law to be used for cases of malfeasance and serious corruption.

d SB 413: Would increase criteria in order to accept signatures on petitions. The bill was approved by the Michigan State Senate on January 27, 2010 on a 31-6 vote. The bill awaits a vote in the Michigan House of Representatives[1].

d SB 951/952: Would change the format of official initiative petitions including having the full ballot question on the petition and changing the size type and how many lines would be on a petition.

d SB 953: Would require the Michigan Secretary of State to post on its official website the subject matter in relation to potential ballot measures. The bill was approved by the Michigan State Senate on January 27, 2010 on a 29-8 vote. The bill awaits a vote in the Michigan House of Representatives[2].

d SB 954: Would require warning disclaimers on official initiative petitions in Michigan. The bill was approved by the Michigan State Senate on January 27, 2010 on a 30-7 vote. The bill awaits a vote in the Michigan House of Representatives[3].

d SJR C: Would add a distribution requirement that initiative petitions must have the signature of one elector in each of the state's counties along with 42 counties having 100 or more electors signing petitions within the respective county.

1. ↑ Michigan Legislature, "History of Senate Bill 413 (2009-2010)
2. ↑ Michigan Legislature, "History of Senate Bill 953 (2009-2010)
3. ↑ Michigan Legislature, "History of Senate Bill 954 (2009-2010)

|

Laws governing ballot measures in the United States

Laws governing ballot measures

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Changes to laws governing ballot measures

2026 • 2025 • 2024 • 2023 • 2022 • 2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018

Types of ballot measures

Citizen-initiated ballot measures • Legislatively referred ballot measures • Automatically referred ballot measures • Commission-referred ballot measures • Convention-referred constitutional amendments

Ballot measure policy terms

Glossary of ballot measure policy terms

v • e

State of Michigan
Lansing (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy