(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.

• 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]

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.

• 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]

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.

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.

• 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]

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.