Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules  
611 W. Ottawa Street  
Lansing, MI 48909  
Phone: 517-335-8658 Fax: 517-335-9512  
AGENCY REPORT TO THE  
JOINT COMMITEE ON ADMNINISTRATIVE RULES (JCAR)  
1. Agency Information  
Agency name:  
State  
Division/Bureau/Office:  
Elections & Campaign Finance  
Name of person completing this form:  
Adam Fracassi  
Phone number of person completing this form:  
517-241-3280  
E-mail of person completing this form:  
Name of Department Regulatory Affairs Officer reviewing this form:  
Doug Novak  
2. Rule Set Information  
MOAHR assigned rule set number:  
2021-61 ST  
Title of proposed rule set:  
Signature Matching Standards for Absent Voter Ballot Applications and Absent Voter Ballot  
Envelopes  
3. Purpose for the proposed rules and background:  
To create process for determining whether signatures on absent voter ballot applications or ballot  
return envelopes agree sufficiently with signature on file.  
4. Summary of proposed rules:  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 2  
Before receiving an absent voter ballot, a voter must submit an application which is signed by the  
voter. The signature on the application is compared by the local clerk and their staff to the signature  
on file in the Qualified Voter File. If the signature is determined to sufficiently match the signature  
on file, the voter will be sent an absent voter ballot. The voter must then return the ballot in the  
envelope provided by the clerk which is signed. That signature is then compared to the absent voter  
ballot application and/or the qualified voter file.  
Currently, city and township clerks review each of these signatures. The rule is designed to provide  
uniform standards for city and township clerks to utilize when comparing the signature in order to  
determine if the signature on the absent voter ballot application and envelope sufficiently matches the  
signature contained in the voter’s registration profile.  
5. List names of newspapers in which the notice of public hearing was published and  
publication dates:  
Marquette Mining Journal (September 17, 2021)  
Flint Journal (September 17, 2021)  
Kalamazoo Gazette (September 17, 2021)  
6. Date of publication of rules and notice of public hearing in Michigan Register:  
9/15/2021  
7. Date, time, and location of public hearing:  
10/1/2021 09:00 AM at Cadillac Place Room L-150 , 3044 W. Grand Blvd. Detroit, MI 48202  
8. Provide the link the agency used to post the regulatory impact statement and cost-benefit  
analysis on its website:  
9. List of the name and title of agency representative(s) attending public hearing:  
Adam Fracassi (Bureau of Elections – Designated Agency Representative)  
Doug Novak (Department of State – Regulatory Affairs Officer)  
Jonathan Brater (Bureau of Elections – Director)  
Brian Remlinger (Bureau of Elections – Law Fellow)  
10. Persons submitting comments of support:  
see attached  
11. Persons submitting comments of opposition:  
see attached  
12. Identify any changes made to the proposed rules based on comments received during the  
public comment period:  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 3  
Name &  
Comments made at Written  
Agency Rationale Rule number  
Organization public hearing  
Comments  
for change  
& citation  
changed  
1
Rep. Ann  
Bollin  
Identified that the Rep. Ann Bollin R 168.21  
proposed ruleset WrittenIdentified  
did not  
incorporate  
that the proposed  
ruleset did not  
references to the incorporate  
voter registration references to the  
master card.  
voter registration  
master card.R  
168.21Added a  
subsection  
defining master  
card and edited the  
subsection  
defining  
“signature on file”  
to explicitly  
include the  
signature on the  
voter registration  
master card.  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 4  
Expresses  
2
Rep. Ann  
Bollin  
Rep. Ann Bollin R 168.21  
concern that, as  
concern that, as WrittenExpresses  
drafted, the  
ruleset allowed a drafted, the ruleset  
signature on an  
absentee voter  
allowed a  
signature on an  
ballot application absentee voter  
that had not been ballot application  
verified against that had not been  
the signature in verified against  
the Qualified  
Voter File to  
serve as a  
signature for  
verifying a  
the signature in the  
Qualified Voter  
File to serve as a  
signature for  
verifying a  
signature on an  
absent voter  
signature on an  
absent voter ballot  
ballot envelope. envelope.R 168.21  
Added language  
clarifying that  
signatures on  
absent voter ballot  
applications can  
only be used to  
verify signatures  
on absent voter  
ballot envelopes if  
the signature on  
the application has  
been checked  
against and  
determined to  
match the  
signature in the  
Qualified Voter  
File.  
3
Shira Roza, on  
behalf of  
Identifies an  
inconsistency in statutory reference  
Added a second  
R 168.22(1)  
Promote the  
Vote  
the statute  
references and  
to clarify that the  
ruleset applies to  
the language used both absent voter  
in the ruleset.  
ballot applications  
and absent voter  
ballot envelopes.  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 5  
Expresses  
4
Sen. Ruth  
Johnson  
Adds language  
R 168.22(1)  
concern that the clarifying that the  
ruleset would  
prevent an  
election officials  
retain discretion to  
election official make the final  
from rejecting a determination  
signature that the regarding a  
official believes signature’s  
is invalid by  
validity, and  
requiring a the  
clarifying that the  
election official ruleset sets out a  
to presume the  
validity of the  
signature.  
process to follow  
in determining  
validity but does  
not require  
election officials  
to accept  
signatures the  
election official  
believes is invalid.  
5
Ronna  
Expresses  
Adds a subsection R 168.22(3)  
McDaniel, on  
behalf of the  
Republican  
National  
concern that the explicitly  
draft ruleset  
clarifying the  
would require an ability of the clerk  
obviously non-  
matching  
signature to be  
to contact a voter  
prior to making a  
determination  
Committee  
accepted if there regarding the  
was only one validity of a  
major difference signature.  
from the  
signature on file,  
rather than  
multiple  
differences.  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 6  
6
Sen. Ruth  
Johnson  
Expresses  
Clarifies that  
redeeming  
qualities must be  
considered when  
R 168.23(1)  
concern that a  
clearly non-  
matching  
signature must be determining  
accepted if a  
whether a  
redeeming feature provided signature  
is present.  
matches the  
signature on file,  
but that the  
presence of a  
redeeming quality  
does not require an  
election official to  
accept an  
obviously invalid  
signature.  
7
Shira Roza, on  
behalf of  
Promote the  
Vote  
Shira Roza, on  
Removes the  
R 168.24(d)  
behalf of Promote reference to  
the VoteWritten provisional ballot  
Identifies concern envelopes to  
that the  
clarify the  
subsection will be subsection applies  
interpreted to  
apply only to  
absent voter  
ballot envelopes,  
rather than both  
envelopes and  
absent voter  
ballot  
to both envelopes  
and applications.  
applications. R  
168.24(d)  
Removes the  
reference to  
provisional ballot  
envelopes to  
clarify the  
subsection  
applies to both  
envelopes and  
applications.  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
Agency Report to JCAR-Page 7  
8
Shira Roza, on  
behalf of  
Identifies  
possible  
Added subsections R 168.25  
clearly specifying  
Promote the  
Vote  
ambiguity in the timelines for  
use of the term  
“immediately”  
various election  
official  
without providing responsibilities  
a definition of  
“immediately.”  
Expresses  
under the ruleset  
9
Shira Roza, on  
behalf of  
Adds language  
clarifying that all  
R 168.26(1)  
concern that a  
Promote the  
Vote  
uniform signature clerks must accept  
cure process will the signature cure  
not be available form created by  
across the state. the Secretary of  
State.  
10  
Mark  
Expresses  
Adds a subsection R 168.26(3)  
McWilliams, on  
behalf of  
Disability  
Rights  
concern that the clarifying that  
ruleset does not clerks are  
explicitly provide permitted to make  
protections for  
voters with  
disabilities.  
the same  
Michigan  
accommodations  
for the signature  
cure process that  
they may make for  
collecting absent  
voter ballot  
envelopes.  
13.Date report completed:  
12/1/2021  
MCL 24.242 and 24.245  
;