Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules  
Administrative Rules Division (ARD)  
[email protected]  
REQUEST FOR RULEMAKING (RFR)  
1. Department:  
State  
2. Bureau:  
Elections & Campaign Finance  
3. Promulgation type:  
Full Process  
4. Title of proposed rule set:  
Use of Electronic Pollbook  
5. Rule numbers or rule set range of numbers:  
168.41 – R 168.51  
6. Estimated time frame:  
6 months  
Name of person filling out RFR:  
Jenny McInerney  
E-mail of person filling out RFR:  
McInerneyJ1@michigan.gov  
Phone number of person filling out RFR:  
517-331-7825  
Address of person filling out RFR:  
430 W. Allegan, Lansing, MI 48918  
7. Describe the general purpose of these rules, including any problems the changes are intended  
to address.  
The purpose of these rules is to clarify rules regarding the electronic pollbook, given technological  
advances, the introduction of early voting and the early voting pollbook, and the security benefits  
of real time connection with the Qualified Voter File.  
8. Please cite the specific promulgation authority for the rules (i.e. department director,  
commission, board, etc.).  
MCL 168.31(1)(a) provides that the secretary of state shall “issue instructions and promulgate  
rules pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328,  
for the conduct of elections and registrations in accordance with the laws of this state.”  
A. Please list all applicable statutory references (MCLs, Executive Orders, etc.).  
MCL 168.31.  
B. Are the rules mandated by any applicable constitutional or statutory provision? If so, please  
explain.  
MCL 168.31(1)(a) provides that the secretary of state shall “issue instructions and promulgate  
rules pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328,  
for the conduct of elections and registrations in accordance with the laws of this state.” Because  
these rules pertain to the use of the electronic pollbook--a vital tool in conducting elections in  
Michigan--they fall under this section.  
MCL 24.239  
RFR-Page 2  
9. Please describe the extent to which the rules conflict with or duplicate similar rules,  
compliance requirements, or other standards adopted at the state, regional, or federal level.  
The rules do not conflict with any similar rules, requirements, or standards. The proposed rules do  
not explicitly duplicate any similar rules, compliance requirements, or other standards but they do  
update the interpretation of the electronic pollbook download in MCL 168.668b of the Michigan  
Election Law to account for technological and security advances and the use of live connectivity  
for the early voting pollbook in 2024.  
10. Is the subject matter of the rules currently contained in any guideline, handbook, manual,  
instructional bulletin, form with instructions, or operational memoranda?  
The early voting subject matter is in the Bureau publication Early Voting Electronic Poll Book  
(EV EPB) Manual.  
11. Are the rules listed on the department’s annual regulatory plan as rules to be processed  
for the current year?  
The rules are not listed on the department’s 2024 annual regulatory plan.  
12. Will the proposed rules be promulgated under Section 44 of the Administrative Procedures  
Act, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.244, or under the full rulemaking process?  
Full Process  
13. Please describe the extent to which the rules exceed similar regulations, compliance  
requirements, or other standards adopted at the state, regional, or federal level.  
The rules do not exceed similar regulations, compliance requirements, or other standards adopted  
at the state, regional or federal level.  
14. Do the rules incorporate the recommendations received from the public regarding any  
complaints or comments regarding the rules? If yes, please explain.  
Yes. Following the success of the EV EPB during the 3 elections for which it was used in 2024,  
the Bureau of Elections convened a Lean Process Improvement (LPI) workshop to identify  
successes, opportunities for improvement, and ways the Election Day EPB (ED EPB) could more  
closely align with the EV EPB. Prior to the LPI, a survey was sent to clerk staff and over 350  
stakeholders responded. The LPI also included 13 expert participants who serve as clerks, deputy  
clerks, and clerk staff in cities and townships around Michigan. The recommendation of the LPI,  
supported overwhelmingly by survey responses, was that all EPBs have live connectivity like the  
EV EPB.  
15. If amending an existing rule set, please provide the date of the last evaluation of the rules  
and the degree, if any, to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed  
the regulatory activity covered by the rules since the last evaluation.  
The proposed rules do not amend existing rules.  
16. Are there any changes or developments since implementation that demonstrate there is no  
continued need for the rules, or any portion of the rules?  
No, there are no changes or developments because the rules do not amend existing rules.  
17. Is there an applicable decision record (as defined in MCL 24.203(6) and required by MCL  
24.239(2))? If so, please attach the decision record.  
No  
Based on the information provided in this RFR, MOAHR concludes that there are sufficient  
policy and legal bases for approving the RFR. The RFR satisfies the requirements of the  
Administrative Procedures Act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, and Executive  
Order No. 2019-6.  
MCL 24.239  
;