RIS-Page 2
The Michigan Election Law, 1954 PA 116, MCL 168.1 to 168.992, specifically Chapter XXXIII addressing Recounts,
MCL 168.861 to 168.894, is a law that partially overlaps with the rules; however, the rules provide clarification to
these statutory provisions and incorporate applicable definitions into the rules. No laws or rules completely overlap
with or duplicate the rules. Existing instructions from the agency, specifically, the instructions issued for the recounts
related to Proposal 2022-2 and 2022-3, might be considered a legal requirement that overlaps with or duplicates these
rules; however, these instructions were specific to one recount and are not broadly binding in all situations so these
rules seek to mirror these instructions. No laws, rules, or other legal requirements conflict with the proposed rules.
A. Explain how the rules have been coordinated, to the extent practicable, with other federal, state, and local laws
applicable to the same activity or subject matter. This section should include a discussion of the efforts undertaken
by the agency to avoid or minimize duplication.
The rules have not been coordinated with other federal, state, and local laws, as there are none applicable to the same
activity or subject matter.
Purpose and Objectives of the Rule(s)
4. Identify the behavior and frequency of behavior that the proposed rules are designed to alter.
Any candidate or other interested person may petition for a recount of any election, provided statutory requirements
are met. Michigan has three dates for regular elections annually (in May, August, and November), a date for a
presidential primary (in February) every four years in the presidential election year, and special primaries and special
elections as needed. MCL 168.641, MCL 168.631. In 2024, Michigan will have six election dates. The rules clarify
and update the procedures applicable to election recounts to account for current legal requirements and technology.
A. Estimate the change in the frequency of the targeted behavior expected from the proposed rules.
It is not anticipated there would be a change given that the frequency of elections will not change.
B. Describe the difference between current behavior/practice and desired behavior/practice.
The proposed rules seek to codify current practice. The current rules were promulgated in 1979 and have not been
amended. They were promulgated before the use of electronic voting systems, before early voting was an option, they
use outdated terminology, and they provide for some outdated processes.
C. What is the desired outcome?
Once the proposed rules are adopted, the rules will reflect current technology and practice and provide clarity to
election administrators and the public about how a recount is properly conducted.
5. Identify the harm resulting from the behavior that the proposed rules are designed to alter and the likelihood
that the harm will occur in the absence of the rule.
The current rules contemplate some processes that are not in line with the Michigan election law, for example, the
current rules include procedures based on former MCL 168.802, which was repealed by 2018 PA 120, effective 12-31-
18, and former MCL 168.737, which was repealed by 2012 PA 128, effective 5-14-12. The current rules are repetitive,
use outdated terminology, and reference old technology that is no longer used. If the rules are not updated to match
current legal requirements and practice, it may cause confusion for recount staff, undermine confidence in recount
results, and invite legal action against the agency.
A. What is the rationale for changing the rules instead of leaving them as currently written?
As described above, the current rules use outdated terminology, describe processes that are no longer in use, fail to
address early voting, provide for processes that are no longer supported by the Michigan election law, 1954 PA 116,
MCL 168.1 to 168.992, and do not account for new technology.
6. Describe how the proposed rules protect the health, safety, and welfare of Michigan citizens while promoting a
regulatory environment in Michigan that is the least burdensome alternative for those required to comply.
The proposed rules would reflect current practice, provide clarity to clerks and election officials responsible for
overseeing the safe and efficient administration of election recounts, bolster the public’s confidence in recounts, and
alleviate the possibility of confusion and conflict; this protects citizens' welfare as it is important for us all to have
confidence in elections. They are not burdensome to comply with as they reflect current practices.
7. Describe any rules in the affected rule set that are obsolete or unnecessary and can be rescinded.
MCL 24.245(3)