Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules  
Administrative Rules Division (ARD)  
MOAHR-Rules@michigan.gov  
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT  
and COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS (RIS)  
Agency Information:  
Department name:  
State  
Bureau name:  
Elections & Campaign Finance  
Name of person filling out RIS:  
Jenny McInerney  
Phone number of person filling out RIS:  
517-331-7825  
E-mail of person filling out RIS:  
McInerneyJ1@michigan.gov  
Rule Set Information:  
ARD assigned rule set number:  
2025-15 ST  
Title of proposed rule set:  
Election Challengers and Poll Watchers  
Comparison of Rule(s) to Federal/State/Association Standard  
1. Compare the proposed rules to parallel federal rules or standards set by a state or national licensing agency or  
accreditation association, if any exist.  
There are no parallel federal rules or standards.  
A. Are these rules required by state law or federal mandate?  
Yes. 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.”  
Additionally, MCL 168.31(1)(c) requires the Secretary of State to “publish and furnish for the use in each election  
precinct before each state primary and election a manual of instructions that includes specific instructions on assisting  
voters in casting their ballots, directions on the location of voting stations in polling places, procedures and forms for  
processing challenges, and procedures on prohibiting campaigning in the polling places as prescribed in this act.”  
The Department has historically issued these instructions in the form of a manual but believes that promulgated rules  
on the topic would be useful.  
B. If these rules exceed a federal standard, please identify the federal standard or citation, describe why it is  
necessary that the proposed rules exceed the federal standard or law, and specify the costs and benefits arising out  
of the deviation.  
The rules do not exceed a federal standard.  
2. Compare the proposed rules to standards in similarly situated states, based on geographic location, topography,  
natural resources, commonalities, or economic similarities.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 2  
Wisconsin (the state whose system of elections most closely aligns with Michigan) has guidance for election  
observers that is similar to the proposed rules. For instance, observers may file challenges to voters, but only to the  
“chief election inspector or designee” (similar to the election liaison in Michigan). Election observers are also  
prohibited from interacting with voters, except when requested, or viewing confidential information on the poll list.  
Ohio also has rules for election observers that are similar in some ways to the rules proposed by the Department. For  
instance, observers are similarly prohibited from engaging in electioneering, interfering with the election, handling  
election materials and violating the secrecy of the ballot. However, while in Michigan, challengers may challenge  
certain processes, in Ohio observers are limited to observing the proceedings of an election.  
A. If the rules exceed standards in those states, please explain why and specify the costs and benefits arising out of  
the deviation.  
The rules do not exceed the standards in other states.  
3. Identify any laws, rules, and other legal requirements that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed  
rules.  
The rules do not conflict with or duplicate any laws, rules, or other legal requirements. The proposed rules would  
codify existing instructions from the Secretary of State, which the Secretary is required to issue pursuant to MCL  
168.31(1)(a).  
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, or 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.  
The rules will not alter the behavior of frequency or behavior for election officials, election inspectors, or challengers  
and poll watchers. However, they will codify existing instructions in the Bureau’s manual and will lend credence to  
those instructions.  
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.  
There would be no difference between current behavior/practice and desired behavior/practice. However, while  
behavior/practice is currently guided by instructions, going forward they would be guided by the Department’s  
administrative rules.  
C. What is the desired outcome?  
The desired outcome is greater understanding and knowledge of existing behavior/practice.  
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.  
Currently, challengers and poll watchers may not know about the instructions in the manual, which may make it more  
likely that they will violate its provisions. In addition, in 2022 individuals brought suit against the Department  
challenging several provisions of the manual. On August 28, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the  
instructions are consistent with the Michigan Election Law and that the Secretary had the authority to issue those  
instructions without promulgating them as administrative rules. However, while it is not necessary to promulgate the  
instructions as rules, the Department seeks to alleviate any remaining confusion regarding the rules.  
A. What is the rationale for changing the rules instead of leaving them as currently written?  
There are no pre-existing rules to modify.  
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.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 3  
The proposed rules would reflect current practice, provide clarity to clerks and election officials responsible for  
working with challengers and poll watchers, and alleviate the possibility of confusion and conflict regarding  
challengers and poll watchers.  
7. Describe any rules in the affected rule set that are obsolete or unnecessary and can be rescinded.  
There are no obsolete or unnecessary rules in the rule set that can be rescinded because these rules create a new rule  
set and there is no existing rule set.  
Fiscal Impact on the Agency  
Fiscal impact is an increase or decrease in expenditures from the current level of expenditures, i.e. hiring additional staff,  
higher contract costs, programming costs, changes in reimbursements rates, etc. over and above what is currently  
expended for that function. It does not include more intangible costs for benefits, such as opportunity costs, the value of  
time saved or lost, etc., unless those issues result in a measurable impact on expenditures.  
8. Please provide the fiscal impact on the agency (an estimate of the cost of rule imposition or potential savings for  
the agency promulgating the rule).  
It is not expected that the promulgation of rules will have a fiscal impact on the agency promulgating the rules.  
9. Describe whether or not an agency appropriation has been made or a funding source provided for any  
expenditures associated with the proposed rules.  
No agency appropriation has been made, and no funding source has been provided, as it is not anticipated that the  
Department of State will have any expenditures associated with the proposed rules.  
10. Describe how the proposed rules are necessary and suitable to accomplish their purpose, in relationship to the  
burden(s) the rules place on individuals. Burdens may include fiscal or administrative burdens, or duplicative  
acts.  
The proposed rules will codify current practices and are not expected to place any additional fiscal or administrative  
burdens on individuals.  
A. Despite the identified burden(s), identify how the requirements in the rules are still needed and reasonable  
compared to the burdens.  
There are no identified burdens.  
Impact on Other State or Local Governmental Units  
11. Estimate any increase or decrease in revenues to other state or local governmental units (i.e. cities, counties,  
school districts) as a result of the rule. Estimate the cost increases or reductions for other state or local  
governmental units (i.e. cities, counties, school districts) as a result of the rule. Include the cost of equipment,  
supplies, labor, and increased administrative costs in both the initial imposition of the rule and any ongoing  
monitoring.  
There are no estimated increases or decreases in revenue to other state or local governmental units. There are no  
estimated increases or reductions in cost to other state or local governmental units.  
12. Discuss any program, service, duty, or responsibility imposed upon any city, county, town, village, or school  
district by the rules.  
The proposed rules do not change any duty or responsibility imposed upon any city, county, town, village, or school  
district.  
A. Describe any actions that governmental units must take to be in compliance with the rules. This section should  
include items such as record keeping and reporting requirements or changing operational practices.  
It is not anticipated that governmental units would need to take any additional actions under the proposed rules.  
13. Describe whether or not an appropriation to state or local governmental units has been made or a funding  
source provided for any additional expenditures associated with the proposed rules.  
An appropriation has not been made because additional expenditures associated with the rules are not anticipated.  
Rural Impact  
14. In general, what impact will the rules have on rural areas?  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 4  
The proposed rules are not expected to impact rural areas.  
A. Describe the types of public or private interests in rural areas that will be affected by the rules.  
The proposed rules are not expected to have any impact on public or private interests in rural areas.  
Environmental Impact  
15. Do the proposed rules have any impact on the environment? If yes, please explain.  
The proposed rules will not have an impact on the environment.  
Small Business Impact Statement  
16. Describe whether and how the agency considered exempting small businesses from the proposed rules.  
Small businesses will not be governed or impacted by the proposed rules, so the agency did not consider small  
businesses.  
17. If small businesses are not exempt, describe (a) the manner in which the agency reduced the economic impact  
of the proposed rules on small businesses, including a detailed recitation of the efforts of the agency to comply  
with the mandate to reduce the disproportionate impact of the rules upon small businesses as described below (in  
accordance with MCL 24.240(1)(a-d)), or (b) the reasons such a reduction was not lawful or feasible.  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
A. Identify and estimate the number of small businesses affected by the proposed rules and the probable effect on  
small businesses.  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
B. Describe how the agency established differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables for small  
businesses under the rules after projecting the required reporting, record-keeping, and other administrative costs.  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses and will not have an impact on their reporting requirements.  
C. Describe how the agency consolidated or simplified the compliance and reporting requirements for small  
businesses and identify the skills necessary to comply with the reporting requirements.  
The agency did not consolidate or simplify the compliance and reporting requirements for small businesses as the  
proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
D. Describe how the agency established performance standards to replace design or operation standards required  
by the proposed rules.  
The proposed rules do not apply to performance, design, or operation standards in relation to small businesses.  
18. Identify any disproportionate impact the proposed rules may have on small businesses because of their size or  
geographic location.  
The proposed rules will have no impact on small businesses.  
19. Identify the nature of any report and the estimated cost of its preparation by small businesses required to  
comply with the proposed rules.  
There are no estimated costs for small businesses as the proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
20. Analyze the costs of compliance for all small businesses affected by the proposed rules, including costs of  
equipment, supplies, labor, and increased administrative costs.  
The proposed rule set will have no impact on small businesses and require no compliance from small businesses.  
21. Identify the nature and estimated cost of any legal, consulting, or accounting services that small businesses  
would incur in complying with the proposed rules.  
The proposed rule set will have no impact on small businesses and require no legal, consulting, or accounting  
services on behalf of small businesses.  
22. Estimate the ability of small businesses to absorb the costs without suffering economic harm and without  
adversely affecting competition in the marketplace.  
There are no estimated costs for small businesses as the proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
23. Estimate the cost, if any, to the agency of administering or enforcing a rule that exempts or sets lesser  
standards for compliance by small businesses.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 5  
There are no estimated costs to the agency for administration or enforcement against small businesses as the  
proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
24. Identify the impact on the public interest of exempting or setting lesser standards of compliance for small  
businesses.  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses so there will be no impact on the standards of compliance.  
25. Describe whether and how the agency has involved small businesses in the development of the proposed rules.  
The agency has not involved small businesses in the development because the proposed rules do not apply to small  
businesses.  
A. If small businesses were involved in the development of the rules, please identify the business(es).  
No small businesses were involved because the proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rules (independent of statutory impact)  
26. Estimate the actual statewide compliance costs of the rule amendments on businesses or groups.  
It is not anticipated that there will be any statewide compliance costs.  
A. Identify the businesses or groups who will be directly affected by, bear the cost of, or directly benefit from the  
proposed rules.  
Clerks and election officials will directly benefit from the proposed rules, as the clear guidance regarding challengers  
and poll watchers that is available in the Challenger Manual will be codified in Administrative Rules. It is not  
anticipated that clerks or election officials will bear any additional costs from the proposed rules.  
B. What additional costs will be imposed on businesses and other groups as a result of these proposed rules (i.e.  
new equipment, supplies, labor, accounting, or recordkeeping)? Please identify the types and number of businesses  
and groups. Be sure to quantify how each entity will be affected.  
There will be no costs imposed as a result of the proposed rules. It is anticipated that the rules can be followed with  
the current funding appropriated to clerks and election officials.  
27. Estimate the actual statewide compliance costs of the proposed rules on individuals (regulated individuals or  
the public). Include the costs of education, training, application fees, examination fees, license fees, new  
equipment, supplies, labor, accounting, or recordkeeping.  
There will be no additional statewide compliance cost. The proposed rules codify current practice and would be  
incorporated into existing training. They are not anticipated to impose any additional training costs, and no additional  
costs are anticipated.  
A. How many and what category of individuals will be affected by the rules?  
Clerks and election officials would be positively affected by the proposed rules, as they would be able to refer to the  
rules for clarity when dealing with election challengers and poll watchers. 1,604 county and local clerks and  
hundreds of election officials administer elections in Michigan. Additionally, several thousand election inspectors  
interact with challengers and poll watchers and would be positively affected by administrative rules on the topic.  
B. What qualitative and quantitative impact do the proposed changes in rules have on these individuals?  
Clerks, election officials, and the public would rely on the rules to understand the procedures that apply to  
challengers and poll watchers. It is not anticipated that the rules would have a quantitative impact.  
28. Quantify any cost reductions to businesses, individuals, groups of individuals, or governmental units as a result  
of the proposed rules.  
It is not anticipated that there would be any cost reductions to businesses, individuals, groups of individuals, or  
governmental as a result of the proposed rules.  
29. Estimate the primary and direct benefits and any secondary or indirect benefits of the proposed rules. Please  
provide both quantitative and qualitative information, as well as your assumptions.  
The primary and direct benefits of the proposed rules are to provide clarity and direction on the rules regarding  
challengers and poll watchers. As with the current manual, a secondary or indirect benefit is that challenges are  
handled in a consistent way and by a designated individual (the challenger liaison), which allows all other election  
inspectors to complete their other job functions, resulting in a smoother election experience. It is not anticipated that  
this will have a quantitative impact.  
30. Explain how the proposed rules will impact business growth and job creation (or elimination) in Michigan.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 6  
The proposed rules will not impact business growth and job creation (or elimination) in Michigan.  
31. Identify any individuals or businesses who will be disproportionately affected by the rules as a result of their  
industrial sector, segment of the public, business size, or geographic location.  
It is not anticipated that individuals or businesses will be disproportionately affected by the rules as a result of their  
industrial sector, segment of the public, business size, or geographic location.  
32. Identify the sources the agency relied upon in compiling the regulatory impact statement, including the  
methodology utilized in determining the existence and extent of the impact of the proposed rules and a cost-  
benefit analysis of the proposed rules.  
The agency relied upon the Department of State's current practice and on agency staff and its regulatory experience  
to formulate estimates and assumptions and determine the need for the proposed rules. Additionally, the agency  
reviewed statute and administrative rules in surrounding states to determine best practices. Finally, the agency  
solicited comments from the Michigan Association of County Clerks and the Michigan Association of Municipal  
Clerks.  
A. How were estimates made, and what were your assumptions? Include internal and external sources, published  
reports, information provided by associations or organizations, etc., that demonstrate a need for the proposed  
rules.  
The agency relied upon agency staff and its regulatory and administrative experience to determine the impact of the  
proposed rules. The agency also sent the rules to the county and local clerk associations—the Michigan Association  
of County Clerks and the Michigan Association of Municipal Clerks—and relied on their feedback and expertise.  
Because the proposed rules largely codify current practice, the agency can reasonably assume their implementation  
will not cause any major change to the procedures regarding challengers and poll watchers. The agency assumes that  
having the administrative rules reflect current law and practice will be beneficial and eliminate any confusion that  
currently exists, and it assumes that having accurate rules that reflect current practice will promote public confidence  
in matters regarding challengers and poll watchers.  
Alternative to Regulation  
33. Identify any reasonable alternatives to the proposed rules that would achieve the same or similar goals.  
One reasonable alternative to the proposed rules would be to leave the instructions as instructions, and not to  
promulgate them as rules, as authorized by MCL 168.31(1)(c). That provision states that “The secretary of state  
shall...Publish and furnish for the use in each election precinct before each state primary and election a manual of  
instructions that includes specific instructions on assisting voters in casting their ballots, directions on the location of  
voting stations in polling places, procedures and forms for processing challenges, and procedures on prohibiting  
campaigning in the polling places as prescribed in this act.” While the secretary is authorized to issue this manual of  
instructions, confusion in recent years makes codified administrative rules preferable.  
The other reasonable alternative would be to amend the Michigan Election Law to explicitly state the provisions  
regarding challengers and poll watchers. However, the Department cannot amend the law, so this is not a reasonable  
alternative that is within the Department’s control.  
A. Please include any statutory amendments that may be necessary to achieve such alternatives.  
The alternative would likely provide for explicit provisions regarding challengers and poll watchers in the Michigan  
Election Law in MCL 168.730-168.734.  
34. Discuss the feasibility of establishing a regulatory program similar to that proposed in the rules that would  
operate through private market-based mechanisms. Please include a discussion of private market-based systems  
utilized by other states.  
There are no private market-based mechanisms available to address the needs covered by the proposed rules. Other  
states do not use private market-based systems because none exist.  
35. Discuss all significant alternatives the agency considered during rule development and why they were not  
incorporated into the rules. This section should include ideas considered both during internal discussions and  
discussions with stakeholders, affected parties, or advisory groups.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 7  
Due to the nature of regulating the manner of elections, no significant alternatives to reasonable regulation were  
considered during the development of the proposed rules. The proposed rules are intended to codify the current legal  
requirements and practices.  
Additional Information  
36. As required by MCL 24.245b(1)(c), please describe any instructions regarding the method of complying with  
the rules, if applicable.  
The rules explicitly inform persons of requirements and methods of compliance.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
;