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  
Email of person filling out RIS:  
McInerneyJ1@michigan.gov  
RULE SET INFORMATION:  
ARD assigned rule set number:  
2025-63 ST  
Title of proposed rule set:  
General Roles and Responsibilities of Election Officials  
COMPARISON OF RULE(S) TO FEDERAL/STATE/ASSOCIATION STANDARDS  
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 set by a state or national licensing agency or accreditation  
association.  
A. Are these rules required by state law or federal mandate?  
Yes. MCL 168.31(1)(a) uses the mandatory “shall” to state 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.”  
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.  
The department is not aware of any rules or standards addressing the same subject area as the proposed rules.  
However, while no state appears to have compiled a ruleset similar to the proposed rules that addresses delegation of  
authority and responsibility explicitly and in one place, similarly situated states do recognize that delegation of  
authority and responsibility is something that occurs and is allowed. For example, a statute in Ohio that specifically  
allows the secretary of state to delegate to “authenticating officers” the power to use a “facsimile signature.” OH ST §  
9.11. In Wisconsin’s Elections Commission administrative code, the term “administrator” is defined as “a person duly  
appointed by the board or any employee of the agency to whom a lawful function has been delegated by the  
administrator to administer and manage the agency.” Wis. Adm. Code § EL 20.02. The definition of a role for  
individuals who have functions delegated to them in the election commission administrative rules suggests that  
Wisconsin’s approach to election administration similarly allows for delegation of duties and responsibilities like the  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 2  
proposed rules. Illinois, in its administrative code, Title 26, addressing elections, section 219.10 covers  
implementation of “the electronic canvass (eCanvass).” In this rule, access to the eCanvass system is addressed and  
the rule recognizes that while it is the election authority that is responsible for submitting the electronic file, it may  
“delegate this task to a deputy or another jurisdiction employee” by requesting eCanvass access for that person  
through that person’s voter registration system account. 26 Ill. Adm. Code 219.10. While this recognition of delegation  
authority in Illinois is tied to a specific function it is another example of a similarly situated state allowing election  
officials to delegate certain responsibilities to certain individuals. This is in line with the content of the proposed rules.  
The proposed rules seek to explicitly recognize the authority to delegate authority by various individuals in one rule  
set to cover all relevant circumstances rather than take a piecemeal or implication-based approach like it appears  
similarly situated states have taken with respect to delegation of authority and responsibility.  
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 the other states where relevant rules and regulations were identified,  
but rather, the proposed rules take a different approach to how inherent delegation authority is recognized.  
Where other states appear to rely on implied delegation authority or to explicitly address delegation in some  
situations but not others, the proposed rules deviate from that approach by explicitly laying out delegation  
authority where it is allowed. There is no cost to this deviation because the only impact arising out of this  
deviation from other states’ approach is increased clarity around delegation authority. Thus, the benefit arising  
out of the deviation is increased clarity about delegation authority.  
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 procedures that are not currently formally articulated in one place.  
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. Because there are no federal, state, or local laws applicable to the same activity  
or subject matter as the proposed rules, there was no need for the agency to avoid or minimize duplication as  
there is no risk of duplication.  
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RULE(S)  
4. Identify the behavior and frequency of behavior that the proposed rules are designed to alter.  
The proposed rules are not designed to alter any behavior or the frequency of any behavior. The rules are intended to  
clarify who may perform certain duties and responsibilities, but should not change any behaviors associated with  
performance of duty or responsibility.  
A. Estimate the change in the frequency of the targeted behavior expected from the proposed rules.  
It is not anticipated there will be any change in the frequency of any behavior as a result of the proposed rules  
because the rules are not designed to affect any behavior.  
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 implicit expectations and procedure, going forward it would be explicitly  
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 and greater clarity  
about who can perform certain duties and responsibilities.  
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 rules are not designed to alter any behavior; however, the rules are designed to provide instructions regarding  
delegation of duty and responsibility in one place and to be explicit about the ability to delegate certain duties and  
responsibilities to certain individuals. The harm that will occur in the absence of the proposed rules is that there may  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 3  
be some people who do not understand how the secretary or a clerk is able to delegate duties and responsibilities to  
staff or deputies.  
A. What is the rationale for changing the rules instead of leaving them as currently written?  
There are no pre-existing rules to modify, the proposed rules are a new rule set.  
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 are not relevant to health or safety of Michigan citizens and they do not regulate health or safety  
issues. The proposed rules tangentially promote the welfare of Michigan citizens because they reflect current practice  
and provide additional clarity and written procedures that are clear are good for everyone. The rules do not impose  
any new regulatory burdens so they do provide the least burdensome alternative for those required to comply.  
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 practice 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 as a result of the  
proposed rules. There are no estimated increases or reductions in cost to other state or local governmental units as a  
result of the rule. There are no equipment, supplies, labor, or increased administrative costs in either the initial  
imposition of the rule or any ongoing monitoring as none is required.  
12. Discuss any program, service, duty, or responsibility imposed upon any city, county, town, village, or school  
district by the rules.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 4  
The proposed rules do not change any program, service, 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?  
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.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 5  
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.  
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.  
There are no costs to bear from the proposed rules. The rules do not apply to any businesses or specific private  
groups. The rules do address delegation of authority and responsibility by the secretary of state, director of  
elections, deputy director of elections, bureau of elections’ staff, county clerks, and city or township clerks, and  
the board of state canvassers to various staff or assistants. The effect the proposed rules will have on these  
groups is that they will clarify responsibilities and that clarification is also the benefit that these groups will have  
from the proposed rules because greater clarity is a benefit.  
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. The rules codify existing procedures and do  
not impose any additional costs on any business or group.  
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.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 6  
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?  
The rules address delegation of authority and responsibility by the secretary of state, director of elections,  
deputy director of elections, bureau of elections’ staff, county clerks, and city or township clerks, and the board  
of state canvassers to various staff or assistants. An exact number of individuals is not possible to estimate  
because the department does not have exact numbers of how many people work in each clerk’s office, but  
roughly there are 1,604 county and local clerks and likely hundreds of employees between county and local  
clerk offices and the employees of the Michigan Secretary of State.  
B. What qualitative and quantitative impact do the proposed changes in rules have on these individuals?  
Qualitatively, secretary of state, director of elections, deputy director of elections, bureau of elections’ staff,  
county clerks, and city or township clerks, and the board of state canvassers would rely on the rules to  
understand how responsibilities are delegated by the secretary of state, the director of elections, board of state  
canvassers, and county and local clerks. 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 units 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 any assumptions.  
The primary and direct benefits of the proposed rules are qualitative and are to provide clarity and direction on the  
sharing of responsibilities by the secretary of state, director of elections, deputy director of elections, bureau of  
elections’ staff, county clerks, and city or township clerks, and the board of state canvassers. The secondary or  
indirect benefits of the proposed rules is greater clarity to other parties, such as the public, who may also be  
interested in how work is delegated. The assumption being made is that better clarity and direction improve quality.  
There is no relevant quantitative information and no assumptions involving quantities.  
30. Explain how the proposed rules will impact business growth and job creation (or elimination) in Michigan.  
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.  
A. How were estimates made, and what assumptions were made? 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 changes. 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 the work of the  
secretary of state, board of state canvassers, and clerks.  
ALTERNATIVE TO REGULATION  
33. Identify any reasonable alternatives to the proposed rules that would achieve the same or similar goals.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 7  
The only reasonable alternative to the proposed rules that would achieve the same or similar goal is to amend the  
Michigan Election Law to essentially codify the rules instead of promulgation. 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 need to add several new provisions to the Michigan Election Law in MCL 168.1-168.992.  
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. The  
department could not find any other state that utilizes a private market-based system. Because no such systems exist,  
a private market-based system is not feasible.  
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.  
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)  
;