2003 House Bill 4820 - Michigan Votes

Legislation watch

2003 House Bill 4820

Public Act 299 of 2003

Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next

Introduced by Rep. Chris Ward (R) on June 10, 2003, to require school board elections to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in either May or November, and consolidate school bond and millage elections to one of the four days on which all elections would be held in the state, as proposed in House Bills 4821 and 4824. The bill would also require all school elections to take place in the same polling places as other types of elections, and be run by municipal or county election officials, with the same absentee voter and other procedures as all other elections. See also House Bill 4824 and Senate Bill 877.
- Referred to the House Local Government and Urban Policy Committee on June 10, 2003.
- Reported in the House on June 17, 2003, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Amendment offered by Rep. John Pappageorge (R) on June 19, 2003, to reguire school elections to be held on November general elections days and revise the proposed procedures for filling school board vacancies. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 19, 2003.
Passed 73 to 33 in the House on June 19, 2003.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the Senate on June 24, 2003.
- Referred to the Senate Government Operations and Reform Committee on June 24, 2003.
  - Reported in the Senate on December 11, 2003, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on December 11, 2003, to replace the previous version of the bill with one which incorporates technical changes and which accomodates Senate Bill 877, which sets the rules for the school "floater" election date. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on December 11, 2003.
Passed 30 to 8 in the Senate on December 11, 2003, to require school board elections to be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in either May or November, and consolidate school bond and millage elections to one of the four days on which all elections would be held in the state, as proposed in House Bills 4821 and 4824. The bill would also require all school elections, including intermediate school district (ISD) elections, to take place in the same polling places as other types of elections, and be run by municipal or county election officials, with the same absentee voter and other procedures as all other elections. Schools could also hold one annual special election on a Tuesday "floater" date as specified in Senate Bill 877. The bill is part of an election consolidation and reform package comprised of House Bills 4820 to 4828, and Senate Bill 877.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the House on December 16, 2003.
Passed 86 to 22 in the House on December 18, 2003, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on January 8, 2004.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Rep. Zelenko's "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on June 23, 2003
Rep. Zelenko, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

In regards to HB 4820-4828, the school election conolidation package, I believe that the concept of election consolidation is good and I support the theory. I voted against this package of bills because of the fiscal implications to local governments. At a time when it is obvious that state revenues have decreased and the probability of shared revenues to the local governments being cut again, I can not, in good conscious, support this mandate without some indication of where the funding will come from."
Reply

Line

2) "no vote explantion" by Admin003 on June 23, 2003
Reps. Anderson, Law and Hopgood, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on HB 4820-23, HB 4824 (H-1), HB 4825-8 for the following reasons

1. This package removes local control from school boards and transfers it to other local units of government. Once there is absence of local control, things can go out of control.

2. There are numerous school districts where the boundaries are not coterminous with the corresponding township, city or village. Thereby, this package would force these local clerks to divide precincts into correct school districts. Even with the Qualified Voter File, this mandate would be very laborious for local clerks.

3. Those who support this package pull out the worse case scenarios where the turnout rate is low and there is little to none publicity about school elections. To the contrary, there are many school districts that publicize their elections and have active participation. For example, the Jackson ISD had an election in the same month where voters where choosing the replacement for their state representative in a special election. The turn out was greater for the ISD election than the other one. This proves with proper notice that all school boards do not run stealth elections.

4. If it is the goal of the sponsors to increase voter turnout, other mechanisms such as same day voter registration and no excuse absentee ballot would be more effective."
Reply

Line

3) Rep. Bieda's "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on June 23, 2003
Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted against HB 4820-23, HB 4824 (H-1), HB 4825-8 because this package removes local control from school boards and transfers it to other units of government. While I agree and find much merit with the stated goal of the sponsors, and I commend their work on this package, I have some fundamental concerns with the legislation as passed by the House today. Aside from the issue of the loss of local control, I am concerned that this package will cause local governments and taxpayers additional costs -- especially in the short term. The bills do not adequately address the issue of who will pay for the increased costs of dealing with setting up what will essentially be new voting districts. By way of example, in my district I have several school districts. One school district encompasses three different cities and two different counties. There are numerous school districts across this state where the boundaries are not coterminous with the corresponding local unit of government. This package of bills would force these local clerks to divide existing precincts into the correct school districts. Even with the Qualified Voter File, this mandate would be very time consuming and laborious for local clerks. Those who support this bill package have expressed concern about low voter turnout. I also share this concern. But there are many reasons why people vote -- and don't vote. If it is truly the goal of the sponsors to increase voter turnout, other mechanisms such as same day voter registration and eliminating the provision requiring an affidavit for exercising the right to cast an absentee ballot would be effective and desirable changes to Michigan's election law."
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation