2007 Senate Bill 12: Allow no-reason absentee voting

Legislation watch

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

Introduced by Sen. Liz Brater (D) on January 10, 2007, to eliminate the requirement that a person give a specific reason for requesting an absentee ballot.
- Referred to the Senate Campaign & Election Oversight Committee on January 10, 2007, to eliminate the requirement that a person give a specific reason for requesting an absentee ballot.
- Motion by Sen. Liz Brater (D) on October 2, 2008. The motion failed by voice vote in the Senate on October 2, 2008.
- Motion by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey (R) on October 2, 2008, that further consideration be postponed for the day. This is a parliamentary maneuver that places the decision of whether to eventually move for an actual vote on the bill into the hands of the Senate Majority Leader. The motion passed 22 to 16 in the Senate on October 2, 2008.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) "journal statement" by Admin003 on October 3, 2008
Senator Cherry’s statement is as follows:

I also would like a “no” vote explanation on this bill, that is, that the no-reason absentee voting is law in the state of Alaska, Sarah Palin’s state, and in the state of Arizona, Senator McCain’s state. So it seems to me we could at least do this for this state.

Reply

Line

2) "journal statement" by Admin003 on October 3, 2008
Senator Jacobs’ statement, in which Senator Cherry concurred, is as follows:

Today the people of Michigan were just outmaneuvered by this chamber, and it is a very sad day. Terry Lynn Land, our Secretary of State, endorses this. Hundreds of clerks, as we have heard from our election committee who went all over this state and talked to clerks, all of them want to have this. In fact, the now-defunct Reform Michigan Government Now initiative, and as much as I disliked it, there was polling done and no reason absentee voting was actually in there because it polled so high with the voters in Michigan—people want this. They want Michigan to have this. Twenty-eight states have this.

We have lost a window of opportunity today to do something for thousands upon thousands of people—people in our districts who will have to stand in line for hours, or who because they have no transportation to get to the polls, or may get sick the day of the election, or may have a child who is ill and can’t get to the polls.

We are, in effect, really disenfranchising folks from being able to take part in this great democracy that we have here. So it is with great sadness that I give this “no” vote explanation because we could have all gone home to our districts at the end of the day and been holding our heads up high to say we did something to help the electorate in Michigan

Reply

Line

3) "journal statement" by Admin003 on October 3, 2008
Senator Brater’s statement, in which Senator Cherry concurred, is as follows:

Mr. President, I voted “no” on that postponement for the day motion because the motion that I made to discharge Senate Bill No. 12 from the campaign and elections committee is a very urgent motion. It is very time-sensitive, and we are not scheduled to be in session between now and Election Day.

Senate Bill No. 12 deals with the issue of allowing voters to vote by absentee ballot without stating a reason. Currently, in the state of Michigan, as you know, in order to vote by absentee ballot, you must state one of five reasons for your inability to be at the polls on Election Day. Twenty-eight states require no reason what-so-ever for their voters to vote by absentee ballot. That means that Michigan voters for this coming Election Day, November 4, are at a disadvantage compared to voters in other states in having their voices heard.

We know in this presidential election year that there will be long lines at the polls. We know that this tends to discourage people from voting, and it is very urgent that Senate Bill No. 12 be given a hearing and be taken up on this floor.

I urge my colleagues to reverse this earlier decision and allow this bill to be taken up today.

Reply

Line

View Full Conversation