2007 Senate Bill 624 (Revise presidential primary dates; require declaration of party )

Public Act 52 of 2007

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Sen. Michelle McManus on June 27, 2007, to set January 29 as the date for the 2008 presidential primary in Michigan, and require presidential primary voters to declare their party in order to vote. Also, to establish date ranges for future presidential primaries (sometime between the second Tuesday in January and the fourth Tuesday in February); establish procedures by which Democratic and Republican party chairs would determine the date; and prohibit either party from canceling a primary after Sept. 15 of the previous year, or without the agreement of the other party.
- Referred to the Senate Campaign & Election Oversight Committee on June 27, 2007.
  - Reported in the Senate on July 19, 2007, with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Mark Schauer on August 22, 2007, to allow no-reason absentee voting in Michigan elections. The amendment failed in the Senate (17 to 21) on August 22, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
- Amendment offered by Sen. Gretchen Whitmer on August 22, 2007, to repeal a law that requires a person to use the same address for voting registration and for his or her drivers license or state personal identification card. The amendment failed in the Senate (17 to 21) on August 22, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
- Amendment offered by Sen. Cameron Brown on August 22, 2007, to establish Jan. 15 as the date of the proposed presidential primary elections. The amendment passed in the Senate by voice vote on August 22, 2007.
Passed in the Senate (21 to 17) on August 22, 2007, to set January 15 as the date for the 2008 presidential primary in Michigan (eliminating the statutory February statewide election day), and require presidential primary voters to declare their party in order to vote. This information would not be made available to the public at large, but only to the parties, who would be subject to some restrictions on how they could use it (they could not sell the lists). Also, to establish date ranges for future presidential primaries (sometime between the second Tuesday in January and the fourth Tuesday in February); and establish procedures by which Democratic and Republican party chairs would determine the date. The bill would not require either party to hold a primary. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on August 22, 2007.
- Referred to the House Ethics and Elections Committee on August 22, 2007.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Ted Hammon on August 30, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that does not require voters to declare a party. Legislators voted on this substitute knowing that a subsequent one canceling out the non-declaration provision was favored by the House majority leadership (and the minority leadership as well), and would be offered as soon as this vote was completed. The leadership has the power to "gavel through" a substitute it prefers without a roll call vote, which is just what happened after this vote. The substitute passed in the House (92 to 11) on August 30, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
- Substitute offered by Rep. Paul Condino on August 30, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises various details of the procedures specified for the parties related to holding a primary. This is one of several substitutes that reflect negotiations between the political parties on these details. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on August 30, 2007.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Chris Ward on August 30, 2007, to require the parties to pay the state $1 each for the names of voters who requested to vote in their party's presidential primary election. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on August 30, 2007.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Chris Ward on August 30, 2007, to establish that if only one person files for election as a party precinct delegate, the name need not appear on the ballot and the person is automatically elected. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on August 30, 2007.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Chris Ward on August 30, 2007, to require a "do not contact" list that voters who request to vote in one or the other party's presidential primary election could sign up for when making that declaration. The parties would be prohibited from contacting the voter to promote candidates or for other party activities. Although the amendment was adopted, it was not included in the final substitute version of the bill that was voted on and passed. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on August 30, 2007.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Fred Miller on August 30, 2007, to repeal the provision of state election law that requires a person to use the same address for voting registration and for his or her drivers license or state personal identification card. The amendment failed in the House (53 to 50) on August 30, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
- Substitute offered by Rep. Paul Condino on August 30, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises various details of the procedures specified for the parties related to holding a primary. This is one of several substitutes that reflect negotiations between the political parties on these details; see House-passed bill for the final version. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on August 30, 2007.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Fred Miller on August 30, 2007, to allow "no reason" absentee voting. The amendment failed in the House (52 to 48) on August 30, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
Passed in the House (67 to 34) on August 30, 2007, to set January 15 as the date for the 2008 presidential primary in Michigan, and require presidential primary voters to declare their party in order to vote. This information would not be made available to the public at large, but only to the parties, who would be subject to some restrictions on how they could use it (they could not sell the lists). Also, to establish date ranges for future presidential primaries (sometime between the second Tuesday in January and the fourth Tuesday in February); and establish procedures by which Democratic and Republican party chairs would determine the date. The bill would not require either party to hold a primary. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on August 30, 2007, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill. Passed in the Senate (36 to 0) on August 30, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on September 3, 2007.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Sen. Michelle McManus on June 27, 2007. Passed in the Senate (21 to 17) on August 22, 2007. New Comment

1) What A Genius! [by Anonymous Citizen on March 9, 2008]
I guess the state of Michigan is getting the extra attention McManus wanted for us now!
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Sen. Schauer "journal statement" [by Admin003 on August 31, 2007]
Senator Schauer's statement is as follows:

I rise in support of the House changes to Senate Bill No.624. I have spoken in committee, while this bill was before us on General Orders, and on final passage out of the Senate in opposition to the bill because of technical changes that need to be made to the bill. Fortunately, those changes have been made on the House side that now allow me to be supportive.

As I've said all along, it's important for it to be said in the record here that Democrats have consistently supported an early, open primary, presidential primary, that puts Michigan in an important position to be part of not only the presidential nominating process, but also for Michigan citizens to receive direct assurances from these presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans, as to federal policies they would support that will help Michigan's manufacturing economy, that will help Michigan's economy transform itself to be competitive in a global economy, to help Michigan's workers and families who are struggling during this economic transformation, and to hear promises about protecting the Great Lakes basin.

So I rise as Democratic Leader of this body to indicate my support for this early presidential primary. I would ask that these remarks be printed in the Journal and ask that all of my colleagues would support this House-passed version of Senate Bill No.624.

Reply New Comment

Line

3) Laughing Hard. [by Anonymous Citizen on March 19, 2008]
So who is crying over the spilled milk now? I've got to say that the only people hurt are the hard working taxpayers in this state. I think that those that voted in favore of this need to be held accountable. With all of the time, effort and money that was spent to get this passed, you now need to explain the total cost of this to us (taxpayers). I think I'd be madder if I knew the exact cost of this mess.

If a total recall of the Michigan Legaslature was something that I could get to gain momentum, I'd work on it.

In closing, I hope that DeVos runs again. Maybe now people will listen.

Reply New Comment

Line

4) Primary Dates [by Anonymous Citizen on August 24, 2007]
Maybe all the primaries nationwide should be held on the same day. That way, no one state will have undue influence over the general election. That way candidates would have to talk to the nation instead of changing their speeches to cow tow to a particular region they happen to be in for that short period of time.

I also think elections should be funded by taxpayer dollars with no outside special interest money allowed. Everyone gets the same amount and has to prioritze where they will spend it. If they can't budget properly and run out of money before the race is done, that will likely tell us how they plan to run our country.

Darrin
Iron Mountain, MI
Reply New Comment

Line

5) Lori, NJ [by Anonymous Citizen on January 23, 2008]
Those are great ideas!
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Sen. Brown's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on August 24, 2007]
Senator Brown's statement is as follows:

This amendment will ensure that our state is a player on the national stage in the 2008 presidential election process by moving our primary to January 15th and making it one of the first in the nation. And why is this important? Our issues are of a critical nature. Certainly, this is true of our economy. We want the candidates running for President to take notice of Michigan.

In addition to unemployment and the economy, water and the environment, agricultural issues, our donor-state status, and so many more, these issues need to be relevant in the presidential process. We can make them relevant by placing Michigan in the forefront of our presidential sweepstakes.

Candidates hoping to win our early primary will have to address these issues. Additionally, such an influential primary will pump millions of dollars into our state in the form of organized campaigns, television and radio ads, debates, and multiple visits from candidates and staff on the ground. And, perhaps most importantly, it's an issue of fairness. Everyone, regardless of political party, agrees that the upcoming presidential election is immensely important to the future of our state and nation. Such an important decision should not be left to party insiders in caucuses. Every voter in Michigan should have the opportunity to cast a ballot.

I urge members to give Michigan a vital role in this process by supporting this amendment.

Reply New Comment

Line

7) Sen. Garcia's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on August 24, 2007]
Senator Garcia's statement is as follows:

I had some concerns about this bill, primarily, because a year or two ago we passed legislation which required that we hold elections four times a year, one of them being in February, August, November, and, I believe, the other one is June. But I've been assured by the principal manager of this bill that the cost for the locals will be covered for this. For that reason, I will go ahead and vote for this bill.

I realize the importance that Michigan plays in the presidential arena, but, again, my concern was we just recently passed a law and there were costs involved for locals, and I believe they are going to be taken care of. So, therefore, I will vote for this bill.

Reply New Comment

Line

8) Sen. Schauer's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on August 24, 2007]
Senator Schauer's statement is as follows:

I appreciate the majority party trying to move this process forward. Democrats support Michigan being relevant in this important presidential-nominating process. However, there are a number of technical issues that remain to be resolved where there isn't a final agreement. So at this time, I will be voting "no" and am hopeful that, assuming that this bill moves, it's fixed in the House, and we have another opportunity to vote on a bill that actually does address those issues.

Reply New Comment

Line

9) Primary Elections [by Mike Hignite on August 24, 2007]
Political party membership is a private group and should remain so. If you don't declare yourself a member of the Republican party, you shouldn't be able to influence that group's choice of candidates.

That being said, the state should have no control or support of those political parties. The state should not pay for primary elections, or support them or validate them or have any connection to them.

We can simply say that a certain number of signatures on a petition puts you on the ballot. Then the state has a general election with no declaration of party affiliation at all, on the ballot or anyplace else. It has the candidate's name. It doesn't say incumbent, or any party affiliation. Names go in random order on the ballot.
Reply New Comment

Line

10) move date of primary is ok [by Anonymous Citizen on August 24, 2007]
The primary vote is the one of the most important vote a person makes !
Moving the primary to Jan.makes us Mi. voters players in the selection!
Why should Mi. not be a player?
And for all the Mi.voters who don't vote,sham on you!
I think a law shoud be passed that anyone who does not vote is not eligible for any type of payment from the state or federal gov!
That would be social security to student loans,this would be any and all money that comes from us tax payers.
This is for all you people who do not vote ,all of you are the proplem!
I bet if someone said you could not vote,all of you non voters would cry like a baby!
All of you non voters can kiss my behind!
It is people that do not vote that all the do nothing,bad politicians count on to keep gettig elected !
Now we all need to change the term limit law in Mi.
Term limits cause bad Gov.in Lansing,all we have is a bunch of kids like Bishop and Dillon running our state gov.
Would any business who had to fire all their empoylees after 8 years be in business?
Well that is what the state of Mi. does!

Reply New Comment

Line

11) why should michigan [by Anonymous Citizen on August 24, 2007]
be 'a player'?

we haven't been for two hundred years, why start now? why spend MORE MONEY just to say 'we had a hand in picking some candidate'?

we already have a hand in picking some candidate. it's called an ELECTION. having it early will only mean that we will have to ACTUALLY MAKE A CHOICE ABOUT A CANDIDATE instead of simply voting democrat.

you know that is what is going to happen anyway, so why put out the extra money????

oh, yeah, it's the government's money anyway. they have a separate source of income other than the taxpayers.
Reply New Comment

Line

12) You Are Confused on The Concept [by Anonymous Citizen on August 24, 2007]
"I think a law shoud be passed that anyone who does not vote is not eligible for any type of payment from the state or federal gov!"

I think that if you take handouts from the government / workers then you should not be allowed to vote. Why should we let people vote to take more of the workers money?

"This is for all you people who do not vote ,all of you are the proplem!"

If you are not educated on the issues you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

"Would any business who had to fire all their empoylees after 8 years be in business?"

Fine, If you want to run it like a business then balance the books, quit stealing our money and we'll talk about the term limits.
Reply New Comment

Line

13) Who cares? [by jmd364 on August 23, 2007]
So you want to have a primary on Jan 15. That's just great. Now that Michigan is ahead of Iowa & New Hampshire you guys have to feel pretty good about yourselves. Do you really think the voters care?

I'm pretty sure that the unemployed people in Michigan couldn't care less.

But now that you're done fooling around maybe you'll get back to doing some real work.

Like; voting yourselves another raise or changing the name of the state to the "Banana Republic of Michigan" or moving the primary to Dec 28th!
Reply New Comment

Line

14) Primary elections [by Anonymous Citizen on July 22, 2007]
Primary Elections are necessary especially when there are more than 2 candidates running for the same position. Every citizen has the right to run for office and in some cases there may be 8 or 10 or more. The Primary narrows the race down to 2 viable candidates with the most votes to be decided in the General Election.
It would be very confusing if a large number of candidates were on the General.
Majority votes wins--that's the way this country works. What better way to get a true majority than to thin out the ranks in a primary.
Reply New Comment

Line

15) fini [by Anonymous Citizen on July 24, 2007]
If the parties want a primary let them pay for it.
Reply New Comment

Line

16) Voter's Rights [by Anonymous Citizen on July 22, 2007]
what ever happened to the secret ballot???
Reply New Comment

Line

17) Voter's Rights [by Anonymous Citizen on July 22, 2007]
Aren't we supposed to have a SECRET BALLOT?
THEN WHY SHOULD ANYONE HAVE TO DECLARE A PARTY PREFERENCE IN ORDER TO VOTE?

Is someone trying to change the Constitution??
Reply New Comment

Line

18) Reply - Voter's Rights [by Anonymous Citizen on July 22, 2007]

No one is trying to change the Constitution. The key word is "primary." The primary election is simply the process by which a party -- Republican, democRAT, Libertarian or whatever -- chooses whom it will run as a candidate in the general election.

If the Michigan democRATs decide that they want their candidate to be choosen by other democRATs, that is the party prerogative.

If a voter decides that he wants to vote in primary election, he merely has to chose which party. Under this bill, he doesn't have to "declare" a political affiliation; he only has to chose the party primary in which he wants to vote -- a requirement that reasonably presumes that the person voting in any given party primary has a legitimate interest in that party and its internal candidate selection process.

Jim
Arvada, CO

Reply New Comment

Line

19) Right to Vote [by inform4 on July 21, 2007]
AGAIN, I STATE -- NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO DECLARE A PARTY AFFILIATION IN ORDER TO VOTE!!!

"MY PARTY RIGHT OR WRONG" IS A BUNCH OF SEWER MANURE! THERE SHOULD BE NO MANDATES ON HAVING TO CHOSE A PARTY IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE AND CONDUCT YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE!
Reply New Comment

Line

20) I agree. [by Anonymous Citizen on January 12, 2008]
From what I hear, Michigan used to have caucuses rather than primaries. Well, guess who funds the primaries everyone- WE DO! Apparently, primaries can cost 10,000,000 lovely tax dollars. Whereas, caucuses are run by the parties, without our hard earned dollars.

As we can see, these primaries sure will vamp up the Michigan economy by CUTTING INTO OUR FUNDS!

Thank you, Michigan government, for focusing on a real issue THAT NO ACTUAL CITIZEN COULD GIVE A SHIT ABOUT!

And, since no media has decided to do in depth analysis of why the primary date has changed and its effect on taxpayers, ALL CITIZENS ARE KEPT IN THE DARK! Not sketchy one bit...

Wow, politics truly is a bunch of crap.

Reply New Comment

Line

21) Reply - Right to Vote [by Anonymous Citizen on July 23, 2007]
No.

Tough.

If you are not affiliated with the Boy Scouts, you can't pick a troop leader. If you are not a Kiwanis member, you can't vote for chapter president.

If you are not affiliated with a political party, you have no business and certainly no right to effect that party's internal selection process unless it invites you to do so.

One may debate whether it would be smart for a political party to open its selection process to non-affiliated voters, but whether the party chooses to select its candidate behind closed doors, by closed primary or by a stupid sack race, it's entirely up to it.

Your "right" doesn't kick in until the general election. And the fact that you have been granted such franchise just by virtue of your existence is something of a miscarriage of public policy itself, given your obvious inability to think logically.

Jim
Arvada, CO
Reply New Comment

Line

22) pick a party, or pick your nose [by Anonymous Citizen on September 7, 2007]
The fact that you affiliate yourself with republicans, democrats, libertarians, or anarchists. should not matter. An American citizen should be able to pick whatever candidate from whatever party that bests reflects his or her views. THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM is fatally flawed, and he major distinctions between them is hazy and getting worse. if i am registered as an independent what is wrong with me endorsing a republican? on the same note if i am registered as a republican and none of the candidates speak to me in a voice i agree with, why should i not have a chance to support a candidate that does.
The sooner that us as Michiganders throw down our partisan affiliations and support ideals that we agree with instead of picking a candidate who we think has a chance of winning, the better the result we will have for our government.
When it comes down to it the people who really have a voice in politics are the lobbyists not the citizens, and soon as we can change the face of our politicians to turn away from the money and to look their constituents in the eye we will be truly have a government that is of the people, for the people, and by the people. The only way this can be achieved is to throw away your party affiliations and vote with your hear and mind not with the party that is listed on your voter registration card.

CFick
Detroit, MI
Reply New Comment

Line

23) pick a party, or pick your nose [by Anonymous Citizen on September 7, 2007]
The fact that you affiliate yourself with republicans, democrats, libertarians, or anarchists. should not matter. An American citizen should be able to pick whatever candidate from whatever party that bests reflects his or her views. THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM is fatally flawed, and he major distinctions between them is hazy and getting worse. if i am registered as an independent what is wrong with me endorsing a republican? on the same note if i am registered as a republican and none of the candidates speak to me in a voice i agree with, why should i not have a chance to support a candidate that does.
The sooner that us as Michiganders throw down our partisan affiliations and support ideals that we agree with instead of picking a candidate who we think has a chance of winning, the better the result we will have for our government.
When it comes down to it the people who really have a voice in politics are the lobbyists not the citizens, and soon as we can change the face of our politicians to turn away from the money and to look their constituents in the eye we will be truly have a government that is of the people, for the people, and by the people. The only way this can be achieved is to throw away your party affiliations and vote with your hear and mind not with the party that is listed on your voter registration card.
Reply New Comment

Line

24) does requiring a party [by Anonymous Citizen on July 21, 2007]
also require that you VOTE for that party?

if it DOES, then your right to vote has been abrogated. it has been forfieted. the theory of 'voting your conscience' has been thrown out the window.

Reply New Comment

Line

25) having read the [by uber-liberal on July 6, 2007]
eloquent and RAPID replies to the opponent's queries, i have to sit and wonder why the opponents refuse to answer our queries.

no such eloquence seems forthcoming from them.

no logic, no reasoning, nothing. only terrified silence.

the opponent's post was examined line by line, and his weak points were not only answered, but were put to rest finally and firmly for the bunch of hokum they are.

we await the 'irrefutable facts and verifiable figures' that certainly will not come from the opponent's posts. i'm sure that much name calling and bunk will fill the posts instead.

such is always the case when weak minds join in a debate charged with emotion. to expect more from the liberal opponents, no matter what name they are given, >carrot-top<, officer red herring, or skippy, is an exercise in futility.

to expect honesty from the opponents is also an exercise in futility.

to expect reason and logic from the opponents is most certainly a pipe dream. all we can expect is libel, abuse, and the occasional vague attempt at humor.

such is the case when bleeding heart liberals without education practice freedom of speech.
Reply New Comment

Line

26) Huh? [by MCP-001 on July 7, 2007]
You've lost me there.

And where is this name calling that you're claiming?
Reply New Comment

Line

27) the reply was to a post [by Anonymous Citizen on July 7, 2007]
on another string.

i'm not sure how it ended up under this string.

my apologies.

Reply New Comment

Line

28) I have a solution to this "problem" [by MCP-001 on July 6, 2007]
As soon as BOTH the Michigan Democratic AND Republican Parties reimburse the State of Michigan for ALL the costs associated with running these elections, then they can ask for a party declaration from voters on election day.

Until that time, quit trying to have it both ways!

Reply New Comment

Line

29) Voting [by Anonymous Citizen on July 5, 2007]
What about those of us who have no political party? I am not affiliated with Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, etc. I choose to vote for the best person regardless of party. No one should have to decare a party to vote.
Reply New Comment

Line

30) More Government Restrictions [by Anonymous Citizen on July 4, 2007]
No one should have to be obligated to registering to one party or another. I am a law abiding citizen, and should be able to vote without being restricted by having to sign up as either a Democrat or a Republican, etc. If you want to do something productive, take out any legislation that interfers with a citizens constitutional rights. Reform campaign finance. Free the border patrol agents. Get the illegals out of this country with the citizens whose allegience is to the country from which they came to the USA.
Reply New Comment

Line

31) Ban Primary Elections [by Anonymous Citizen on July 5, 2007]

run at public expense altogether.

if the various political parties want to test run their candidate hopefuls in primary elections, then let the parties pay for it.

Reply New Comment

Line

32) Right to Vote [by inform4 on July 4, 2007]
No registered voter should have to declare a political party in order to vote. Every individual should be able to vote for whom ever they wish without following a party side of the ballot whether in a general or primary election.

Was not this country founded on LIBERTY? Then we should be able to vote for ANYONE on any ballot!@
Reply New Comment

Line

Received in the House on August 22, 2007. Passed in the House (67 to 34) on August 30, 2007. New Comment

1) What A Genius! [by Anonymous Citizen on March 9, 2008]
I guess the state of Michigan is getting the extra attention McManus wanted for us now!
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Anonymous [by Anonymous Citizen on September 1, 2007]
I can't believe we have to declare a party. I'm appalled that that remained in the bill. this is nothing but an expensive (10M) way of obtaining mailing lists.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) Rep. Calley's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on August 31, 2007]
Rep. Calley, 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:

While I fully support the effort to move the Michigan Primary to January 15th of 2008, I cannot support a state sponsored primary wherein a party declaration is required. I believe party identification is a private matter and this information should not be collected by the government."

Reply New Comment

Line

Home
Create an account
Legislation watch
Search Legislation
Search Voting Record
Reports
- Recent Laws
- Missed Votes Report
Links
About
Tell a friend about this site