2003 House Bill 4820 (Senate Roll Call 613)
Passed in the Senate (30 to 8) 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. [History, Amendments & Comments]
The vote was 30 in favor, 8 opposed, and 0 not voting
(Senate Roll Call 613 at Senate Journal 103)
[Comment on this vote | View others' comments]
|
|
|
Support
Oppose
Not Voting
Undecided
The following legislators supported 2003 House Bill 4820:
The following legislators opposed 2003 House Bill 4820:
| Basham (D) | Brater (D) | Clark-Coleman (D) | Clarke (D) | Jacobs (D) | Leland (D) |
| Olshove (D) | Prusi (D) |
The following legislators did not vote on 2003 House Bill 4820:
Most Recent Comments
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
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
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
View Full Conversation
