Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on June 10, 2003, to require all local and state primary, general, and special elections in the state, including school elections, to be held on one of four days during the year: the fourth Tuesday in February, or the first Tuesday after the first Monday in either May, August, or November. This would not apply to special elections called by the Governor under Article XII, Section 1 of the state Constitution to fill open statewide or legislative offices. School districts would be allowed to call one special bond, millage or debt election per year on a date that is not on one of the proposed regular election dates, and is not within 30 days of one of them (a “floater” date), if a petition is signed by at least 10 percent of the number of electors voting in the last gubernatorial election in that district, or 3,000 electors, whichever is less. The bill is part of election consolidation package comprised of House Bills 4820 to 4828

The vote was 77 in favor, 27 opposed and 6 not voting

(House Roll Call 264 at House Journal 54)

Click here to view bill details.

Rep. Elkins, 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:

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.

Reps. Gleason, Waters, Anderson, Gillard, Adamini and Gleason, 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."