Michigan Elimination of Straight Party Vote Amendment, Proposal 1 (2002)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Michigan Constitution
Seal of Michigan.png
Preamble
Articles
IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIIXXXIXIISchedule

Michigan Elimination of Straight Party Vote Amendment, Proposal 1 (2002) was on the November 5, 2002 election ballot in Michigan as a veto referendum, where it was defeated.

Election results

Proposal 1 (Elimination of Straight Party Vote Amendment)
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No1,775,04359.7%
Yes 1,199,236 40.3%

Official results via: The Michigan Secretary of the State

Text of measure

The language that appeared on the ballot

If Proposal 02-1 is approved, Public Act 269 of 2001 would become law. If Proposal 02-1 receives a no vote, PA 269 would not take effect.

PA 269 would:

1. Eliminate "straight party" vote option on partisan general election ballots. 2. Require Secretary of State to obtain training reports from local election officials. 3. Require registered voters who do not appear on registration list to show picture identification before voting a challenged ballot. 4. Require expedited canvass if presidential vote differential is under 25,000. 5. Require ballot counting equipment to screen ballots for voting errors to ensure the accurate tabulation of absentee ballots. 6. Permit voters in polls to correct errors. 7. Provide penalties for stealing campaign signs or accepting payment for campaign work while being paid as a public employee to perform election duties.[1]

House Fiscal Agency Analysis

Public Act 269 of 2001 amended the Michigan Election Law to change the method used by the state central committee to distribute the list of party convention nominees. It would do the following: - Require picture identification of unlisted voters who do not have a registration receipt in order to cast a provisional vote; - Modify language for removal of a candidate's name from the ballot; - Alter change of address information; - Allow a voter not on a registration list to cast a "challenged ballot;" - Change the procedure for a voter who had been approved for an absent voter ballot to vote in person; - Require that a stray mark in a predefined area on a ballot would not be a valid vote and require the election inspectors to make the determination.

The aforementioned provisions would have no fiscal impact on state or local government.

The act also provides for misdemeanor penalties of up to 90 days in jail, a fine of up to $100, or both for specified activities (such as theft of yard signs) and for any violation of the act for which a penalty is not otherwise specified. Thus, the act could increase local correctional costs and the amount of penal fine revenue going to local libraries (the constitutionally designated recipients of such revenue).

Public Act 269 of 2001 includes a requirement that the Secretary of State issue training requirements to local jurisdictions to improve the way local elections are conducted; a report is required to the Secretary of State detailing the training.

The Secretary of State is to request an appropriation of funds to cover the costs of producing a comprehensive training video for distribution to each precinct chairperson and vice-chairperson, and has recently indicated that $80,000 would be necessary for the production and distribution of the election worker training videos.

Voters are prohibited from voting a straight political party ticket by a single selection on the ballot ("straight party" vote) under 2001 PA 269. Costs to local government may increase due to electors requiring additional voting time, and there may be a need for additional election workers to handle the increased congestion at the precincts. Actual costs are indeterminate.

If results for a U.S. presidential election show a vote differential of less than 25,000, 2001 PA 269 requires an expedited canvass. There is currently no expedited canvass requirement for presidential elections. Thus, the act has the potential to increase costs to local canvassing boards if the trigger differential is met.

There may or may not be Headlee implications associated with costs to local governments for reporting requirements and possible increased election staffing costs relating to language in 2001 PA 269.[1]

See also

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

External links

References