Bill Text: MI SB0401 | 2023-2024 | 102nd Legislature | Introduced
Bill Title: Elections: voters; state voting rights act; create. Creates new act. TIE BAR WITH: SB 0402'23, SB 0403'23
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 5-0)
Status: (Introduced) 2023-06-22 - Referred To Committee On Elections And Ethics [SB0401 Detail]
Download: Michigan-2023-SB0401-Introduced.html
SENATE BILL NO. 401
A bill to create a state voting rights act; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state and local governmental officers and entities; to provide for a court-appointed monitor under certain circumstances; to create a fund; to prohibit certain discriminatory activity and to prescribe civil sanctions; and to provide remedies.
the people of the state of michigan enact:
Sec. 1. This act may be cited as the "state voting rights act".
Sec. 2. In recognition of the protections for the right to vote provided by the state constitution of 1963, and in conjunction with the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and the freedoms of speech, assembly, consultation, instruction, and petition under the law and against the denial and abridgement of the voting rights of members of a racial, color, or language minority group, it is the public policy of this state to do all of the following:
(a) Encourage participation in the elective franchise by all eligible electors to the maximum extent.
(b) Ensure that eligible electors who are members of a racial, color, or language minority group have an equal opportunity to participate in the political processes of this state and to exercise the elective franchise.
(a) "Alternative method of election" means a method of electing candidates to the legislative body of a local government other than an at-large method of election or a district-based method of election and includes, but is not limited to, proportional ranked-choice voting, cumulative voting, limited voting, or hybrid voting systems that incorporate aspects of at-large and district-based methods of election.
(b) "At-large method of election" means a method of electing candidates to the legislative body of a local government in which candidates are voted on by all electors of the local government. At-large method of election does not include any alternative method of election.
(c) "Disparity" means any statistically significant variance that is not de minimis and is supported by validated methodologies.
(d) "District-based method of election" means a method of electing candidates to the legislative body of a local government in which, for local governments divided into districts, a candidate for any district is required to reside in the district and candidates representing or seeking to represent the district are voted on by only the electors of the district.
(e) "Federal voting rights act" means the federal voting rights act of 1965, 52 USC 10301 to 10314, 10501 to 10508, and 10701 to 10702.
(f) "Local government" means a county, city, township, or any other political subdivision of this state that conducts an election.
(g) "Protected class" means individuals of a racial, color, or language minority group, as that term is defined under the federal voting rights act, and includes groups whose members have been subject to protection under a consent decree ordered by a federal court in a suit alleging a violation of section 2 of the federal voting rights act, 52 USC 10302, and individuals who are members of a racial category that has been officially recognized by the United States Census Bureau.
(h) "Racially polarized voting" means voting in which the candidate or electoral choice preferred by protected class members diverges from the candidate or electoral choice preferred by other electors.
(i) "Voting eligible population" and "eligible electors" mean those individuals who are eligible to register and vote, regardless of whether the individuals are registered to vote.
Sec. 5. The protections for the right to vote provided by this act must be construed liberally in favor of all of the following:
(a) Protecting the right to cast a ballot and make that ballot effective.
(b) Ensuring that qualified individuals who seek to be admitted as electors are not impaired in being admitted as electors.
(c) Ensuring that each elector is not impaired in voting, including, but not limited to, having the elector's vote counted.
(d) Making the fundamental right to vote more accessible to qualified individuals.
(e) Ensuring equitable access for protected class members to opportunities to be admitted as electors and to vote.
Sec. 7. (1) A local government or state agency shall not impose any qualification for eligibility to be an elector, impose any other prerequisite to voting, impose any ordinance, regulation, or other law regarding the administration of elections, or impose any standard, practice, procedure, or policy in a manner that results in, will result in, or is intended to result in, either of the following:
(a) A disparity in voter participation, access to voting opportunities, or the opportunity or ability to participate in the political process between members of a protected class and other members of the electorate.
(b) Based on the totality of the circumstances, an impairment of the opportunity or ability of a protected class member to participate in the political process and elect candidates of the elector's choice or otherwise influence the outcome of elections.
(2) There is a rebuttable presumption that an impairment exists under subsection (1)(b) in circumstances that include, but are not limited to, any of the following:
(a) A local government closes, moves, or consolidates 1 or more precincts, polling places, or absent voter ballot drop boxes in a manner that impairs the right to vote of members of a protected class or results in a disparity in geographic access between members of a protected class and other members of the electorate.
(b) A local government changes the time or date of an election in a manner that impairs the right to vote of members of a protected class, including, but not limited to, making the change without proper notice as required by law.
(c) A local government fails to provide voting or election materials in languages other than English as required by federal or state law.
(3) Implementing a reorganization of a local government, including, but not limited to, an annexation, incorporation, dissolution, consolidation, or division of a local government, violates subsection (1) if, based on the totality of the circumstances, the opportunity of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections, is impaired as a result of the reorganization.
Sec. 9. (1) A local government shall not employ or modify any method of election that has the effect, or is motived in part by the intent, of impairing the opportunity of protected class members to elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections, as a result of diluting the vote of those protected class members.
(2) A local government violates subsection (1) if the local government does any of the following:
(a) Uses an at-large method of election and either of the following occurs:
(i) The voting eligible population of the local government exhibits racially polarized voting and the at-large method of election results in a dilutive effect on members of a protected class.
(ii) Based on the totality of the circumstances, the ability of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections, is impaired.
(b) Uses a district-based or alternative method of election and either of the following occurs:
(i) The voting eligible population of the local government exhibits racially polarized voting and the district-based or alternative method of election results in a dilutive effect on members of a protected class.
(ii) Based on the totality of the circumstances, the opportunity of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections, is impaired.
(c) Modifies the method of election, including, but not limited to, modifying the number of districts or the size of the legislative body, and either of the following occurs:
(i) The modification has the effect, or is motivated in part by the intent, of impairing the opportunity of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections.
(ii) Based on the totality of the circumstances, the opportunity of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections, is impaired as a result of the modification.
(d) Implements a reorganization, including, but not limited to, an annexation, incorporation, dissolution, consolidation, or division of that local government, and either of the following occurs:
(i) The reorganization has the effect, or is motivated in part by the intent, of impairing the opportunity of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections.
(ii) Based on the totality of the circumstances, the opportunity of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections, is impaired as a result of the reorganization.
(3) In determining whether racially polarized voting by protected class members in a local government occurs under this section, a court shall adhere to all of the following guidelines:
(a) Elections conducted before the filing of a cause of action are more probative than elections conducted after the filing of a cause of action.
(b) Evidence concerning elections for any office in that local government, including executive, legislative, judicial, and other offices of that local government, is more probative than evidence concerning elections for other offices, but evidence concerning elections for other offices may still be afforded probative value.
(c) Statistical evidence is more probative than nonstatistical evidence.
(d) In the case of claims brought on behalf of 2 or more protected classes that are politically cohesive in that local government, members of those protected classes must be combined to determine whether voting by those combined protected class members is polarized from other electors. It is not necessary to demonstrate that voting by members of each protected class is separately polarized from other electors.
(e) Evidence concerning the causes of, or the reasons for, the occurrence of racially polarized voting is not relevant to the determination of whether racially polarized voting by protected class members occurs, or whether candidates or electoral choices preferred by protected class members would usually be defeated. In particular, evidence concerning alternate explanations for racially polarized voting patterns or election outcomes, including, but not limited to, partisan explanations, must not be considered.
(f) Evidence concerning whether subgroups of protected class members have different voting patterns must not be considered.
(g) Evidence concerning whether protected class electors are geographically compact or concentrated must not be considered, but may be considered when determining a remedy for a violation of this section.
(h) Evidence concerning projected changes in population or demographics must not be considered, but may be considered when determining a remedy for a violation of this section.
Sec. 11. (1) In determining whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, an impairment of the right to vote for any protected class member, or of the opportunity or ability of protected class members to participate in the political process and elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections, has occurred under section 7 or 9, a court may consider factors that include, but are not limited to, any of the following:
(a) Whether members of the protected class vote at a lower rate than other electors.
(b) The history of discrimination affecting members of the protected class.
(c) The extent to which members of a protected class are disadvantaged, or otherwise bear the effects of past public or private discrimination, in any areas that may hinder the member's ability to participate effectively in the political process, including education, employment, health, criminal justice, housing, transportation, land use, or environmental protection.
(d) The use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns or by government officials.
(e) The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office.
(f) The extent to which members of a protected class have faced barriers with respect to accessing the ballot, receiving financial support, or receiving any other support for an election.
(g) The extent to which members of a protected class contribute to political campaigns at lower rates.
(h) The extent to which candidates face hostility or barriers while campaigning due to the candidate's membership in a protected class.
(i) Any statute, ordinance, regulation, or other law regarding the administration of elections, or any standard, practice, procedure, or policy, that may impair the right to vote for any protected class members, or may impair the opportunity or ability of protected class members to participate in the political process and elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections.
(j) The presence of racially polarized voting.
(k) The lack of responsiveness by elected officials to the particularized needs of protected class members or a community of protected class members.
(l) Whether the challenged method of election, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy, standard, regulation, procedure, or law was designed to advance, and does materially advance, a compelling state interest that is substantiated and supported by evidence.
(2) In determining whether a violation of section 7 or 9 has occurred, a court shall not consider any of the following factors:
(a) The total number or share of members of a protected class on whom a challenged method of election, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy, standard, regulation, procedure, or law does not impose a material burden.
(b) The degree to which the challenged method of election, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy, standard, regulation, procedure, or law has a long pedigree or was in widespread use at some earlier date.
(c) The use of an identical or similar challenged method of election, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy, standard, regulation, procedure, or law in another local government.
(d) The availability of other forms of voting unimpacted by the challenged method of election, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy, standard, regulation, procedure, or law to all members of the electorate, including members of the protected class.
(e) A prophylactic impact on potential criminal activity by individual electors, if those crimes have not occurred in the local government in substantial numbers, or if the connection between the challenged policy and any claimed prophylactic effect is not supported by substantial evidence.
(f) Mere invocation of interests in voter confidence or prevention of fraud.
(g) A lack of evidence concerning the intent of electors, elected officials, or public officials to discriminate against protected class members.
(3) A particular combination or number of factors under subsection (1) is not required for a court to determine that an impairment occurred. The court shall consider a particular factor only if and to the extent evidence pertaining to that factor is introduced.
(4) Evidence of the factors under subsection (1) is most probative if the evidence relates to the local government in which the alleged violation occurred, but still holds probative value if the evidence relates to the geographic region in which that local government is located or to this state.
Sec. 13. (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (6), before commencing an action against a local government alleging a violation of section 7 or 9, a prospective plaintiff must send a notification letter to the local government asserting that the local government may be in violation of section 7 or 9. The prospective plaintiff shall not commence an action against that local government within 50 days after sending that notification letter. If a local government adopts a MIVRA resolution under subsection (2), that local government has 90 days after passing that MIVRA resolution to enact and implement a remedy, during which time a prospective plaintiff who sent a notification letter under this subsection shall not commence an action against that local government. If, pursuant to a process commenced by a notification letter, a local government enacts and implements a remedy, a prospective plaintiff who sent the notification letter is entitled to reimbursement for the reasonable costs to generate the notification letter. A local government shall reimburse a prospective plaintiff for the reasonable costs claimed, or an amount to which the parties mutually agree. The prospective plaintiff shall provide a demand for reimbursement to the local government within 90 days after the enactment or implementation of the remedy. To the extent a prospective plaintiff who sent the notification letter and a local government are unable to come to a mutual agreement, either party may file a declaratory judgment action to obtain a clarification of rights.
(2) The legislative body of a local government may adopt a MIVRA resolution providing for a remedy to a potential violation of section 7 or 9 after a notification letter has been sent or on its own volition. A MIVRA resolution must do all of the following:
(a) Identify the potential violation of section 7 or 9 by the local government.
(b) Identify a specific remedy to the potential violation.
(c) Affirm the local government's intent to enact and implement the remedy.
(d) Establish specific measures that the local government will take to facilitate enactment and implementation of the remedy.
(e) Provide a schedule for the enactment and implementation of the remedy.
(3) Before adopting a MIVRA resolution, the local government shall take all of the following steps:
(a) If a remedy identified in a proposed MIVRA resolution replaces an at-large method of election with a district-based method of election or alternative method of election, or adopts a new districting plan, the local government shall hold at least 2 public hearings at which members of the public may provide input regarding the remedy proposed in the MIVRA resolution. If a remedy identified does not replace an at-large method of election with a district-based method of election or alternative method of election, or adopt a new districting plan, the local government shall hold at least 1 public hearing at which members of the public may provide input regarding the remedy proposed in the MIVRA resolution.
(b) At least 7 days before any public hearing under subdivision (a), the local government shall publish and make available for public dissemination, including on the website of the local government if the local government has a website, the text of the proposed MIVRA resolution and all relevant information concerning any remedy included in the proposed MIVRA resolution.
(c) Before any public hearing under subdivision (a), the local government shall conduct outreach to members of the public, including to language minority groups, to explain the process and invite participation in any public hearing.
(d) If a proposed MIVRA resolution is revised after the MIVRA resolution is published, at least 7 days before the adoption of the revised MIVRA resolution, the local government shall publish and make available for public dissemination, including on the website of the local government if the local government has a website, the text of the revised MIVRA resolution and all relevant information concerning any remedy included in the proposed MIVRA resolution.
(4) The following provisions apply after a local government adopts a MIVRA resolution:
(a) The local government shall submit the adopted MIVRA resolution to the secretary of state for authorization, and if requested by the secretary of state, the local government shall also submit transcripts or recordings of any hearings conducted by the local government under subsection (2), any written submissions received by the local government from members of the public concerning the MIVRA resolution, and any other supporting documentation.
(b) As soon as practicable, but not later than 10 days after receiving a MIVRA resolution and other documentation under subdivision (a), the secretary of state shall publish that MIVRA resolution and documentation on the department of state's website.
(c) The secretary of state shall offer members of the public an opportunity to provide written comment on any MIVRA resolution and documentation submitted.
(d) No earlier than 30 days, and no later than 60 days, after receiving a MIVRA resolution submitted by a local government, the secretary of state shall provide a report and determination as to whether the remedy proposed in the MIVRA resolution is authorized.
(e) The secretary of state shall authorize a remedy proposed in a MIVRA resolution only if the secretary of state concludes all of the following:
(i) The local government may be in violation of section 7 or 9.
(ii) The remedy proposed in the MIVRA resolution remedies the potential violation of section 7 or 9.
(iii) The remedy proposed in the MIVRA resolution is unlikely to violate the state constitution of 1963 or any federal law.
(iv) The remedy proposed in the MIVRA resolution would not diminish the opportunity or ability of protected class members to participate in the political process and elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections.
(v) Implementing the remedy proposed in the MIVRA resolution is feasible.
(f) If the secretary of state authorizes the remedy proposed in the MIVRA resolution, the local government may adopt the remedy. A determination by the secretary of state to authorize a remedy identified in a MIVRA resolution does not bar a subsequent action challenging the remedy and is not admissible in, or must otherwise be considered by, a court in any action challenging that remedy.
(g) If the secretary of state does not authorize the remedy identified in the MIVRA resolution, the local government may not adopt that remedy. The secretary of state may identify 1 or more alternate remedies that satisfy subdivision (e). The local government may adopt any alternate remedy identified by the secretary of state.
(h) If the secretary of state does not respond to the local government's submission of an adopted MIVRA resolution, the local government must not adopt the remedy proposed in the MIVRA resolution.
(i) This subsection does not apply to any remedy identified in a MIVRA resolution that the local government has authority to adopt and implement under applicable state or local law.
(5) The secretary of state may adopt rules under the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, in accordance with state law to effectuate the purposes of subsection (4).
(6) Notwithstanding subsections (1) to (5), a party may bring a cause of action for a violation of section 7 or 9 under any of the following circumstances:
(a) The action is commenced within 1 year after the adoption of the challenged method of election, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy, standard, regulation, procedure, or law.
(b) The prospect of obtaining relief under subsections (1) to (5) would be futile.
(c) Another party has already submitted a notification letter under subsection (1) alleging a substantially similar violation and that party is eligible to bring a cause of action under this subsection.
(d) Following the party's submission of a notification letter under subsection (1), the local government has adopted a MIVRA resolution under subsection (2) that identifies a remedy that would not remedy the violation identified in the party's notification letter.
(e) The party is seeking preliminary relief with respect to an upcoming election in accordance with section 27.
(7) As used in this section, "MIVRA resolution" means a resolution adopted by the legislative body of a local government under subsection (2).
Sec. 19. (1) Before enacting any covered policy, a covered jurisdiction must first obtain preclearance for that covered policy either from the secretary of state under subsection (3) or from the court of claims under subsection (10).
(2) On at least an annual basis, the secretary of state shall determine which local governments are covered jurisdictions, publish on the department of state's website a list of those local governments, and provide notice to each of those local governments.
(3) If a covered jurisdiction seeks preclearance of a covered policy from the secretary of state, the covered jurisdiction shall submit, in writing, the covered policy to the secretary of state and may obtain preclearance in accordance with this section. If the secretary of state receives any submission of a covered policy, the secretary of state shall do all of the following:
(a) As soon as practicable, but no later than 10 days after receiving the covered policy, publish on the department of state's website the covered policy.
(b) Allow members of the public an opportunity to comment on the published submission within the time period set forth in subsection (7).
(c) Allow members of the public to sign up to receive notifications or alerts regarding the submission of that covered policy for preclearance.
(d) Review the covered policy and any public comment on the covered policy and, within the time period set forth in subsection (7), provide a report and determination as to whether preclearance of the covered policy is approved or denied. The time period for reviewing a covered policy runs concurrently with the time period for public comment.
(e) Deny preclearance to a covered policy only if the secretary of state concludes that the covered policy is more likely than not to diminish the opportunity or ability of protected class members to participate in the political process and elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections, or is more likely than not to violate this act. If the secretary of state denies preclearance to a covered policy, the covered policy must not be enacted or implemented.
(4) The covered jurisdiction bears the burden of proof in any determination as to preclearance of a covered policy. The secretary of state may request from a covered jurisdiction, at any time during the secretary of state's review, additional information for the purpose of developing the secretary of state's report and determination. If the covered jurisdiction fails to timely comply with reasonable requests for additional information, that failure may constitute grounds for the denial of preclearance. The secretary of state shall publish each report and determination on the department of state's website on completion of the report and determination. For each determination, the secretary of state shall provide in writing whether the secretary of state is approving or denying the covered policy and provide a detailed written explanation of the basis for the secretary of state's determination. The secretary of state may designate preclearance as preliminary and subsequently approve or deny final preclearance no later than 90 days after receiving the covered policy.
(5) If the secretary of state approves preclearance to a covered policy under subsection (3), the covered jurisdiction may enact or implement the covered policy no earlier than 10 days following the approval of preclearance for any covered policy concerning the location of polling places or absent voter ballot drop boxes, and no earlier than 30 days following the approval of preclearance for any other covered policy. A determination by the secretary of state to approve preclearance does not bar a subsequent action challenging the covered policy, and is not admissible in, or shall otherwise be considered by, a court in that action.
(6) If the secretary of state fails to approve or deny preclearance to a covered policy within the time period set forth in subsection (7), that covered policy is considered precleared and the covered jurisdiction may enact and implement the covered policy no earlier than 10 days following the approval of preclearance for any covered policy concerning the location of polling places or absent voter ballot drop boxes, and no earlier than 30 days following the approval of preclearance for any other covered policy.
(7) The time periods of review by the secretary of state for any covered policy, for public comment, and for any determination by the secretary of state to approve or deny preclearance to the covered policy are as follows:
(a) For any covered policy concerning the location of polling places or absent voter ballot drop boxes, the time period for public comment is 10 business days, and the time period in which the secretary of state shall review the covered policy, including any public comment on the covered policy, and make a determination to approve or deny preclearance to the covered policy, is not more than 30 days after the secretary of state receives the covered policy, except that the secretary of state may invoke 1 extension of not more than 20 days to make the determination.
(b) For any covered policy not concerning the location of polling places or absent voter ballot drop boxes, the time period for public comment is 10 business days, except that, for any covered policy that concerns the implementation of a district-based method of election or an alternative method of election, districting or redistricting plans, or a change to a local government's form of government, the time period is 20 business days, and the time period in which the secretary of state shall review the covered policy, including any public comment on the public policy, and make a determination to approve or deny preclearance to the covered policy, is not more than 90 days after the secretary of state receives the covered policy, except that the secretary of state may invoke up to 2 extensions of not more than 90 days each to make the determination.
(8) The secretary of state may adopt rules under the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, to establish an expedited, emergency preclearance process under which the secretary of state may address covered policies that are submitted during or immediately preceding an election as a result of any attack, disaster, emergency, or other exigent circumstance. Any preclearance approved under the rules adopted under this subsection must be designated preliminary, and the secretary of state may subsequently approve or deny final preclearance not later than 90 days after receiving the covered policy.
(9) Any denial of preclearance by the secretary of state may be appealed to the court of claims.
(10) If a covered jurisdiction seeks preclearance of a covered policy from the court of claims, the covered jurisdiction shall submit, in writing, the covered policy to the court of claims and may obtain preclearance in accordance with this section, if the covered jurisdiction also contemporaneously transmits to the secretary of state a copy of the covered policy. As soon as practicable, but not later than 10 days after receiving the covered policy, the secretary of state shall publish on the department of state's website the covered policy. The failure by the covered jurisdiction to provide a copy to the secretary of state results in an automatic denial of the preclearance. Notwithstanding the transmission of the copy of the covered policy to the secretary of state, the court of claims has exclusive jurisdiction over the covered policy. The covered jurisdiction bears the burden of proof in the court of claims's determination as to preclearance. If the court of claims receives a covered policy, the court of claims shall do both of the following:
(a) Approve or deny preclearance no later than 90 days after receiving the covered policy.
(b) Deny preclearance to a covered policy only if the court of claims determines that the covered policy is more likely than not to diminish the opportunity or ability of protected class members to participate in the political process and elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections, or is more likely than not to violate this act. If the court of claims denies preclearance to a covered policy, or fails to make a determination within 90 days after receiving the covered policy, that covered policy must not be enacted or implemented.
(11) If the court of claims approves preclearance for the covered policy, the covered jurisdiction may immediately enact and implement that covered policy. A determination by the court of claims to approve preclearance to a covered policy is not admissible in, or shall otherwise be considered by, a court in any subsequent action challenging that covered policy.
(12) Any denial of preclearance under subsection (10) may be appealed to the court of appeals.
(13) In any proceeding under this section, the court shall consider submissions from interested nonparties.
(14) The secretary of state may adopt rules under the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, to effectuate the purposes of this section. On the request of the secretary of state, any state entity identified by the secretary of state as possessing data, statistics, or other information that the secretary of state requires to carry out the secretary of state's duties and responsibilities under this section shall provide to the secretary of state that data, statistics, or information. Any estimates prepared by the secretary of state for identifying covered jurisdictions under this section, including estimates of eligible electors, must be prepared using the most advanced, peer-reviewed, and validated methodologies available.
(15) If any covered jurisdiction enacts or implements any covered policy without obtaining preclearance for the covered policy in accordance with this section, the secretary of state or any party described in section 21 may file an action in the court of claims seeking a declaratory judgment that the covered jurisdiction has violated this section. In that action, the court of claims has broad authority to order adequate remedies consistent with section 23. To the extent the court of claims finds the covered jurisdiction has violated this section, the court of claims is encouraged to exercise the court's discretion to impose civil penalties on the local government as provided under section 23.
(16) Any individual who is a member of a protected class, any entity whose membership includes individuals who are members of a protected class, any entity whose mission would be frustrated either by a failure by the secretary of state to properly implement this section or by any action or decision by the secretary of state that is inconsistent with this section, or any entity that would expend resources in order to fulfill the entity's mission as a result of a failure by the secretary of state to properly implement this section or by any action or decision by the secretary of state that is inconsistent with the provisions of this section, may file an action in the court of claims under any of the following circumstances:
(a) The secretary of state has approved preclearance to a covered policy in violation of the provisions of this section. Any claim under this subdivision must be brought against both the covered jurisdiction and the secretary of state, and must be filed after the covered policy has been approved for preclearance, but before the covered policy is enacted and implemented. In any claim under this subdivision, the court of claims has discretion to stay the implementation of the covered policy until the court of claims can make a determination with respect to whether preclearance should have been approved. A claim under this subdivision does not preclude, bar, or limit any other claims that may be brought regarding the covered policy in any way, including claims brought under other sections of this act.
(b) The secretary of state has identified a list of local governments that are covered jurisdictions that is inconsistent with the requirements of this section.
(c) The secretary of state has failed to properly implement any of the provisions of this section.
(17) In any action brought under subsection (16), the court of claims shall evaluate any claims on a de novo basis and shall not give deference to the secretary of state. The court of claims has broad authority to order adequate remedies consistent with section 23. In addition, the court of claims has broad authority to impose any injunctive relief on any party, including, but not limited to, the secretary of state, as the court of claims considers necessary to effectuate this section. If the court of claims finds that the secretary of state has failed to properly implement any of the provisions of this section or has made any determination that is inconsistent with the provisions of this section, the court of claims is encouraged to exercise the court's discretion to impose civil penalties on the secretary of state as provided under section 23.
(18) This section takes effect June 1, 2025.
(19) As used in this section:
(a) "Covered jurisdiction" means any of the following:
(i) Any local government that in the previous 25 years has been subject to any court order, including a court-approved consent decree or settlement, or government enforcement action based on a finding of any violation of this act, the federal voting rights act, any state or federal civil rights law, the Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, if the violation concerns the right to vote or a pattern, practice, or policy of discrimination against any protected class, or any other settlement of any action alleging a violation in which the local government conceded that a violation occurred.
(ii) Any local government that in the previous 5 years has failed to comply with obligations to provide data or information to the Michigan voting and elections database and institute as created in section 5 of the voting and elections database and institute act.
(iii) Any local government that in the previous 25 years was found to have enacted or implemented a covered policy without obtaining the required preclearance for the covered policy.
(iv) Any local government that in any year in the previous 10 years contained at least 1,000 eligible electors of a protected class, or in which members of any protected class constituted at least 10% of the eligible voter population of the local government, and the percentage of electors of that protected class in the local government that participated in any general election for any local government office was at least 10% lower than the percentage of all electors in the local government that participated in the election.
(v) Any local government that in any year in the previous 10 years contained at least 1,000 eligible electors of a protected class, or in which members of any protected class constituted at least 10% of the voting eligible population of the local government, and the percentage of eligible electors of that protected class who were registered to vote was at least 10% lower than the percentage of all eligible electors in the local government who were registered to vote.
(b) "Covered policy" means any new or modified qualification for admission as an elector, prerequisite to vote, or law, ordinance, regulation, standard, practice, procedure, or policy concerning any of the following:
(i) Districting or redistricting in a local government.
(ii) Method of election for a local government.
(iii) Governmental reorganization, including, but not limited to, annexation, incorporation, dissolution, consolidation, or division of a local government.
(iv) Removal of individuals from voter registration lists and other activities concerning the cancellation or denial of voter registration.
(v) Voter challenges.
(vi) Hours, locations, or number of polling places or absent voter ballot drop boxes.
(vii) Reorganization of precincts, including assignment of precincts to polling places.
(viii) Assistance offered to protected class members.
(ix) Providing translation or interpretation services to electors in any language other than English, including creating or distributing voting materials in any language other than English.
(x) Providing assistance to electors with disabilities, including the creating or distributing of voting materials for electors with disabilities.
(xi) Any additional subject matter the secretary of state identifies for inclusion, under a rule promulgated by the secretary of state under the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, if the secretary of state determines that any qualification for admission as an elector, prerequisite to vote, or law, ordinance, regulation, standard, practice, procedure, or policy concerning that subject matter may have the effect of diminishing the right to vote of any protected class member or have the effect of violating this act.
Sec. 21. The attorney general, any individual aggrieved by a violation of section 7 or 9, any entity whose membership includes individuals aggrieved by a violation of section 7 or 9, any entity whose mission would be frustrated by a violation of section 7 or 9, or any entity that would expend resources in order to fulfill its mission as a result of a violation of section 7 or 9, may file a cause of action in the court of claims.
Sec. 23. (1) In any action brought under this act or under article II of the state constitution of 1963, the court has broad authority to order adequate remedies that are tailored to address the violation. Unless otherwise prohibited by law, adequate remedies include, but are not limited to, any of the following:
(a) Drawing new or revised districting or redistricting plans.
(b) Adopting a different method of election, including adopting a district-based or alternative method of election, or reasonably increasing the size of the legislative body.
(c) Adding voting days or hours.
(d) Adding polling places or absent voter ballot drop boxes.
(e) Eliminating staggered elections so that all members of the legislative body are elected at the same time.
(f) Ordering a special election.
(g) Restoring or adding individuals to a voter registration list or requiring expanded opportunities for admitting electors.
(h) Reorganizing a local government, including, but not limited to, an annexation, incorporation, dissolution, consolidation, or division of a local government.
(i) Imposing nominal or compensatory damages.
(j) Imposing punitive damages in the form of a civil fine that must be deposited in the voter education fund created in section 29.
(k) Any other form of declaratory or injunctive relief that, in the court's judgment, is tailored to address the violation.
(l) Retaining jurisdiction for a period of time the court considers appropriate.
(2) In any action brought under this act or under article II of the state constitution of 1963, the court may order a remedy only if the remedy will not impair the ability of protected class members to participate in the political process and elect the protected class member's preferred candidates, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections.
(3) In any action brought under this act or under article II of the state constitution of 1963, the court shall consider remedies proposed by any parties and interested nonparties and shall not provide deference or priority to a proposed remedy offered by the defendant or the local government simply because the remedy has been proposed by the defendant or the local government.
(4) In any action brought under this act or under article II of the state constitution of 1963, the court has the authority to order remedies that may be inconsistent with other provisions of state or local law, when the inconsistent provisions of law would otherwise preclude the court from ordering an adequate remedy.
Sec. 24. (1) If a local government meets any of the following conditions, a disabled elector, or an organization whose mission includes advocating on behalf of disabled electors, may bring an action in the circuit court of the county in which that local government is located seeking the appointment of a monitor for future elections conducted by that local government:
(a) In the previous 15 years, the local government has been subject to any court order or government enforcement action in state or federal court, or any administrative tribunal, based on a finding of any violation of a state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors.
(b) In the previous 15 years, the local government has rendered moot a state or federal lawsuit regarding an alleged violation of a state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors in a manner that provided effective relief that remedied the alleged violations.
(c) In the previous 15 years, the local government settled a state or federal lawsuit regarding an alleged violation of a state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors, and conceded liability as part of the settlement.
(2) If the circuit court determines that any of the conditions provided in subsection (1) have been met, the circuit court shall order the appointment of a monitor for that local government, at the local government's expense, for a period of not less than 10 years. The monitor's duties include all of the following:
(a) Investigating all complaints that are submitted to the circuit court or to the monitor regarding the local government's compliance with a state or federal law that, in whole or in part, involves the rights of disabled electors.
(b) If the monitor determines that any complaint indicates that the local government has violated or will likely violate a state or federal law that, in whole or in part, involves the rights of disabled electors, the monitor shall inform the circuit court of the violation or likely violation and the circuit court shall do the following:
(i) Order any and all relief that is necessary to remedy the violation.
(ii) If the circuit court finds that a violation has already occurred, order a penalty of $1,000.00 payable to an elector whose state or federal rights were violated if that elector reported the violation to the monitor.
(c) If the monitor receives a report of an alleged violation within 40 days before an election and the report indicates that a disabled elector is unable to vote because of that alleged violation, the monitor shall bring the issue to the circuit court's attention immediately and the circuit court shall order a hearing on an emergency basis to ensure that the disabled elector is not disenfranchised. This subdivision does not prohibit an elector from filing a separate lawsuit to enforce state or federal law if the state or federal law provides that elector with a cause of action.
(d) Undertake any investigations or inspections that the monitor considers reasonably necessary during the 180 days before any election administered by the local government to ensure that the local government is in full compliance with any state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors.
(e) No less than 90 days before any election administered by the local government, produce a report to the circuit court regarding the local government's compliance, anticipated compliance, or lack of compliance, with any state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors. If the monitor's report indicates any concerns that the local government will not comply with any state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors, the circuit court shall hold a hearing to address those concerns and shall order any relief the circuit court determines necessary to ensure the local government's full compliance with the laws. The hearing and any orders resulting from those hearings must occur in sufficient time before the election to ensure that electors are not disenfranchised.
(f) On election day, and during the early voting period, the monitor shall be available to receive reports by disabled electors, or any organization representing disabled electors, of any violations of a state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors. The monitor shall bring any meritorious reports of violations to the circuit court's attention immediately, and if the circuit court finds that a violation of state or federal law has likely occurred or is likely occurring, the circuit court shall issue emergency relief the same day, as necessary, to ensure that the elector is not disenfranchised.
(g) If a circuit court orders a remedy under this subsection, that remedy must include, if the circuit court determines that a violation of a state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors has occurred, extending the term of the monitor at least through the next election administered by the local government.
(3) A monitor appointed under this section must be an individual who meets all of the following requirements:
(a) Has extensive knowledge of and experience with the rights of disabled individuals.
(b) Has an established history of advocating on behalf of disabled individuals.
(c) Has significant knowledge regarding election law.
(4) A monitor shall bill the local government for the monitor's time on an hourly basis at a rate that is customary in this state for an individual with the required experience and qualifications.
(5) In any state lawsuit concerning an alleged violation of any state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors, the court shall order that appointment of a monitor as provided in subsection (2) as part of the remedy if the court finds that a violation of the state or federal law has occurred.
(6) In any federal lawsuit concerning an alleged violation of any state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors, the court may order that the appointment of a monitor, as provided in subsection (2), be a part of the remedy to the extent compatible with federal law. If the federal court declines to appoint a monitor, any appropriate plaintiff may bring a subsequent action in the appropriate circuit court as provided under subsection (1) based on the finding of liability in the previous federal lawsuit.
(7) As used in this section:
(a) "Disabled elector" means an elector who has a disability as that term is defined under section 103 of the persons with disabilities civil rights act, 1976 PA 220, MCL 37.1103.
(b) "State or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors" includes, but is not limited to, any of the following:
(i) Section 726a of the Michigan election law, 1954 PA 116, MCL 168.726a.
(ii) The persons with disabilities civil rights act, 1976 PA 220, MCL 37.1101 to 37.1607.
(iii) The Americans with disabilities act of 1990, Public Law 101-336.
(iv) The federal voting rights act.
(v) The voting accessibility for the elderly and handicapped act, 52 USC 20101 to 20107.
(vi) The national voter registration act of 1993, 52 USC 20501 to 20511.
(vii) The help America vote act of 2002, 52 USC 20901 to 21145.
Sec. 25. In any action brought under this act, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs, including expert witness fees and expenses, to the party, other than this state or a local government, that filed the action and prevailed in the action. The party that filed the action is considered to have prevailed if, as a result of the action, the party against whom the action was filed has yielded some or all of the relief sought in the action. If the party against whom the action was filed prevails in the action, the court shall not award that party any costs unless the court finds the action is frivolous, unreasonable, or without merit.
Sec. 27. Because of the frequency of elections, the severe consequences and irreparable harm of holding elections under unlawful conditions, and the expenditure to defend potentially unlawful conditions that benefit incumbent officials, actions brought under this act are subject to expedited pretrial and trial proceedings and must receive an automatic calendar preference. In any action alleging a violation of this act in which a plaintiff party seeks preliminary relief with respect to an upcoming election, the court shall grant relief if the court determines that the plaintiffs are more likely than not to succeed on the merits and it is possible to implement an adequate remedy that would resolve the alleged violation in the upcoming election.
Sec. 29. (1) The voter education fund is created in the state treasury.
(2) The state treasurer may receive money or other assets from any source for deposit into the fund. The state treasurer shall direct the investment of money in the fund and credit interest and earnings from the investments to the fund.
(3) Money in the fund at the close of the fiscal year remains in the fund and does not lapse to the general fund.
(4) The department of civil rights shall be the administrator of the fund for audits of the fund.
(5) The department of civil rights shall expend money from the fund, on appropriation, only for 1 or more of the following purposes:
(a) Developing and distributing educational materials on voting rights and the voting process, including information on voter registration, absentee voting, and polling place accessibility.
(b) Conducting public education campaigns to inform electors about changes to voting laws, procedures, or polling locations and to counteract false or misleading information about voting.
(c) Providing training and resources to local election officials, poll workers, and volunteers on how to ensure fair and equitable access to the ballot for all eligible electors.
(d) Establishing and maintaining voter hotlines, online portals, or other mechanisms for electors to report incidents of voter intimidation, suppression, or discrimination and for election officials to respond to those reports.
(e) Supporting voter outreach efforts targeted at historically underrepresented communities, including, but not limited to, members of protected classes, low-income individuals, youth, and individuals with disabilities.
(f) Providing grants to community-based organizations, civic groups, and civil rights organizations to conduct voter education and mobilization activities, including, but not limited to, voter registration drives, candidate forums, and get-out-the-vote campaigns, or to engage in nonpartisan advocacy, litigation, or other legal actions to protect voting rights, challenge discriminatory voting practices, or seek redress for victims of voter suppression or intimidation.
(g) Partnering with schools and universities to develop and implement curricula on civic engagement, voting rights, and the importance of participating in the democratic process.
(h) Funding research and evaluation projects to assess the impact of voter education and outreach efforts on voter participation and civic engagement, and to identify best practices for improving access to the ballot.
(i) Any other activities, projects, or initiatives that further the purposes of this act.
Enacting section 1. This act does not take effect unless all of the following bills of the 102nd Legislature are enacted into law:
(a) Senate Bill No. 402.
(b) Senate Bill No. 403.
