Michigan Proposal 1, Legislative Term Limits and Financial Disclosure Amendment (2022)

Michigan Proposal 1
Election date November 8, 2022
Topic Term limits
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

Michigan Proposal 1, the Legislative Term Limits and Financial Disclosure Amendment, was on the ballot in Michigan as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 8, 2022. The measure was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to: • change the term limits for state legislators from three 2-year terms (6 years) in the state House and two 4-year terms (8 years) in the state Senate to 12 combined years in the Legislature, and • provide that elected state legislative and state executive officials must file annual financial disclosure reports on their income, assets, liabilities, gifts from lobbyists, positions held in certain organizations, and agreements on future employment.

A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amendment, thus continuing the term limits requirement for state legislators of three 2-year terms (6 years) in the state House and two 4-year terms (8 years) in the state Senate.

Election results

Michigan Proposal 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		2,838,540	66.45%
No		1,433,154	33.55%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What did this ballot measure change about term limits in Michigan?

Proposal 1 amended the Michigan Constitution's Article IV, Section 54, which was ratified on November 3, 1992, when voters approved Proposal B, an initiated constitutional amendment. Proposal B was designed to limit the number of times that a person could be elected to congressional, state executive, and state legislative offices in Michigan. In the Michigan State Senate, members were limited to two 4-year terms. In the Michigan House of Representatives, members were limited to three 2-year terms.

Proposal 1 replaced Proposal B's state legislative term limits with a new requirement - a combined 12 years in the state Legislature.

Proposal B was designed so that an individual could serve 14 years in the state Legislature – six in the House and eight in the Senate. The ballot measure was designed to allow for 12 years; however, a legislator can serve that entire time in one legislative chamber.

The ballot measure included an exception for people elected to the state Senate in 2022. Those individuals were allowed to serve the 12 years regardless of prior legislative office, such as being an elected member of the House.

How did the ballot measure address financial disclosure?

Proposal 1 amends the Michigan Constitution's Article IV, Section 10, which addresses conflicts of interest in state government. Beginning on April 15, 2024, the ballot measure adds a new subsection to require elected state legislative and state executive officials to file annual financial disclosure reports on their income, assets, liabilities, gifts from lobbyists, positions held in certain organizations, and agreements on future employment.

What is the history of term limits in Michigan?

Prior to a ballot initiative approval in 1992, there were no term limits in Michigan for their state legislature. Proposal B was approved by voters in 1992 by 59% of the vote. This initiative created term limits for U.S. congressional offices, state legislative offices, governors, lieutenant governors, secretaries of state, and attorneys general.

However, in 1995, the Supreme Court ruled in the U.S. Term Limits, Inc. vs. Thornton case that states cannot impose term limits for federal offices that were stricter than the U.S. Constitution.

What were the arguments for and against this measure?

Supporters of the measure said that having legislators in office longer could hold them more accountable. "I think this will create long-term, good impact on public policy here in the state because, hopefully, the people who author them are still going to be accountable instead of creating a short-term proposal and then leaving other legislators in the future to clean up the mess,” said state Sen. Jeremy Moss (D-11). State Rep. David LaGrand (D-75) also agreed with the financial transparency aspects of the proposal. “When voters send us to the Capitol, they deserve to know whether we’re serving their interests or our own,” he said.

Opponents said that a representative or senator holding an office for too long was not in the best interests of their constituents and that it was good to have a rotation of lawmakers. “It gets dangerous when people hold power for too long because they start using it for not necessarily the best of everybody in the state, but their own interest. And what term limits does, is make sure that you have a good rotation of people in office, people that stay closer connected to their constituents,” said Scott Tilman, treasurer for the Michigan Term Limits Defense Fund.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

A proposal to amend the state constitution to require annual public financial disclosure reports by legislators and other state officers and change state legislator term limit to 12 total years in legislature

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

This proposed constitutional amendment would: Require members of legislature, governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, and attorney general file annual public financial disclosure reports after 2023, including assets, liabilities, income sources, future employment agreements, gifts, travel reimbursements, and positions held in organizations except religious, social, and  political organizations. Require legislature implement but not limit or restrict reporting requirements. Replace current term limits for state representatives and state senators with a 12-year total limit in any combination between house and senate, except a person elected to senate in 2022 may be elected the number of times allowed when that person became a candidate. Should this proposal be adopted?

”

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2022

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The state legislature wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 19, and the FRE is 12. The word count for the ballot title is 31.

The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 19, and the FRE is 6. The word count for the ballot summary is 105.

Support

Voters for Transparency and Term Limits led the campaign in support to the ballot measure.

Supporters

Unions

• Michigan AFL-CIO
• Michigan Education Association

Organizations

• Michigan Chamber of Commerce
• West Michigan Policy Forum

Arguments

• State Sen. Jeremy Moss (D-11): "I think this will create long-term, good impact on public policy here in the state because, hopefully, the people who author them are still going to be accountable instead of creating a short-term proposal and then leaving other legislators in the future to clean up the mess."
• Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey (R-16): "In my view, Michigan’s current term limits discourage good people from running for office, shifting the power from the people to the bureaucracy and interest groups, which negatively impacts the legislative process."

Opposition

No More Time for Career Politicians led the campaign in opposition to the ballot measure.

Arguments

• Kurt O’Keefe, executive director of the Michigan Term Limits Defense Fund: "... yet another effort by the political class, composed of the elites of both political parties and the special interests, especially big business and big labor, to extend their perceived right to rule over us. This proposal is of the Lansing beltway, by the Lansing beltway, and for the Lansing beltway. We will expose it for what it is, and it will be soundly rejected by the citizens of Michigan."

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Michigan ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through November 28, 2022.

Voters for Transparency and Term Limits was the campaign supporting this measure. The campaign raised a total of $1.34 million in contributions. No More Time For Career Politicians was the campaign in opposition to the measure. The campaign raised a total of $142,299 in contributions.

   .sbtotaltable {
   width: 50%;
   }
   .sbtotaltable th {
    font-size:1.2em;
   }
   .sbtotaltable td {
       text-align:center;
      }
   .sbtotalheader {
       background-color: black !important;
       color:white !important;
       font-size:1.0em;
       font-weight:bold;
   }
   .sbtotaltotal {
       font-weight:bold;
   }
   

    

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$1,349,125.00	$126.00	$1,349,251.00	$1,334,873.74	$1,334,999.74
Oppose	$100,000.00	$42,299.30	$142,299.30	$87,207.24	$129,506.54

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.

   .sbtotaltable {
   width: 50%;
   }
   .sbtotaltable th {
    font-size:1.2em;
   }
   .sbtotaltable td {
       text-align:center;
      }
   .sbtotalheader {
       background-color: black !important;
       color:white !important;
       font-size:1.0em;
       font-weight:bold;
   }
   .sbtotaltotal {
       font-weight:bold;
   }
   

    

Committees in support of Proposal 1
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Voters for Transparency and Term Limits	$1,349,125.00	$126.00	$1,349,251.00	$1,334,873.74	$1,334,999.74
Total	$1,349,125.00	$126.00	$1,349,251.00	$1,334,873.74	$1,334,999.74

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
MI Energy First	$200,000.00	$0.00	$200,000.00
Stephen Ross	$200,000.00	$0.00	$200,000.00
Roger Penske	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Rock Holdings Inc.	$75,000.00	$0.00	$75,000.00
DTE Energy	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the initiative.

   .sbtotaltable {
   width: 50%;
   }
   .sbtotaltable th {
    font-size:1.2em;
   }
   .sbtotaltable td {
       text-align:center;
      }
   .sbtotalheader {
       background-color: black !important;
       color:white !important;
       font-size:1.0em;
       font-weight:bold;
   }
   .sbtotaltotal {
       font-weight:bold;
   }
   

    

Committees in opposition to Proposal 1
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
No More Time For Career Politicians	$100,000.00	$42,299.30	$142,299.30	$87,207.24	$129,506.54
Total	$100,000.00	$42,299.30	$142,299.30	$87,207.24	$129,506.54

Media editorials

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

• The Michigan Daily Editorial Board: "The approval of Proposal 1 is essential in protecting the ethics of Michigan’s state politics. Placing additional term limits on officials and requiring that they be more open about their earnings creates a more democratic and honest system for Michigan citizens, leading this Editorial Board to endorse a “Yes” vote on Proposal 1."
• Detroit Free Press Editorial Board: "This shouldn't have required a ballot initiative, of course. Legislators could have adopted the minimal ethical standards that prevail in nearly every other state decades ago with a simple majority vote. Instead, lawmakers whose primary objective is to secure more flexible term limits have offered this overdue financial disclosure requirement as an added inducement to voters. It's a offer Michiganders should accept, however cynical its inspiration. The opportunity to improve the quality of Michigan's legislative representation and provide voters with new tools for holding lawmakers accountable is ample justification to vote YES on Proposal 1."
• The Detroit News Editorial Board: "Prop 1 wouldn’t get rid of term limits, as we have long advocated. Rather, it would reform the 1992 constitutional amendment to make it work better for Michigan, with the added benefit of finally bringing transparency to state government."
• Michigan Chronicle Editorial Board: "The Editorial Board believes the passage of Proposal 1 will give legislative officeholders more longevity in either the Senate or House to better forward their agendas on behalf of serving and empowering constituents. The Editorial Board also believes that state lawmakers should be required to file annual financial disclosure reports because of the transparency it would provide to the citizens of Michigan."

Opposition

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at [email protected]

Polls

See also: 2022 ballot measure polls

Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at [email protected].

Michigan Proposal 1, Legislative Term Limits and Financial Disclosure Amendment (2022)
Poll	Dates	Sample size	Margin of error	Support	Oppose	Undecided

EPIC-MRA	10/28/22-11/1/22	600 LV	± 4.0%	66%	29%	5%
	Question: "Proposal 1 would amend the state constitution to: • Require members of the legislature, governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, and attorney general to file annual public financial disclosure reports after 2023, including assets, liabilities, income sources, future employment agreements, gifts, travel reimbursements, and positions held in organizations except religious, social, and political organizations. • Replace current term limits for state representatives and state senators with a 12-year total limit in any combination between the house and senate. Current term limits restrict House members to 6 years and Senate members to 8 years. After hearing this description of the proposal, if the election were held today, would you vote “yes” to adopt the proposal, or would you vote “no” to NOT adopt it?"

WDIV/Detroit News	10/26/22-10/28/22	600 LV	± 4.0%	71%	26%	3%
	Question: "A proposal to amend the state constitution to require annual public financial disclosure reports by legislators and other state officers and change state legislator term limit to 12 total years in the legislature. This proposed constitutional amendment would require members of the legislature, the governor, lieutenant government, secretary of state, and attorney general to file annual public financial disclosure reports after 2023 including assets, liabilities, income sources, future employment agreements, gifts, travel reimbursements and positions held in organizations except religious, social and political organizations. Require the legislature to implement but not limit or restrict reporting requirements. Replace current term limits for state representatives and state senators to a 12-year total limit in any combination between the house of representatives and the senate, with the exception that a person elected in the senate in 2022 may be elected the number of times allowed when that person became a candidate. (This is the exact wording of the ballot proposal.)"

EPIC-MRA	10/6/22-10/12/22	600 LV	± 4.0%	68%	24%	8%
	Question: "Proposal 1 would amend the state constitution to: • Require members of the legislature, governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, and attorney general to file annual public financial disclosure reports after 2023, including assets, liabilities, income sources, future employment agreements, gifts, travel reimbursements, and positions held in organizations except religious, social, and political organizations. • Replace current term limits for state representatives and state senators with a 12-year total limit in any combination between the house and senate. Current term limits restrict House members to 6 years and Senate members to 8 years. After hearing this description of the proposal, if the election were held today, would you vote “yes” to adopt the proposal, or would you vote “no” to NOT adopt it?"

The Glengariff Group, Inc.	9/26/22-9/29/22	600 LV	± 4.0%	66.3%	15.4%	17.8%
	Question: "Proposal one would amend the state constitution to require annual public financial disclosure reports by legislators and other state officers and change the state legislator term limit to 12 total years in the legislature."

The Detroit News	07/05/2022-07/08/2022	600 LV	± 4%	81%	9%	10%
	Question: "A proposal to amend the state constitution to require annual public financial disclosure reports by legislators and other state officers and limit service of a legislator to 12 years. The proposed constitutional amendment would require members of the legislature, the governor, the lieutenant government, the secretary of state, and the attorney general to file annual public financial disclosure reports reporting assets, liabilities, income, positions held, future employment agreements, gifts, travel reimbursements and other payments. Require the legislation to implement but not limit or restrict the reporting requirements. Reduce current term limits for state representatives and state senators to a 12-year total limit in any combination between the house of representatives and the senate, with the exception that a person elected in the senate in 2022 may be elected the number of times allowed when that person became a candidate. Will you vote yes or no on this proposal?"
Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.

Background

Term limits

See also: Term limits in the United States

A term limit is a legal restriction that limits the number of terms a person may serve in a particular elected office.

There are different types of term limits. Sometimes, there is an absolute limit on the number of terms a person can serve, while in other cases, the restrictions are merely on the number of consecutive terms.

History of term limits in Michigan

See also: Michigan Proposal B, Term Limits Initiative (1992)

Prior to Proposal B being approved in 1992, there were no term limits for federal or state offices in Michigan. Proposal B was put on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 3, 1992. The ballot measure was approved by 58.73% of voters in Michigan, with 41.27% of voters voting against it.

The following term limits were added to the Michigan Constitution:

• U.S. representatives: three two-year terms in 12 years (Invalidated in 1995)
• U.S. senators: two six-year terms in 24 years (Invalidated in 1995)
• State representatives: three 2-year terms
• State senators: two 4-year terms
• Governors: two 4-year terms
• Lieutenant governors: two 4-year terms
• Secretaries of state: two 4-year terms
• Attorneys general: two 4-year terms

In 1995, term limits on congressional members were struck down in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. vs. Thornton. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that states cannot impose qualifications, including term limits, for prospective members of Congress that are stricter than those specified in the U.S. Constitution.

Term limits in state legislatures the U.S.

In 2022, 15 states had legislative term limits in place for state legislatures. Starting in the 1990s, term limits were imposed on state legislatures through successful ballot measures, referenda, legislative acts, or state constitutional changes.

Legislative term limits can either be lifetime or consecutive. In states with consecutive legislative term limits, legislators can serve up to the maximum number of terms in office before they can either run for office for the state's other legislative chamber, or leave the legislature. After a period of time no longer in that office, in most cases two years, that legislator can run again for their previously held office. In states with lifetime legislative term limits, once a legislator has served the maximum number of terms in their chamber, that legislator can no longer run for or hold office in that particular chamber.

In 2022, states with consecutive legislative term limits included Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, and South Dakota. States with lifetime legislative term limits include California, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, and Oklahoma.

States with legislative limits
Legislature	Limits in effect	Year limits imposed	Year limits took effect
Arizona Legislature	H: 4 terms (8 years) S: 4 terms (8 years)	1992	H: 2000 S: 2000
Arkansas Legislature	12 consecutive years; can return after a four-year break	1992, 2014, modified 2020	H: 1998 S: 2000
California Legislature	12 year cumulative total, in either or both	1990, modified 2012	A: 1996 S: 1998
Colorado Legislature	H: 4 terms (8 years) S: 2 terms (8 years)	1990	H: 1998 S: 1998
Florida Legislature	H: 4 terms (8 years) S: 2 terms (8 years)	1992	H: 2000 S: 2000
Louisiana Legislature	H: 3 terms (12 years) S: 3 terms (12 years)	1995	H: 2007 S: 2007
Maine Legislature	H: 4 terms (8 years) S: 4 terms (8 years)	1993	H: 1996 S: 1996
Michigan Legislature	12 year cumulative total, in either or both	1992, modified 2022	H: 1998 S: 2002
Missouri Legislature	H: 4 terms (8 years) S: 2 terms (8 years)	Amendment 13 (1992) (also see: Amendment 3 (2002)	H: 2002 S: 2002
Montana Legislature	H: 4 terms (8 years) S: 2 terms (8 years)	1992	H: 2000 S: 2000
Nebraska Unicameral	S: 2 terms (8 years)	2000	S: 2008
Nevada Legislature	A: 6 terms (12 years) S: 3 terms (12 years)	Initiative passed in 1996, took effect with those elected in 1998	A: 2010 S: 2010
North Dakota Legislature	H: 2 terms (8 years) S: 2 terms (8 years)	2022	H: 2030 S: 2030
Ohio Legislature	H: 4 terms (8 years) S: 2 terms (8 years)	1992	H: 2000 S: 2000
Oklahoma Legislature	12 year cumulative total, in either or both	1990	H: 2004 S: 2004
South Dakota Legislature	H: 4 terms (8 years) S: 4 terms (8 years)	1992	H: 2000 S: 2000

Overturned term limits

As of 2022, in six states, voters approved of term limits, but would later have these changes nullified. For Idaho and Utah, the state legislature voted to nullify the limits imposed by voters, while for Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming, courts nullified the voter-imposed limits.

By legislature

• The Idaho State Legislature repealed its own term limits in 2002.
• The Utah State Legislature repealed its own term limits in 2003.

By courts

• In 1997, the Massachusetts Supreme Court overturned term limits on the Massachusetts General Court in 1997.
• In 2002, the Oregon Supreme Court overturned the state's term limits on the grounds that the initiative voters approved the imposed term limits had more than one subject.
• The Washington Supreme Court voided state term limits in 1998.
• In 2004, the Wyoming Supreme Court overturned term limits imposed by the state's voters.

Election policy on the ballot in 2022

See also: Elections and campaigns on the ballot

As of July 2022, eleven ballot measures related to election or voting policy were certified to be on the ballot or in the process of making it to the ballot.

• Alabama Prohibit Changes to Election Conduct Laws within Six Months of General Elections Amendment (2022)
• Louisiana Amendment 3, Classified Civil Service Employee Public Support of Family Members' Campaigns Measure (2022)
• Kansas Constitutional Amendment 2, County Sheriff Election and Recall Amendment (2022)
• Arizona Campaign Finance Sources Disclosure Initiative (2022)
• Missouri Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2022)
• Pennsylvania Eliminate Separate Ballot Requirement for Judicial Retention Elections Amendment (2022)
• Michigan National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Initiative (2024)
• Nevada Top-Five Ranked Choice Voting Initiative (2022)
• Arizona Election and Voting Policies Initiative (2022)
• Michigan Right to Vote Initiative (2022)
• Michigan Proposal 2, Voting Policies in Constitution Amendment (2022)

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Michigan Constitution

Amending the Michigan Constitution

In Michigan, a two-thirds vote is required during one legislative session of the Michigan State Legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. That amounts to a minimum of 74 votes in the Michigan House of Representatives and 26 votes in the Michigan State Senate, assuming no vacancies. Amendments do not require the governor's signature to be referred to the ballot.

Amendment in the state Legislature

House Speaker Jason Wentworth (R-97) introduced the constitutional amendment into the Michigan State Legislature as House Joint Resolution R (HJR R) on May 10, 2022. A day earlier, Voters for Transparency and Term Limits PAC, which was collecting signatures for an initiated constitutional amendment, asked legislators to send a constitutional amendment to voters. "We’re gaining momentum, and we are determined to get this proposal on the ballot in November. The sooner we can start a healthy debate between Michiganders about amending our state constitution, the better off we will be," said Rich Studley, a former Michigan Chamber of Commerce CEO and co-chairperson of Voters for Transparency and Term Limits.

The Senate and House of Representatives both passed HJR R on May 10, sending the constitutional amendment to voters in November. In the Senate, the vote was 26-6. In the House, the vote was 76-28.

Rich Studley and former Michigan AFL-CIO President Mark Gaffney, the other co-chairperson of the campaign, released a statement following the vote, which said, "By putting transparency and term limit reform on the ballot in November, they are allowing the people of Michigan to play an important role in moving our state forward." Patrick Anderson, one of the principal authors of Proposal B (1992), responded to the legislative process on May 10, stating, "Not a single citizen in the entire state has had a chance to take a look at the resolution they passed, ambushing the voters before noon. The stench of this will last all the way to November."

Vote in the Michigan State Senate May 10, 2022
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 26  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	26	6	6
Total percent	68.42%	15.79%	15.79%

Vote in the Michigan House of Representatives May 10, 2022
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 73  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	76	28	5
Total percent	69.73%	25.68%	4.59%

Lawsuit

On September 7, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Proposal 1. Patrick Anderson challenged the amendment, arguing it violated the single-subject rule and that the amendment summary did not adequately address what the proposal would change. The Michigan Supreme Court disagreed, saying in a brief that the court “is not persuaded that it should grant the relief requested.”

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Michigan

Click "Show" to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in Michigan.

How to cast a vote in Michigan

Poll times In Michigan, polls are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. local time. Most of the state is observes Eastern Time, while several counties observe Central Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Registration Check your voter registration status here. To vote in Michigan, a voter must be a United States citizen and a resident of their city or township for at least 30 days. Voters must be at least 18 years old by Election Day, and not be currently serving a sentence in jail or prison. Voters may register to vote online, by mail, or in person at clerk's offices in their county, city, or township, or at a state department branch office 15 days or earlier before an election . Within 14 days of an election and on Election Day, voters can register in person at their local clerk's office by presenting proof of residency documentation. According to the Michigan Secretary of State's website: “ Proof of residency is official documentation (paper or digital) that lists a voter’s current name and address. When registering to vote within 14 days of an election, voters must present one form of proof of residency in person at a local clerk’s office. Proof of residency examples include: Michigan driver’s license, state ID, or U.S. Passport A utility bill Insurance documents (health, car, home, etc.) A bank or credit card statement Financial aid or school enrollment documents A lease agreement A paycheck or other government check Other government document ” Automatic registration Michigan automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they apply for or update a driver’s license or personal identification card. Online registration See also: Online voter registration Michigan has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registration Michigan allows same-day voter registration. Residency requirements Michigan law requires 30 days of residency in the state before a person may vote. Verification of citizenship See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States Michigan does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury. All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. As of November 2024, five states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, and New Hampshire — had passed laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration. However, only two of those states' laws were in effect, in Arizona and New Hampshire. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allowed noncitizens to vote in some local elections as of November 2024. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters. Verifying your registration This page, administered by the Michigan Department of State, allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirements Michigan requires voters to present photo identification while voting. Voters without identification can cast a regular ballot by signing an affidavit. The following list of accepted ID was current as of October 2024. Click here for the Michigan Secretary of State page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information. Michigan driver’s license Michigan personal identification card Current driver’s license or personal ID card issued by another state Current operator's or chauffeur's license Current federal, state, or local government-issued photo ID Current U.S. passport Current military identification card with photo Current student identification with photo from an educational institution Current tribal identification card with photo. Voters can obtain a state identification card at a secretary of state branch office for $10. Voters over the age of 65, voters who are blind, and voters whose driving privileges have been terminated due to a physical or mental disability can obtain an identification card for free. Additionally, voters who can present a reason for having the fee waived may also obtain an ID for free. Visit the Michigan secretary of state’s page or call (888) SOS-MICH (767-6424) for more information.

See also

2022 measures

• 2022 ballot measures
• Term limits on the ballot
• Government accountability on the ballot
• 2022 legislative sessions

Michigan

• Michigan ballot measures
• Michigan ballot measure laws
• Term limits in the United States

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Michigan House Joint Resolution R (2022)