Call to Action: RCV Ballot Summary Hearing
- Pure Integrity Michigan Elections
- Jun 16
- 6 min read
On June 27, the Michigan Board of State Canvassers (BOSC) is slated to review a 100-word summary for a ballot petition. If the language for a Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) petition is approved, petitioners will go to work trying to gather sufficient signatures to put RCV before the voters on the November 2026 ballot. If passed by the voters, Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) would usher in the most radical changes to Michigan’s election law in history.
The hearing, scheduled to begin at 9 AM on Friday in downtown Lansing, is not intended to address the merits of the issue. Instead, the four-person canvasser board, composed of two Democrats and two Republicans, will decide whether the language presents a clear and accurate summary of the proposal.
“This is how Michigan’s election laws bypassed the legislature in 2018 and 2022, and the state underwent its most dramatic changes in 40 years. Now, 2026 is shaping up as a potential replay,” said Patrice Johnson, Chair of Pure Integrity Michigan Elections.
She emphasized that reader attendance and public comment are needed.
Here is the 100-word summary:
“Constitutional amendment to guarantee voters in Michigan the right to: rank candidates in order of preference in most federal, state, and certain local elections; require that candidates for major offices
receive a majority of votes to be elected; receive timely notice of changes to polling places or voting procedures; cast a ballot if in line at the time polls close; use secure and accessible paper ballots in all elections, preserved for certification, recounts, and audits; vote for eligible write-in candidates not listed on the ballot; participate in primary elections held at least 140 days before the general election.”
1. Attend the public hearing and show solidarity with others who are opposing RCV.
Friday, June 27, 2025 9:00 a.m. (This is a new date/time)
Binsfeld Office Building
Room 1100
201 Townsend Street
Lansing, MI 48933
2. Attend the hearing and make a public comment. Comments are limited to concerns about the summary language. The hearing is NOT about approval or disapproval of RCV in general. See below for additional information about making public comment.
3. Submit your concerns via email to the BOSC in advance of the meeting. MDOS-Canvassers@Michigan.gov
4. Watch the hearing live streamed HERE to learn more about RCV and how the ballot proposal process works.
Making Public Comment in Writing or at the Hearing
· Address your comments to Chair, Richard Houskamp (R) and other members of the board of state canvassers.
· Express gratitude to the chair and other members for the opportunity to express your views.
· Have your remarks drafted in advance, so they are succinct. There will be a time limit on individual comments, probably two or three minutes.
· Limit your remarks to concerns you have about the summary language. This is not the place to express your disapproval or approval of Ranked Choice Voting.
Resources
· Potential areas of concern about the Constitutional amendment summary language*
"1. Vague Language on Ranked-Choice Voting
The phrase “rank candidates in order of preference” is unclear and fails to explain the mechanics of ranked-choice voting, such as vote redistribution or elimination rounds. This lack of specificity risks misleading voters about the process, violating the requirement for a clear and accurate summary.
2. Ambiguity in Majority Requirement
The statement that candidates for major offices must “receive a majority of votes” omits how a majority is achieved in ranked-choice voting (e.g., through vote transfers). This omission renders the summary incomplete and potentially misleading, as voters may assume a traditional majority is required.
3. Unclear Scope of “Certain Local Elections”
The phrase “certain local elections” is vague, failing to specify which local elections are affected. This lack of precision obscures the proposal’s scope, undermining the summary’s clarity and impartiality as is required by law.
4. Timely Notice Definition Missing
Current law already specifies “timely notice of changes to polling places or voting procedures.” Michigan Election Law (Act 116 of 1954), Section 168.662, already specifies the requirements for timely notification of changes to polling locations:
· Standard Notification Timeline of at least 60 days before an election and no later than 45 days before the election [[168.662(8)(a)]. This notice can be sent via an updated voter identification card under Section 499 or a separate mailed notice designed to ensure actual delivery [[168.662(9)].
· Temporary Changes due to damage, destruction, or inaccessibility must be provided no later than 21 days before the election for polling places and no later than 21 days before the first day of early voting for early voting sites [[168.662(8)(b)] via a sign indicating the new location posted at the former polling place or early voting site [[168.662(8)(b)].
· Last-Minute Changes (Within 20 Days): A sign at the former location [[168.662(11)(a)], Posting on the municipality or county website [[168.662(11)(b)]; Posting on the Michigan Department of State’s website [[168.662(11)(c)].
Since timeliness laws already exist, this reference lacks a definition of “timely” and creates ambiguity and redundancy. Thus, the summary fails to adequately inform voters, and risks misleading them, as to the provision’s intent, violating statutory clarity standards.
5. Redundant Paper Ballot Language
The phrase “secure and accessible paper ballots in all elections” implies a new requirement but does not clarify that paper ballots are already standard and required by law in Michigan. This redundancy may mislead voters about the proposal’s necessity, compromising the summary’s accuracy.
6. Write-In Candidate Eligibility Omission
The summary allows voting for “eligible write-in candidates not listed on the ballot” but does not define “eligible” or explain verification processes. This omission risks voter confusion and fails to fully reflect the provision’s intent, violating summary requirements.
7. Primary Timing Imprecision
Requiring primaries “at least 140 days before the general election” is imprecise, as it does not specify whether this shifts existing schedules or imposes new deadlines. This vagueness obscures the provision’s impact, undermining the summary’s clarity.
8. Preservation Mandate Overstatement
The phrase “preserved for certification, recounts, and audits” suggests a new ballot preservation mandate but does not clarify existing practices, which currently require retention of ballots for 22 months. This overstatement may mislead voters about the proposal’s effect, rendering the summary inaccurate."
*Generated from Grok, created by xAI.
If you have any questions regarding this hearing or about Ranked Choice Voting, please contact Jacky Eubanks at Jacky@mifairelections.org.
Learn how We The People can win back and secure OUR Future.
Join us Thursday, June 19th at 12 PM for
the weekly Coalition Task Force Meeting
To attend this meeting, use the Registration link below . It changes weekly.
After registering, you will receive an email with details on how to join the meeting.
Important Notes and Disclaimers for Election Integrity Network National Working Groups and coalition calls
We operate under strict 501 (c)(4) non-profit, non-partisan guidelines. Please do not make any comments during the call or in the chat that are directly related to any campaign or candidate running for office or could be considered an endorsement or opposition of that candidate.
All calls are “off the record.” This means that no members of the media are allowed on our calls and this rule also applies to participants. No comment or presentation can be shared outside of the call without the express permission of the speaker. No recording can be made of the call without express permission from the moderator- this includes closed captioning.
We always welcome new participants but ask that all newcomers register with their own registration link. Please do not forward your personal link to another participant.
For the security of the call, if you join by phone, you may be asked to unmute and provide your name.
This meeting is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or instruction to lobby on behalf of any issue or organization.
Mark your calendars to attend Election Integrity Network's outstanding National Working Groups. Consider also serving as liaison to report to the Task Force Coalition on our Thursday News@Noon meetings.
A link to the full list of National Working Group Meetings is HERE (All meetings are noted in Eastern time.)
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of Pure Integrity Michigan Elections. Every article written by a PIME author or guest author is generated by the author or editor alone. However, links or images embedded within the article, may have been generated by artificial intelligence.
コメント