Action Alert

Chair Richard Houskamp and members of the Board of State Canvassers,

I am writing to express concerns about the current summary language for the Rank Choice Voting petition. My concerns focus solely on the summary’s clarity and accuracy, as required by law, and not on the merits of RCV itself.

1. Vague Language on Ranked-Choice Voting: The phrase “rank candidates in order of preference” lacks explanation of RCV mechanics, such as vote redistribution or elimination rounds. This omission risks misleading voters about the process, failing to meet statutory clarity standards.
2. Ambiguity in Majority Requirement: Stating candidates must “receive a majority of votes” omits how RCV achieves this through vote transfers. This incomplete description may confuse voters, assuming a traditional majority, thus undermining the summary’s accuracy.
3. Unclear Scope of “Certain Local Elections”: The term “certain local elections” is vague, leaving voters uninformed about which elections are impacted. This lack of specificity obscures the proposal’s scope, violating requirements for an impartial and clear summary.
4. Redundant and Ambiguous Timely Notice: Referencing “timely notice of changes to polling places or voting procedures” is redundant, as Michigan Election Law (Act 116 of 1954, Section 168.662) already defines notification timelines (e.g., 60 days standard, 21 days for temporary changes). Without defining “timely,” the summary creates ambiguity and risks misleading voters.
5. Redundant Paper Ballot Language: The phrase “secure and accessible paper ballots in all elections” implies a new requirement, yet paper ballots are already mandated. This redundancy may mislead voters about the proposal’s necessity, compromising accuracy.
6. Write-In Candidate Eligibility Omission: Allowing votes for “eligible write-in candidates” without defining “eligible” or verification processes risks voter confusion, failing to reflect the provision’s full intent.
7. Primary Timing Imprecision: Requiring primaries “at least 140 days before the general election” lacks clarity on whether this alters existing schedules, obscuring the proposal’s impact and undermining summary clarity.
8. Preservation Mandate Overstatement: The phrase “preserved for certification, recounts, and audits” suggests a new mandate, yet ballots are already retained for 22 months. This overstatement may mislead voters about the proposal’s effect.

I urge the Board to revise the summary to address these deficiencies, ensuring clarity and accuracy for Michigan voters. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
[Full Name, Jurisdiction of Residency]