The Michigan Supreme Court upheld much of the state’s guidance regarding election challengers in a split decision Wednesday.
The guidance created a uniform credentialing process for election challengers, required them to go through a designated liaison, and detailed which challenges were allowed.
The Republican-led lawsuit argued the 2022 manual was invalid since it didn’t go through the state’s official rulemaking process.
But a split state Supreme Court found the guide fell mostly under exceptions to rulemaking requirements.
“[A]n agency has the authority to interpret the statutes it administers and enforces,” the court’s opinion written by Justice Kyra Harris Bolden read. “Although an agency’s interpretation of a statute is not binding on courts and may not conflict with the Legislature’s clearly expressed language, it is entitled to respectful consideration and should not be overturned absent cogent reasons for doing so.”
The court did find, however, that two specific provisions in the guide went against Michigan election law.
One was a requirement that challengers at absentee voter ballot processing facilities go through a challenger liaison, even if that liaison isn’t also an election inspector at that facility.
The other struck down element was a provision in the guide that allowed liaisons to dismiss a challenge because they felt “the reason for the challenger’s belief impermissible [and therefore decline to record the challenge] if the reason provided bears no relation to criteria cited by the challenger, or if the provided reason is obviously inapplicable or incorrect.”
The lawsuit had also challenged a provision in the 2022 manual that banned electronic devices from absentee ballot counting facilities. But the court ruled that point was moot because of changes to state law that have happened since then.
While four of the justices joined the majority decision, a dissent found the rules themselves went counter to state election law.
“[T]hese de facto rules conflict with statutory law and restrict the statutory rights of all challengers and, to some extent, voters themselves,” Justice Brian Zahra wrote.
The court noted the manual, titled “The Appointment, Rights, and Duties of Election Challengers and Poll Watchers” had been updated in March 2024, though many of the challenged points remained.
Wednesday’s decision could mean most of the newer guide can remain in place for the upcoming November general election.
