Supreme Court largely leaves rules for election challenges in place

The Supreme Court of Michigan confirmed In a narrow decision on Wednesday, much of the state's guidance regarding election challengers was changed.

The instructions created a uniform certification A procedure was introduced for election challengers, requiring them to contact a designated liaison officer and setting out in detail which challenges were admissible.

The Republican-led suit argued that the 2022 manual was invalid because it had not gone through the state's official legislative process.

The state Supreme Court, however, was divided, holding that the guidance largely fell under exceptions to the rulemaking requirements.

“[A]”An agency has the authority to interpret the laws it administers and enforces,” said the court's opinion, written by Justice Kyra Harris Bolden. “Although an agency's interpretation of a law is not binding on courts and need not conflict with the plain language of the Legislature, it is entitled to deferential scrutiny and should not be overturned without good reason.”

However, the court found that two specific provisions of the guide violated Michigan election law.

One of these was the requirement that challenges brought at facilities that process mail-in ballots must be handled by a challenge officer, even if that officer is not also an election inspector at that facility.

The other rejected element was a provision in the Guide that allowed liaison officers to reject a challenge because they “considered the challenger’s reason for belief to be inadmissible. [and therefore decline to record the challenge] if the reason given is unrelated to the criteria relied on by the person challenging the decision or if the reason given is manifestly inapplicable or incorrect.’

The lawsuit also challenged a provision in the 2022 handbook that banned electronic devices in absentee ballot counting facilities, but the court ruled that point was moot because of changes in state law that have since occurred.

While four justices agreed with the majority decision, a dissenting opinion found that the rules themselves violated state election law.

“[T]These de facto rules conflict with statutory law and limit the legal rights of all challengers and, to some extent, of the voters themselves,” wrote Judge Brian Zahra.

The court found that the manual entitled “The Appointment, Rights and Duties of Election Observers and Election Monitors” updated in March 2024although many of the controversial points remained.

Wednesday's decision could mean that most of the new guidelines can remain in place for the upcoming general election in November.