| 1 | | - | Substitute For SENATE BILL NO. 401 A bill to create a state voting rights act; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state and local governmental officers and entities; to provide for a court-appointed monitor under certain circumstances; to prohibit certain discriminatory activity and to prescribe civil sanctions; to create a fund; to provide remedies; to prescribe penalties; and to repeal acts and parts of acts. the people of the state of michigan enact: Sec. 1. This act may be cited as the "state voting rights act". Sec. 2. In recognition of legislative findings regarding the protections for the right to vote provided by the state constitution of 1963, and in conjunction with the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and the freedoms of speech, assembly, consultation, instruction, and petition under the law and against the denial and abridgement of the voting rights of members of a racial, color, or language minority group, it is the public policy of this state to do all of the following: (a) Encourage participation in the elective franchise by all eligible electors to the maximum extent. (b) Ensure that eligible electors who are members of a racial, color, or language minority group have an equal opportunity to participate in the political processes of this state and to exercise the elective franchise. Sec. 3. As used in this act: (a) "Alternative method of election" means a method of electing candidates to the legislative body of a local government other than an at-large method of election or a district-based method of election and includes, but is not limited to, proportional ranked-choice voting, cumulative voting, or limited voting that incorporate aspects of at-large and district-based methods of election. (b) "At-large method of election" means a method of electing candidates to the legislative body of a local government in which candidates are voted on by all electors of the local government. At-large method of election does not include any alternative method of election. (c) "Disparity" means any statistically significant variance that is supported by validated methodologies. (d) "District-based method of election" means a method of electing candidates to the legislative body of a local government in which, for local governments divided into districts, a candidate for any district is required to reside in the district and candidates representing or seeking to represent the district are voted on by only the electors of the district. (e) "Federal voting rights act" means the federal voting rights act of 1965, 52 USC 10301 to 10314, 10501 to 10508, and 10701 to 10702. (f) "Government official" mean any individual who is elected or appointed to an office in this state or a local government or who is authorized to act in an official capacity on behalf of this state or a local government. (g) "Language minority group" means that term as defined in 52 USC 10503. (h) "Local government" means any of the following: (i) A county. (ii) A city. (iii) A township. (iv) A village. (v) A public school as that term is defined in section 5 of the revised school code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.5. (vi) A public community college. (vii) A district library. (viii) Any other political subdivision of this state, authority, or other public body corporate that has an elected governing body. (i) "Protected class" means individuals who are members of a racial, color, or language minority group, or 2 or more racial, color, or language minority groups, and includes any of the following: (i) Individuals who are members of a racial, color, or language minority group that has been subject to protection under a consent decree ordered by a federal court in this state in a suit alleging a violation of section 2 of the federal voting rights act, 52 USC 10302. (ii) Individuals who are members of a minimum reporting category that has ever been officially recognized by the United States Census Bureau. (j) "Racially polarized voting" means voting in which the candidate or electoral choice preferred by a protected class diverges from the candidate or electoral choice preferred by other electors. (k) "Vote" or "voting" include any action necessary to cast a ballot and make that ballot count in any election, including, but not limited to, registering as an elector, applying for an absent voter ballot, or any other action required by law as a prerequisite to casting a ballot and having that ballot counted, canvassed, certified, and included in the appropriate totals of votes cast with respect to an election. (l) "Voting eligible population" and "eligible electors" mean those United States citizens who have attained the age of 18 years, who have resided in this state for 30 days, and who meet the requirements of local residence as required by law. Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, anything required by this act to be done on a day certain, if that day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, may be done within the same time limits on the next business day. Sec. 5. The provisions of this act must be construed liberally in favor of all of the following, and the provisions of all other statutes, rules and regulations, local laws, and ordinances related to the right to vote may be construed in favor of all of the following: (a) Protecting the right to cast a ballot and make that ballot effective. (b) Ensuring that qualified individuals who are registered electors, or who seek to be admitted as registered electors to vote in an election, are not impaired in voting or registering to vote. (c) Ensuring that each registered elector is not impaired in voting, including, but not limited to, having the elector's vote counted. (d) Making the fundamental right to vote more accessible to qualified electors. (e) Ensuring equitable access for protected class members to opportunities to be admitted as electors and to vote. (f) Ensuring that protected class members have equitable opportunities to elect candidates of the protected class members' choice. Sec. 7. (1) Subject to section 10, a local government, state agency, or state or local government official shall not impose any qualification for eligibility to be an elector, impose any other prerequisite to voting, impose any ordinance, regulation, or other law regarding the administration of elections, impose any standard, practice, procedure, or policy, or take or fail to take any other action, in a manner that results in, will result in, or is intended to result in, either of the following: (a) A disparity in voter participation, access to voting opportunities, or the equal opportunity or ability to participate in the political process between a protected class and other members of the electorate. (b) Based on the totality of the circumstances, an impairment of the equal opportunity or ability of members of a protected class to participate in the political process and nominate or elect candidates of the protected class members' choice. (2) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, an impairment may be found to exist under subsection (1)(b) in circumstances that include, but are not limited to, any of the following: (a) A local government closes, moves, or consolidates 1 or more precincts or clerk's offices in a manner that impairs the right to vote of members of a protected class or results in a disparity in geographic access between a protected class and other members of the electorate, unless the changes are necessary to significantly further a compelling governmental interest and there is no alternative that results in a smaller impairment or disparity. (b) A local government closes, moves, or consolidates 1 or more polling places, early voting sites, or absent voter ballot drop boxes in a manner that impairs the right to vote of members of a protected class or results in a disparity in geographic access between a protected class and other members of the electorate, unless the changes are necessary to significantly further a compelling governmental interest and there is no alternative that results in a smaller impairment or disparity. (c) A local government changes the time or date of an election in a manner that impairs the right to vote of members of a protected class, including, but not limited to, making the change without proper notice as required by law. (d) A local government fails to utilize voting or election materials in languages other than English that are provided to the local government by the secretary of state, as required by state law. (3) Implementing a reorganization of a local government that alters which electors are eligible to vote in elections for that local government, including, but not limited to, an annexation, incorporation, dissolution, consolidation, or division of a local government, violates subsection (1) if the reorganization is intended to impair or diminish the equal opportunity or ability of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class members' choice, or, based on the totality of the circumstances, the equal opportunity or ability of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class members' choice is impaired or diminished as a result of the reorganization. Sec. 9. (1) Subject to section 10, a local government shall not employ or impose any method of election that has the effect of impairing the equal opportunity or ability of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class members' choice as a result of diluting the vote of those protected class members. (2) A local government violates subsection (1) if both of the following occur: (a) Either of the following occur: (i) Elections in the local government exhibit racially polarized voting and the candidates or electoral choices preferred by a protected class would usually be defeated. (ii) Based on the totality of the circumstances, the equal opportunity or ability of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class members' choice is impaired. (b) One or more changes to the method of election exist that a court could order under section 23 that would likely mitigate the impairment of the equal opportunity or ability of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class members' choice. (3) To the extent that a change to the method of election is a proposed district-based plan that provides protected class members with 1 or more reasonably configured districts in which the protected class members would have an equal opportunity or ability to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class members' choice, it is not necessary to show that members of a protected class comprise a majority of the total population, voting age population, voting eligible population, or registered voter population in any district. (4) In determining whether elections in a local government exhibit racially polarized voting under this section, a court should adhere to all of the following guidelines: (a) Statistical evidence using validated methodologies is more probative than nonstatistical evidence, but nonstatistical evidence may still be afforded probative value. Statistical evidence based on election results, and inferences about racially polarized voting from those election results, is more probative than statistical evidence based on survey data, but statistical evidence based on survey data may still be afforded probative value. (b) In the case of claims brought on behalf of a protected class consisting of 2 or more racial, color, or language minority groups that are similarly situated because those groups are politically cohesive in that local government, members of those racial, color, or language minority groups should be combined to determine whether voting by those combined protected class members is polarized from other electors. It is not necessary to demonstrate that voting by members of each racial, color, or language minority group is separately polarized from other electors. However, empirical evidence may be introduced to show that members of a protected class or 2 or more protected classes do not vote in a politically cohesive manner. (c) Evidence concerning the causes of, or the reasons for, the occurrence of racially polarized voting is not relevant to the determination of whether racially polarized voting occurs, or whether candidates or electoral choices preferred by a protected class would usually be defeated. In particular, evidence concerning alternate explanations for racially polarized voting patterns or election outcomes, including, but not limited to, partisan explanations, should not be considered. However, evidence concerning those factors may be introduced for purposes of considering appropriate remedies or punitive damages. (d) Evidence concerning whether a protected class is geographically compact or concentrated should not be considered in determining liability, but may be considered when determining a remedy for a violation of this section. (e) Evidence concerning projected changes in population or demographics should not be considered in determining liability, but may be considered when determining a remedy for a violation of this section. Sec. 10. Sections 7 and 9 do not apply to the independent citizens redistricting commission established under section 6 of article IV of the state constitution of 1963. Sec. 11. (1) In determining whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, an impairment of the right to vote for any eligible elector who is a protected class member, or of the equal opportunity or ability of eligible electors who are protected class members to participate in the political process and nominate or elect candidates of the eligible electors' choice, has occurred under section 7(1)(b) or (3) or 9(2)(a)(ii), a court may consider factors that include, but are not limited to, any of the following: (a) Whether members of the protected class vote at a lower rate than other electors. (b) The history of discrimination affecting members of the protected class. (c) The extent to which members of the protected class are disadvantaged, or otherwise bear the effects of past public or private discrimination, in any areas that may hinder the members' ability to participate effectively in the political process, including education, employment, health, criminal justice, housing, transportation, land use, or environmental protection. (d) The use of overt or subtle racial appeals by government officials or in political campaigns. (e) The extent to which members of the protected class have been elected to office. (f) The extent to which members of the protected class have faced barriers with respect to accessing the ballot, receiving financial support, or receiving any other support for an election. (g) The extent to which members of the protected class contribute to political campaigns at lower rates. (h) The extent to which candidates face hostility or barriers while campaigning due to the candidate's membership in the protected class. (i) Any statute, ordinance, regulation, or other law regarding the administration of elections, or any standard, practice, procedure, or policy, that tends to impair the right to vote for any protected class members, or that tends to impair the equal opportunity or ability of protected class members to participate in the political process and nominate or elect candidates of the protected class members' choice. (j) The presence of racially polarized voting. (k) The lack of responsiveness by elected officials to the particularized needs of protected class members or a community of protected class members. (l) Whether the challenged method of election, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy, standard, regulation, procedure, or law was designed to advance, and does materially advance, a compelling state interest that is substantiated and supported by evidence. (m) The extent to which protected class members suffer the effects of historical housing segregation or benefit from housing policies to implement fair housing goals. (n) The extent to which officials have undertaken efforts to remedy racial disparities that have yielded improvements for protected class voters. If the efforts to remedy racial disparities and any improvements are inadequate, those efforts may still be considered. (2) In determining whether a violation of section 7 or 9 has occurred, a court shall not consider any of the following factors: (a) The total number or share of members of a protected class on whom a challenged method of election, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy, standard, regulation, procedure, or law does not impose a material burden. However, evidence may be introduced showing a challenged method of election, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy, standard, regulation, procedure, or law does not affect qualified electors who are protected class members more than qualified electors who are not protected class members. (b) The degree to which the challenged method of election, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy, standard, regulation, procedure, or law has a long pedigree or was in widespread use at some earlier date, but this factor may be considered for determining a remedy or punitive damages. (c) The use of an identical or similar challenged method of election, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy, standard, regulation, procedure, or law in another local government, unless the other local government adopted or implemented that method of election, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy, standard, regulation, procedure, or law to remedy a violation under this act or another law, rule, or regulation affecting voting rights or to enhance voting rights of a protected class. (d) The availability of other forms of voting unimpacted by the challenged method of election, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy, standard, regulation, procedure, or law to all members of the electorate, including members of the protected class. (e) A prophylactic impact on potential criminal activity by individual electors, if those crimes have not occurred in the local government in substantial numbers, or if the connection between the challenged policy and any claimed prophylactic effect is not supported by substantial evidence. (f) Mere invocation of interests in voter confidence or prevention of fraud. However, evidence may be introduced to show the challenged practices were implemented to address actual instances of voter fraud in the local government or in the vicinity of the local government, that those practices were narrowly tailored to prevent a recurrence of those instances of voter fraud, and that, before implementing the practices, the local government considered and took reasonable measures to prevent or minimize the possible adverse impacts on protected classes. (g) A lack of evidence concerning the intent of electors, elected officials, or public officials to discriminate against protected class members. However, written evidence of the intent of electors, elected officials, or public officials, and any oral statements of those electors, elected officials, or public officials that augment the written evidence, may be introduced, particularly to address whether punitive damages are appropriate or in evaluating claims of discriminatory intent. (3) Evidence that the court determines is not probative of the adverse impact of a challenged method of election, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy, standard, regulation, procedure, or law may be introduced for the purpose of determining the appropriate remedies, particularly to address whether punitive damages are appropriate. (4) A particular combination or number of factors under subsection (1) is not required for a court to determine that an impairment occurred. The court shall consider a particular factor only if and to the extent evidence pertaining to that factor is introduced. (5) To the extent a claim involves a local government, evidence of the factors under subsection (1) is most probative if the evidence relates to the local government in which the alleged violation occurred, but still holds probative value if the evidence relates to the geographic region in which that local government is located or to this state. Sec. 13. (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (6), before commencing an action against a local government alleging a violation of section 7 or 9, a prospective plaintiff must send by certified mail a notification letter to the clerk and chief administrative officer of the local government asserting that the local government may be in violation of section 7 or 9. The notification letter must explain in detail each alleged violation of section 7 or 9 and must propose a remedy for each alleged violation. Any individual aggrieved by a violation of section 7 or 9, any entity whose membership includes individuals aggrieved by a violation of section 7 or 9, any entity whose mission would be frustrated by a violation of section 7 or 9, or any entity that would expend resources in order to fulfill its mission as a result of a violation of section 7 or 9 may be a prospective plaintiff. (2) Within 30 days after receiving a notification letter under subsection (1), the clerk of the local government and the chief administrative officer or chief executive officer of that local government, along with legal counsel or any other individuals the local government wishes to attend, may meet with the prospective plaintiff or the prospective plaintiff's representatives to prepare and agree on a plan to address the alleged violations of section 7 or 9. If the local government does not meet with the prospective plaintiff, the prospective plaintiff may seek the remedies provided under subsections (4) and (6). If the local government agrees to meet with the prospective plaintiff to prepare and agree on a plan to address the alleged violations of section 7 or 9, the prospective plaintiff or the prospective plaintiff's representatives must participate in the meeting. The plan described in this subsection must be in writing, be approved by a resolution of the governing body of the local government, and do all of the following: (a) Identify each alleged violation of section 7 or 9 by the local government. (b) Identify a specific remedy for each alleged violation of section 7 or 9 by the local government or state that the parties agree no remedy is appropriate for 1 or more of the alleged violations. (c) Affirm the local government's intent to enact and implement the remedy. (d) Establish specific measures that the local government must take to facilitate any needed approvals to implement each specific remedy. (e) Provide a schedule for the necessary approvals and the implementation of each specific remedy. The schedule must provide a sufficient amount of time for all needed steps to obtain authorization for the remedy, including, as necessary, from a court under section 23(5). (3) If a prospective plaintiff and the local government agree on a written plan that complies with subsection (2), and that written plan is approved by a resolution of the governing body of the local government, no action may be filed by the prospective plaintiff unless the local government fails to comply with the requirements of the written plan. If a prospective plaintiff and the local government do not agree on a written plan as described under subsection (2) within 60 days after the prospective plaintiff and the local government first meet under subsection (2), the prospective plaintiff may seek the remedies as provided under subsections (4) and (6). (4) If a prospective plaintiff complies with subsections (1) and (2), that prospective plaintiff may file a complaint with the secretary of state as provided in this subsection or may file an action as provided under subsection (6). A complaint filed with the secretary of state must be in writing in a form required by the secretary of state and must include the notification letter to the local government as required under subsection (1). After receiving a written complaint, the secretary of state shall send by certified mail a written request to the local government for a written response to the complaint from the local government. Within 21 days after receiving the written request from the secretary of state, the local government shall send by certified mail to the secretary of state a detailed written response to each alleged violation of section 7 or 9 and explain why the local government was unable to reach an agreement with the prospective plaintiff on a plan to address each alleged violation of section 7 or 9. After receiving the written response from the local government, the secretary of state shall investigate the complaint, including, but not limited to, conferring with the prospective plaintiff and the local government as considered necessary, to address the complaint with a written plan as provided under subsection (2), to find that there was no violation of section 7 or 9, or to make a determination that the local government is violating section 7 or 9. If the secretary of state determines that the local government is violating section 7 or 9 and the local government will not agree to a written plan to remedy each violation that is acceptable to the secretary of state, the secretary of state shall make a written referral to the attorney general and notify the prospective plaintiff of that determination. A prospective plaintiff who files a complaint with the secretary of state under this subsection shall not commence an action against the local government under subsection (6) until 1 of the following occurs: (a) The secretary of state determines that there is no violation of section 7 or 9. (b) The secretary of state determines the local government is violating section 7 or 9 and the local government will not agree on a written plan to remedy each violation that is acceptable to the secretary of state. (c) Ninety days or more have elapsed since the date the secretary of state received the local government's response to the written complaint. (5) The secretary of state may adopt rules under the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, in accordance with state law to effectuate the purposes of subsection (4). (6) A party may bring an action as provided under section 21 for a violation of section 7 or 9 under any of the following circumstances: (a) The party filed a complaint as provided under subsection (4) and 1 of the following occurs: (i) The secretary of state determines that there is no violation of section 7 or 9. (ii) The secretary of state determines that the local government is violating section 7 or 9 and the local government will not agree on a written plan to remedy each violation that is acceptable to the secretary of state. (iii) Ninety days or more have elapsed since the secretary of state received the local government's response to a written complaint filed under subsection (4). (b) Another party has already submitted a notification letter under subsection (1) alleging a substantially similar violation and that party is eligible to bring an action under this subsection. (c) Following the party's submission of a notification letter under subsection (1), the local government failed to implement a written plan as provided under subsection (2). (d) The party is seeking preliminary relief with respect to an upcoming election in accordance with section 27. (e) The party is seeking preliminary relief with respect to an action about which notice is required under section 653c(1) or (2) of the Michigan election law, 1954 PA 116, MCL 168.653c. (f) The party sent the notification letter as required under subsection (1) and the local government did not meet or approve a written plan as required under subsection (2). Sec. 15. (1) The Michigan voting rights assistance fund is created in the state treasury. (2) The state treasurer shall deposit money and other assets received from charitable contributions or from any other source in the Michigan voting rights assistance fund. The state treasurer shall direct the investment of money in the Michigan voting rights assistance fund and credit interest and earnings from the investments to the Michigan voting rights assistance fund. (3) Money in the Michigan voting rights assistance fund at the close of the fiscal year remains in the fund and does not lapse to the general fund. (4) The department of state is the administrator of the Michigan voting rights assistance fund for audits of the Michigan voting rights assistance fund. (5) The department of state shall expend money from the Michigan voting rights assistance fund only for the purpose of reimbursing prospective plaintiffs and local governments for certain expenses incurred in accordance with both of the following: (a) Section 17. (b) Section 8 of the language assistance for elections act. Sec. 17. (1) Subject to subsection (4), if, pursuant to a process commenced by a notification letter under section 13 or 24, a local government enacts or implements a remedy to a potential violation of this act, or to a potential violation of a state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors as provided under section 24, the department of state shall reimburse the prospective plaintiff who sent the notification letter from the Michigan voting rights assistance fund, or, if there is insufficient money in the Michigan voting rights assistance fund, from other money appropriated to the department of state for this purpose, for the reasonable costs to generate the notification letter under section 13. (2) If a local government enacts or implements a remedy to a potential violation of this act, or to a potential violation of a state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors as provided under section 24, either in response to a notification letter received under section 13 or 24 or on its own volition, the department of state shall reimburse that local government from the Michigan voting rights assistance fund, or, if there is insufficient money in the Michigan voting rights assistance fund, from other money appropriated to the department of state for this purpose, for the reasonable costs to evaluate whether the remedy was necessary to prevent a potential violation of this act, or to a potential violation of a state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors as provided under section 24. (3) The department of state shall reimburse a local government from the Michigan voting rights assistance fund, or, if there is insufficient money in the Michigan voting rights assistance fund, from other money appropriated to the department of state for this purpose, for the reasonable costs incurred to evaluate whether a remedy is necessary to prevent a possible violation of this act, or to a potential violation of a state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors as provided under section 24. The department shall provide reimbursement under this subsection only if both of the following requirements are met: (a) The costs were incurred by the local government in response to a notification letter received under section 13 or 24. (b) The department of state determines, on request from the local government, that a reasonable plaintiff, with reasonable investigation before sending the notification letter, would have known the allegations in the notification letter lacked legal or factual merit. (4) Subject to subsection (6), the amount of reimbursement provided under subsection (1), (2), or (3) must not exceed $50,000.00. This amount must be adjusted annually by an amount determined by the state treasurer to reflect the cumulative annual percentage increase in the United States Consumer Price Index for the immediately preceding calendar year and rounded to the nearest $100.00 increment. (5) A request for reimbursement made by a prospective plaintiff or a local government under subsection (1) or (2) must be transmitted to the department of state not later than 90 days after the enactment or implementation of the remedy. A request for reimbursement made by a local government under subsection (3) must be transmitted to the department of state not later than 90 days after the local government receives a determination by the department of state that the allegations in the notification letter lacked legal or factual merit. The request for reimbursement must be substantiated with financial documentation, including, as applicable, detailed invoices for expert analysis and reasonable attorney fees calculated using a lodestar methodology. The department of state may deny a request for reimbursement made under subsection (1) or (2) if the remedy was not necessary to prevent a potential violation of this act. A prospective plaintiff or local government that does not receive satisfactory reimbursement within 120 days after the request for reimbursement may file a declaratory judgment action to obtain a clarification of rights. (6) A local government may seek reimbursement only under subsection (2) or (3), not subsections (2) and (3), regarding a notification letter. (7) As used in this section, "United States Consumer Price Index" means the United States Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers as defined and reported by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Sec. 21. (1) Any individual or entity identified in section 13(6) or the attorney general may file an action in the circuit court of the county in which the local government is located or in the court of claims to compel compliance with and seek an appropriate remedy under this act. (2) In an action involving a districting or redistricting plan, any individual with standing to challenge any single district has standing to challenge the districting or redistricting plan as a whole. Sec. 23. (1) In any action brought in any court under this act or under the state constitution of 1963, the court has broad authority to order adequate remedies that are tailored to best mitigate the violation and are reasonably necessary to remedy the violation. To the extent a court is choosing between various potential remedies, the court may consider each of the protections provided in section 5, any impact to how disruptive the remedies will be to the local government's leadership, the services provided within the local government, home rule, any local charter or ordinances, state law, the local government's electors, and other aspects of the local government's operations, and the extent to which the remedy is inconsistent with any local charter or ordinance or state law. Subject to subsection (5), adequate remedies include, but are not limited to, any of the following: (a) Drawing new or revised districting or redistricting plans. The court shall specify the election at which the new or revised districting or redistricting plan will take effect. If needed to give effect to the new or revised districting or redistricting plan, the court may shorten or lengthen terms of the current office holders who will be affected by the new or revised districting or redistricting plan. (b) Adopting a different method of election, including adopting a district-based method of election or alternative method of election, or reasonably increasing the size of the legislative body. (c) Adding or changing voting days or hours. (d) Adding polling places, early voting sites, or absent voter ballot drop boxes. (e) Eliminating staggered elections so that all members of the legislative body are elected at the same time. To the extent reasonably possible, in a local government where staggered terms exist, a remedy under this subdivision may provide for 1 election at which all officers are elected at the same time, but future elections provide for staggered terms. (f) Ordering a special election either on a regular election date as provided under the Michigan election law, 1954 PA 116, MCL 168.1 to 168.992, or on another date if reasonably required to remedy a violation. (g) Restoring or adding individuals to a voter registration list or requiring expanded opportunities for registering electors and enabling those electors to vote. (h) Imposing nominal or compensatory damages. (i) Subject to this subdivision, imposing punitive damages in the form of a civil fine. The civil fine must be deposited into the Michigan voting rights assistance fund created in section 15. When imposing punitive damages, the court shall take into consideration the severity of the violations, the number of violations, whether the defendant has previous violations, and any other factors the court considers appropriate. If the defendant is a local government, the court shall also take into consideration the number of registered electors in the local government and the local government's ability to pay the punitive damages. The court shall provide, in any order requiring payment of punitive damages, an explanation of why the payment of punitive damages was required and how the court determined the amount of punitive damages to be paid. The court shall impose punitive damages under this subdivision only if the court finds any of the following: (i) The violation is intentional. (ii) If the defendant is a local government, the local government or the officials in that local government demonstrated a disregard for the voting rights of qualified electors within the local government's jurisdiction. (iii) If the defendant is a local government, when notified of an alleged violation under section 13(1), the local government failed to take any action required under section 13. (iv) The defendant violated a court order issued under this act, article II of the state constitution of 1963, or another law applicable to or affecting voting rights. (v) After addressing any violation of this act, article II of the state constitution of 1963, or another law applicable to or affecting voting rights, the defendant subsequently violated this act, article II of the state constitution of 1963, or another law applicable to or affecting voting rights. (vi) Punitive damages are otherwise reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with this act. (j) Any other form of declaratory or injunctive relief that, in the court's judgment, is tailored to address the violation. (k) Retaining jurisdiction for a period of time the court considers appropriate. (2) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, in any action in which a court finds a violation of this act, the federal voting rights act, the state constitution of 1963 concerning the right to vote for protected class members, the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution concerning the right to vote, the fifteenth amendment of the United States Constitution, or any other state or federal law concerning the right to vote for protected class members, in addition to the remedies available under subsection (1), the court may retain jurisdiction and require that, for a period of up to 10 years, the local government obtain a court order before enacting any voting-related policy. When considering this remedy, the court shall take into consideration the severity of the violation, whether the violation was intentional, the number of violations, and whether the local government has any previous violations. A court must retain jurisdiction for a violation described in this subsection if the court finds that the violation is susceptible to repetition, the remedy is susceptible to circumvention, there is evidence of intentional discrimination by the local government, or the local government failed to adopt broad prophylactic measures that prevent any future violations. A request for judicial preapproval submitted to a court under this subsection may be granted only if the court concludes that the proposed voting-related policy will not diminish, in relation to the status quo before the enactment or implementation of the voting-related policy, the equal opportunity or ability of members of a protected class whose voting rights are implicated by the voting-related policy and that the proposed voting-related policy is unlikely to violate any of the provisions of this act. In any request for judicial preapproval, the local government must indicate the position of each party as to whether the proposed voting-related policy complies with standards for preapproval as described in this subsection. The parties may submit a stipulated order for judicial preapproval for the court's consideration. To the extent a local government subject to the judicial preapproval procedures under this subsection must make emergency changes to locations of polling places, early voting sites, or absent voter ballot drop boxes within 7 days before an election due to exigent circumstances that are outside of the local government's control, the local government may implement the emergency changes without first obtaining judicial preapproval under this subsection, as long as that local government notifies, in writing, the court and all parties to the action of the emergency changes before implementing those changes and explains in detail the exigent circumstances that made the emergency changes necessary. Any party to the action may request that the court subject emergency changes to the judicial preapproval process under this subsection. To the extent a local government intends to maintain any emergency changes beyond that election, the local government must obtain judicial preapproval for those changes as provided under this subsection. The local government bears the burden of proof in a proceeding involving judicial preapproval under this subsection. As used in this subsection, "voting-related policy" includes, but is not limited to, any of the following: (a) Enacting or seeking to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting. (b) Enacting or seeking to administer any standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting. (3) In any action brought under this act or under article II of the state constitution of 1963, the court may order a remedy only if the remedy will not impair the equal opportunity or ability of protected class members to participate in the political process and nominate or elect the protected class members' preferred candidates. (4) In any action brought under this act or under article II of the state constitution of 1963, the court shall consider remedies proposed by any parties and interested nonparties and shall not provide deference or priority to a proposed remedy offered by the defendant or the local government simply because the remedy has been proposed by the defendant or the local government. (5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) and any other provision of law to the contrary, in any action brought under this act or under article II of the state constitution of 1963, the court has the authority to order remedies that may be inconsistent with other provisions of state or local law, when the inconsistent provisions of law would otherwise preclude the court from ordering an adequate remedy. (6) In any action brought under this act, the court may order the parties to enter mediation under MCR 2.411 at any time during the proceedings. Sec. 24. (1) Before commencing an action in the circuit court of the county in which the local government is located seeking the appointment of a monitor of compliance with the rights of disabled electors for future elections conducted by that local government, or for another appropriate remedy for a violation of the rights of disabled electors, a prospective plaintiff must send a notification letter to the clerk and chief administrative officer of the local government asserting that the local government may be in violation of a state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors. The notification letter must explain in detail each alleged violation and must propose a remedy for each alleged violation. A disabled elector or an organization whose mission includes advocating on behalf of disabled electors may be a prospective plaintiff. (2) Within 30 days after receiving a notification letter under subsection (1), the clerk of the local government and the chief administrative officer or the chief executive officer of the local government, along with legal counsel or any other individuals the local government wishes to attend, may meet with the prospective plaintiff and the prospective plaintiff's representatives to prepare and agree on a plan to address the alleged violations. If the local government does not meet with the prospective plaintiff, the prospective plaintiff may immediately file an action under subsection (4). The plan described in this subsection must be in writing, be approved by a resolution of the governing body of the local government, and do all of the following: (a) Identify each alleged violation of state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors by the local government. (b) Identify a specific remedy for each alleged violation by the local government or state that the parties agree no remedy is appropriate for 1 or more of the alleged violations. (c) Affirm the local government's intent to enact and implement the remedy. (d) Establish specific measures that the local government must take to facilitate any needed approvals to implement each specific remedy. (e) Provide a schedule for the necessary approvals and the implementation of each specific remedy. The schedule must provide a sufficient amount of time for all needed steps to obtain authorization for the remedy, including, as necessary, from a court under section 23(5). (f) Provide an alternate plan if any necessary amendments to a state statute or local charter are not approved. (3) If a prospective plaintiff and the local government agree on a written plan that complies with subsection (2), and that written plan is approved by a resolution of the governing body of the local government, no action may be filed by the prospective plaintiff unless the local government fails to comply with the requirements of the written plan. If a prospective plaintiff and the local government do not agree on a written plan as described under subsection (2) within 60 days of the parties first meeting under subsection (2), the prospective plaintiff may file an action under subsection (4). (4) The attorney general, or any prospective plaintiff as described in subsection (1), may file an action in the circuit court of the county in which the local government is located seeking the appointment of a monitor for future elections conducted by that local government under any of the following circumstances: (a) The prospective plaintiff gave the written notification required under subsection (1) and the local government did not meet or approve a written plan as provided under subsection (2). (b) Another party has already submitted a notification letter under subsection (1) alleging a substantially similar violation and that party is eligible to bring an action under this subsection. (c) Following the party's submission of a notification letter under subsection (1), the local government failed to implement a written plan as provided in subsection (2). (5) For an action filed under subsection (4), the court shall determine if either of the following occurred: (a) The local government violated a state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors and that violation adversely affected the ability of 1 or more disabled electors to safely, securely, and privately vote at a polling place or in another manner legally available to the electors. It is an affirmative defense to an alleged violation under this subsection that appropriately located polling places that fully comply with federal or state laws, rules, and regulations affecting the accessibility of disabled electors are not reasonably available to the local government despite the local government's reasonable best efforts to provide those fully compliant polling places, provided that the local government has implemented other measures that enable disabled electors to vote in a safe, secure, and private manner. (b) The local government failed to fully remedy a previous violation of a state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors. (6) If the court determines that either of the conditions provided under subsection (5) have been met, the court may order the appointment of a monitor for that local government, at the local government's expense, for a period of up to 10 years. When considering this remedy, the court shall take into consideration the severity of the violation, whether the violation was intentional, the number of violations, and whether the local government has any previous violations. A court must order a monitor under this subsection if the court finds that the violation is susceptible to repetition, the remedy is susceptible to circumvention, there is evidence of intentional discrimination by the local government, or the local government failed to adopt broad prophylactic measures to prevent any future violations. If the court appoints a monitor under this subsection, the monitor's duties include all of the following: (a) Investigating all complaints that are submitted to the circuit court or to the monitor regarding the local government's compliance with a state or federal law that, in whole or in part, involves the rights of disabled electors. (b) If the monitor determines that any complaint indicates that the local government has violated or will likely violate a state or federal law that, in whole or in part, involves the rights of disabled electors, informing the circuit court of the violation or likely violation. (c) If the monitor receives a report of an alleged violation within 40 days before an election, and the report indicates that a disabled elector is unable to vote because of that alleged violation, bringing the issue in the report to the circuit court's immediate attention. (d) Undertaking any investigations or inspections considered reasonably necessary during the 180 days before any election administered by the local government to ensure that the local government is in full compliance with any state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors. (e) No less than 90 days before any election administered by the local government, producing a report to the circuit court regarding the local government's compliance, anticipated compliance, or lack of compliance, with any state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors. (f) On election day, and during the early voting period, being available to receive reports by disabled electors, or any organization representing disabled electors, of any violations of a state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors, and bringing any meritorious reports of violations to the circuit court's immediate attention. (7) If the circuit court is informed of a violation or likely violation as provided under subsection (6)(b), the circuit court shall do both of the following: (a) Order any and all relief that is necessary to remedy the violation. (b) If the circuit court finds that a violation has already occurred, order a penalty of $1,000.00 payable to an elector whose state or federal rights were violated if that elector reported the violation to the monitor. (8) If the circuit court is informed of an alleged violation as provided under subsection (6)(c), the circuit court shall order a hearing on an emergency basis to ensure that the disabled elector is not disenfranchised. This subsection does not prohibit an elector from filing a separate lawsuit to enforce state or federal law if the state or federal law provides that elector with a cause of action. (9) If the monitor's report required under subsection (6)(e) indicates any concerns that the local government will not comply with any state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors, the circuit court shall hold a hearing to address those concerns and order any relief the circuit court determines necessary to ensure the local government's full compliance with state and federal law. The hearing and any orders resulting from those hearings must occur in sufficient time before the election to ensure that electors are not disenfranchised. (10) If the circuit court is informed of any meritorious reports of violations as provided under subsection (6)(f), and the circuit court finds that a violation of state or federal law has likely occurred or is likely occurring, the circuit court shall issue emergency relief the same day, as necessary, to ensure that the elector is not disenfranchised. (11) If a circuit court orders a remedy under subsection (7), (8), (9), or (10), that remedy must include, if the circuit court determines that a violation of a state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors has occurred, extending the term of the monitor at least through the next election administered by the local government. (12) A monitor appointed by a court under this section must be an individual who meets all of the following requirements: (a) Has extensive knowledge of and experience with the rights of disabled individuals. (b) Has an established history of advocating on behalf of disabled individuals. (c) Has significant knowledge regarding election law. (13) A monitor shall bill the local government for the monitor's time on an hourly basis at a rate that is customary in this state for an individual with the required experience and qualifications, and that is approved by the court. (14) As used in this section: (a) "Disabled elector" means an elector who has a disability as that term is defined under section 103 of the persons with disabilities civil rights act, 1976 PA 220, MCL 37.1103. (b) "State or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors" includes, but is not limited to, any of the following: (i) Section 726a of the Michigan election law, 1954 PA 116, MCL 168.726a. (ii) The persons with disabilities civil rights act, 1976 PA 220, MCL 37.1101 to 37.1607. (iii) The Americans with disabilities act of 1990, Public Law 101-336. (iv) The federal voting rights act. (v) The voting accessibility for the elderly and handicapped act, 52 USC 20101 to 20107. (vi) The national voter registration act of 1993, 52 USC 20501 to 20511. (vii) The help America vote act of 2002, 52 USC 20901 to 21145. Sec. 26. In any action brought under this act, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs, including expert witness fees and expenses, to a party that filed the action and prevailed in the action. The party that filed the action is considered to have prevailed if, as a result of the action, the party against whom the action was filed has yielded some or all of the relief sought in the action or the court has ordered some or all of the relief sought in the action. If the party against whom the action was filed prevails in the action, the court shall not award that party any costs unless the court finds the action is frivolous. Sec. 27. Because of the frequency of elections, the severe consequences and irreparable harm of holding elections under unlawful conditions, and the expenditure to defend potentially unlawful conditions that benefit incumbent officials, actions brought under this act, section 4 of article II of the state constitution of 1963, or any other law concerning voting rights or elections are subject to expedited pretrial and trial proceedings and must receive an automatic calendar preference. In any action alleging a violation of this act, section 4 of article II of the state constitution of 1963, or any other law concerning voting rights or elections in which a plaintiff party seeks preliminary relief with respect to an upcoming election, the court shall grant relief if the court determines that the plaintiffs are more likely than not to succeed on the merits and it is possible to implement an adequate remedy before an upcoming primary or general election that would resolve the alleged violation. Sec. 28. The secretary of state shall provide guidance to county, city, and township election officials, and to any other local government officials who have obligations under this act, regarding the process for implementing this act. In addition, the secretary of state may provide written guidance to county, city, and township election officials, and to any other local government officials who have obligations under this act, concerning the obligations and responsibilities of those officials under this act that include, but are not limited to, those obligations and responsibilities after receiving a notification letter under section 13. Any county, city, or township election official, or any other local government official who has an obligation under this act, may request guidance in writing at any time from the secretary of state concerning the obligations and responsibilities under this act. Any written request for guidance, and any written guidance issued by the secretary of state, must be promptly posted on the department of state's website. The secretary of state shall update the guidance to reflect any amendments to this act, any updates to voting technology or equipment, or any other changes that the secretary of state determines are necessary. As used in this section, "guidance" includes, but is not limited to, clarifying which local government is responsible for providing the notices required under sections 653c(1) and 653d(1)(a) and (c) of the Michigan election law, 1954 PA 116, MCL 168.653c and 168.653d. Enacting section 1. 1969 PA 161, MCL 691.1031 to 691.1032, is repealed. Enacting section 2. This act does not take effect unless all of the following bills of the 102nd Legislature are enacted into law: (a) Senate Bill No. 402. (b) Senate Bill No. 403. (c) Senate Bill No. 404. |
|---|
| 1 | + | SENATE BILL NO. 401 A bill to create a state voting rights act; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state and local governmental officers and entities; to provide for a court-appointed monitor under certain circumstances; to create a fund; to prohibit certain discriminatory activity and to prescribe civil sanctions; and to provide remedies. the people of the state of michigan enact: Sec. 1. This act may be cited as the "state voting rights act". Sec. 2. In recognition of the protections for the right to vote provided by the state constitution of 1963, and in conjunction with the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and the freedoms of speech, assembly, consultation, instruction, and petition under the law and against the denial and abridgement of the voting rights of members of a racial, color, or language minority group, it is the public policy of this state to do all of the following: (a) Encourage participation in the elective franchise by all eligible electors to the maximum extent. (b) Ensure that eligible electors who are members of a racial, color, or language minority group have an equal opportunity to participate in the political processes of this state and to exercise the elective franchise. Sec. 3. As used in this act: (a) "Alternative method of election" means a method of electing candidates to the legislative body of a local government other than an at-large method of election or a district-based method of election and includes, but is not limited to, proportional ranked-choice voting, cumulative voting, limited voting, or hybrid voting systems that incorporate aspects of at-large and district-based methods of election. (b) "At-large method of election" means a method of electing candidates to the legislative body of a local government in which candidates are voted on by all electors of the local government. At-large method of election does not include any alternative method of election. (c) "Disparity" means any statistically significant variance that is not de minimis and is supported by validated methodologies. (d) "District-based method of election" means a method of electing candidates to the legislative body of a local government in which, for local governments divided into districts, a candidate for any district is required to reside in the district and candidates representing or seeking to represent the district are voted on by only the electors of the district. (e) "Federal voting rights act" means the federal voting rights act of 1965, 52 USC 10301 to 10314, 10501 to 10508, and 10701 to 10702. (f) "Local government" means a county, city, township, or any other political subdivision of this state that conducts an election. (g) "Protected class" means individuals of a racial, color, or language minority group, as that term is defined under the federal voting rights act, and includes groups whose members have been subject to protection under a consent decree ordered by a federal court in a suit alleging a violation of section 2 of the federal voting rights act, 52 USC 10302, and individuals who are members of a racial category that has been officially recognized by the United States Census Bureau. (h) "Racially polarized voting" means voting in which the candidate or electoral choice preferred by protected class members diverges from the candidate or electoral choice preferred by other electors. (i) "Voting eligible population" and "eligible electors" mean those individuals who are eligible to register and vote, regardless of whether the individuals are registered to vote. Sec. 5. The protections for the right to vote provided by this act must be construed liberally in favor of all of the following: (a) Protecting the right to cast a ballot and make that ballot effective. (b) Ensuring that qualified individuals who seek to be admitted as electors are not impaired in being admitted as electors. (c) Ensuring that each elector is not impaired in voting, including, but not limited to, having the elector's vote counted. (d) Making the fundamental right to vote more accessible to qualified individuals. (e) Ensuring equitable access for protected class members to opportunities to be admitted as electors and to vote. Sec. 7. (1) A local government or state agency shall not impose any qualification for eligibility to be an elector, impose any other prerequisite to voting, impose any ordinance, regulation, or other law regarding the administration of elections, or impose any standard, practice, procedure, or policy in a manner that results in, will result in, or is intended to result in, either of the following: (a) A disparity in voter participation, access to voting opportunities, or the opportunity or ability to participate in the political process between members of a protected class and other members of the electorate. (b) Based on the totality of the circumstances, an impairment of the opportunity or ability of a protected class member to participate in the political process and elect candidates of the elector's choice or otherwise influence the outcome of elections. (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that an impairment exists under subsection (1)(b) in circumstances that include, but are not limited to, any of the following: (a) A local government closes, moves, or consolidates 1 or more precincts, polling places, or absent voter ballot drop boxes in a manner that impairs the right to vote of members of a protected class or results in a disparity in geographic access between members of a protected class and other members of the electorate. (b) A local government changes the time or date of an election in a manner that impairs the right to vote of members of a protected class, including, but not limited to, making the change without proper notice as required by law. (c) A local government fails to provide voting or election materials in languages other than English as required by federal or state law. (3) Implementing a reorganization of a local government, including, but not limited to, an annexation, incorporation, dissolution, consolidation, or division of a local government, violates subsection (1) if, based on the totality of the circumstances, the opportunity of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections, is impaired as a result of the reorganization. Sec. 9. (1) A local government shall not employ or modify any method of election that has the effect, or is motived in part by the intent, of impairing the opportunity of protected class members to elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections, as a result of diluting the vote of those protected class members. (2) A local government violates subsection (1) if the local government does any of the following: (a) Uses an at-large method of election and either of the following occurs: (i) The voting eligible population of the local government exhibits racially polarized voting and the at-large method of election results in a dilutive effect on members of a protected class. (ii) Based on the totality of the circumstances, the ability of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections, is impaired. (b) Uses a district-based or alternative method of election and either of the following occurs: (i) The voting eligible population of the local government exhibits racially polarized voting and the district-based or alternative method of election results in a dilutive effect on members of a protected class. (ii) Based on the totality of the circumstances, the opportunity of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections, is impaired. (c) Modifies the method of election, including, but not limited to, modifying the number of districts or the size of the legislative body, and either of the following occurs: (i) The modification has the effect, or is motivated in part by the intent, of impairing the opportunity of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections. (ii) Based on the totality of the circumstances, the opportunity of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections, is impaired as a result of the modification. (d) Implements a reorganization, including, but not limited to, an annexation, incorporation, dissolution, consolidation, or division of that local government, and either of the following occurs: (i) The reorganization has the effect, or is motivated in part by the intent, of impairing the opportunity of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections. (ii) Based on the totality of the circumstances, the opportunity of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections, is impaired as a result of the reorganization. (3) In determining whether racially polarized voting by protected class members in a local government occurs under this section, a court shall adhere to all of the following guidelines: (a) Elections conducted before the filing of a cause of action are more probative than elections conducted after the filing of a cause of action. (b) Evidence concerning elections for any office in that local government, including executive, legislative, judicial, and other offices of that local government, is more probative than evidence concerning elections for other offices, but evidence concerning elections for other offices may still be afforded probative value. (c) Statistical evidence is more probative than nonstatistical evidence. (d) In the case of claims brought on behalf of 2 or more protected classes that are politically cohesive in that local government, members of those protected classes must be combined to determine whether voting by those combined protected class members is polarized from other electors. It is not necessary to demonstrate that voting by members of each protected class is separately polarized from other electors. (e) Evidence concerning the causes of, or the reasons for, the occurrence of racially polarized voting is not relevant to the determination of whether racially polarized voting by protected class members occurs, or whether candidates or electoral choices preferred by protected class members would usually be defeated. In particular, evidence concerning alternate explanations for racially polarized voting patterns or election outcomes, including, but not limited to, partisan explanations, must not be considered. (f) Evidence concerning whether subgroups of protected class members have different voting patterns must not be considered. (g) Evidence concerning whether protected class electors are geographically compact or concentrated must not be considered, but may be considered when determining a remedy for a violation of this section. (h) Evidence concerning projected changes in population or demographics must not be considered, but may be considered when determining a remedy for a violation of this section. Sec. 11. (1) In determining whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, an impairment of the right to vote for any protected class member, or of the opportunity or ability of protected class members to participate in the political process and elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections, has occurred under section 7 or 9, a court may consider factors that include, but are not limited to, any of the following: (a) Whether members of the protected class vote at a lower rate than other electors. (b) The history of discrimination affecting members of the protected class. (c) The extent to which members of a protected class are disadvantaged, or otherwise bear the effects of past public or private discrimination, in any areas that may hinder the member's ability to participate effectively in the political process, including education, employment, health, criminal justice, housing, transportation, land use, or environmental protection. (d) The use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns or by government officials. (e) The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office. (f) The extent to which members of a protected class have faced barriers with respect to accessing the ballot, receiving financial support, or receiving any other support for an election. (g) The extent to which members of a protected class contribute to political campaigns at lower rates. (h) The extent to which candidates face hostility or barriers while campaigning due to the candidate's membership in a protected class. (i) Any statute, ordinance, regulation, or other law regarding the administration of elections, or any standard, practice, procedure, or policy, that may impair the right to vote for any protected class members, or may impair the opportunity or ability of protected class members to participate in the political process and elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections. (j) The presence of racially polarized voting. (k) The lack of responsiveness by elected officials to the particularized needs of protected class members or a community of protected class members. (l) Whether the challenged method of election, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy, standard, regulation, procedure, or law was designed to advance, and does materially advance, a compelling state interest that is substantiated and supported by evidence. (2) In determining whether a violation of section 7 or 9 has occurred, a court shall not consider any of the following factors: (a) The total number or share of members of a protected class on whom a challenged method of election, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy, standard, regulation, procedure, or law does not impose a material burden. (b) The degree to which the challenged method of election, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy, standard, regulation, procedure, or law has a long pedigree or was in widespread use at some earlier date. (c) The use of an identical or similar challenged method of election, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy, standard, regulation, procedure, or law in another local government. (d) The availability of other forms of voting unimpacted by the challenged method of election, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy, standard, regulation, procedure, or law to all members of the electorate, including members of the protected class. (e) A prophylactic impact on potential criminal activity by individual electors, if those crimes have not occurred in the local government in substantial numbers, or if the connection between the challenged policy and any claimed prophylactic effect is not supported by substantial evidence. (f) Mere invocation of interests in voter confidence or prevention of fraud. (g) A lack of evidence concerning the intent of electors, elected officials, or public officials to discriminate against protected class members. (3) A particular combination or number of factors under subsection (1) is not required for a court to determine that an impairment occurred. The court shall consider a particular factor only if and to the extent evidence pertaining to that factor is introduced. (4) Evidence of the factors under subsection (1) is most probative if the evidence relates to the local government in which the alleged violation occurred, but still holds probative value if the evidence relates to the geographic region in which that local government is located or to this state. Sec. 13. (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (6), before commencing an action against a local government alleging a violation of section 7 or 9, a prospective plaintiff must send a notification letter to the local government asserting that the local government may be in violation of section 7 or 9. The prospective plaintiff shall not commence an action against that local government within 50 days after sending that notification letter. If a local government adopts a MIVRA resolution under subsection (2), that local government has 90 days after passing that MIVRA resolution to enact and implement a remedy, during which time a prospective plaintiff who sent a notification letter under this subsection shall not commence an action against that local government. If, pursuant to a process commenced by a notification letter, a local government enacts and implements a remedy, a prospective plaintiff who sent the notification letter is entitled to reimbursement for the reasonable costs to generate the notification letter. A local government shall reimburse a prospective plaintiff for the reasonable costs claimed, or an amount to which the parties mutually agree. The prospective plaintiff shall provide a demand for reimbursement to the local government within 90 days after the enactment or implementation of the remedy. To the extent a prospective plaintiff who sent the notification letter and a local government are unable to come to a mutual agreement, either party may file a declaratory judgment action to obtain a clarification of rights. (2) The legislative body of a local government may adopt a MIVRA resolution providing for a remedy to a potential violation of section 7 or 9 after a notification letter has been sent or on its own volition. A MIVRA resolution must do all of the following: (a) Identify the potential violation of section 7 or 9 by the local government. (b) Identify a specific remedy to the potential violation. (c) Affirm the local government's intent to enact and implement the remedy. (d) Establish specific measures that the local government will take to facilitate enactment and implementation of the remedy. (e) Provide a schedule for the enactment and implementation of the remedy. (3) Before adopting a MIVRA resolution, the local government shall take all of the following steps: (a) If a remedy identified in a proposed MIVRA resolution replaces an at-large method of election with a district-based method of election or alternative method of election, or adopts a new districting plan, the local government shall hold at least 2 public hearings at which members of the public may provide input regarding the remedy proposed in the MIVRA resolution. If a remedy identified does not replace an at-large method of election with a district-based method of election or alternative method of election, or adopt a new districting plan, the local government shall hold at least 1 public hearing at which members of the public may provide input regarding the remedy proposed in the MIVRA resolution. (b) At least 7 days before any public hearing under subdivision (a), the local government shall publish and make available for public dissemination, including on the website of the local government if the local government has a website, the text of the proposed MIVRA resolution and all relevant information concerning any remedy included in the proposed MIVRA resolution. (c) Before any public hearing under subdivision (a), the local government shall conduct outreach to members of the public, including to language minority groups, to explain the process and invite participation in any public hearing. (d) If a proposed MIVRA resolution is revised after the MIVRA resolution is published, at least 7 days before the adoption of the revised MIVRA resolution, the local government shall publish and make available for public dissemination, including on the website of the local government if the local government has a website, the text of the revised MIVRA resolution and all relevant information concerning any remedy included in the proposed MIVRA resolution. (4) The following provisions apply after a local government adopts a MIVRA resolution: (a) The local government shall submit the adopted MIVRA resolution to the secretary of state for authorization, and if requested by the secretary of state, the local government shall also submit transcripts or recordings of any hearings conducted by the local government under subsection (2), any written submissions received by the local government from members of the public concerning the MIVRA resolution, and any other supporting documentation. (b) As soon as practicable, but not later than 10 days after receiving a MIVRA resolution and other documentation under subdivision (a), the secretary of state shall publish that MIVRA resolution and documentation on the department of state's website. (c) The secretary of state shall offer members of the public an opportunity to provide written comment on any MIVRA resolution and documentation submitted. (d) No earlier than 30 days, and no later than 60 days, after receiving a MIVRA resolution submitted by a local government, the secretary of state shall provide a report and determination as to whether the remedy proposed in the MIVRA resolution is authorized. (e) The secretary of state shall authorize a remedy proposed in a MIVRA resolution only if the secretary of state concludes all of the following: (i) The local government may be in violation of section 7 or 9. (ii) The remedy proposed in the MIVRA resolution remedies the potential violation of section 7 or 9. (iii) The remedy proposed in the MIVRA resolution is unlikely to violate the state constitution of 1963 or any federal law. (iv) The remedy proposed in the MIVRA resolution would not diminish the opportunity or ability of protected class members to participate in the political process and elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections. (v) Implementing the remedy proposed in the MIVRA resolution is feasible. (f) If the secretary of state authorizes the remedy proposed in the MIVRA resolution, the local government may adopt the remedy. A determination by the secretary of state to authorize a remedy identified in a MIVRA resolution does not bar a subsequent action challenging the remedy and is not admissible in, or must otherwise be considered by, a court in any action challenging that remedy. (g) If the secretary of state does not authorize the remedy identified in the MIVRA resolution, the local government may not adopt that remedy. The secretary of state may identify 1 or more alternate remedies that satisfy subdivision (e). The local government may adopt any alternate remedy identified by the secretary of state. (h) If the secretary of state does not respond to the local government's submission of an adopted MIVRA resolution, the local government must not adopt the remedy proposed in the MIVRA resolution. (i) This subsection does not apply to any remedy identified in a MIVRA resolution that the local government has authority to adopt and implement under applicable state or local law. (5) The secretary of state may adopt rules under the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, in accordance with state law to effectuate the purposes of subsection (4). (6) Notwithstanding subsections (1) to (5), a party may bring a cause of action for a violation of section 7 or 9 under any of the following circumstances: (a) The action is commenced within 1 year after the adoption of the challenged method of election, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy, standard, regulation, procedure, or law. (b) The prospect of obtaining relief under subsections (1) to (5) would be futile. (c) Another party has already submitted a notification letter under subsection (1) alleging a substantially similar violation and that party is eligible to bring a cause of action under this subsection. (d) Following the party's submission of a notification letter under subsection (1), the local government has adopted a MIVRA resolution under subsection (2) that identifies a remedy that would not remedy the violation identified in the party's notification letter. (e) The party is seeking preliminary relief with respect to an upcoming election in accordance with section 27. (7) As used in this section, "MIVRA resolution" means a resolution adopted by the legislative body of a local government under subsection (2). Sec. 19. (1) Before enacting any covered policy, a covered jurisdiction must first obtain preclearance for that covered policy either from the secretary of state under subsection (3) or from the court of claims under subsection (10). (2) On at least an annual basis, the secretary of state shall determine which local governments are covered jurisdictions, publish on the department of state's website a list of those local governments, and provide notice to each of those local governments. (3) If a covered jurisdiction seeks preclearance of a covered policy from the secretary of state, the covered jurisdiction shall submit, in writing, the covered policy to the secretary of state and may obtain preclearance in accordance with this section. If the secretary of state receives any submission of a covered policy, the secretary of state shall do all of the following: (a) As soon as practicable, but no later than 10 days after receiving the covered policy, publish on the department of state's website the covered policy. (b) Allow members of the public an opportunity to comment on the published submission within the time period set forth in subsection (7). (c) Allow members of the public to sign up to receive notifications or alerts regarding the submission of that covered policy for preclearance. (d) Review the covered policy and any public comment on the covered policy and, within the time period set forth in subsection (7), provide a report and determination as to whether preclearance of the covered policy is approved or denied. The time period for reviewing a covered policy runs concurrently with the time period for public comment. (e) Deny preclearance to a covered policy only if the secretary of state concludes that the covered policy is more likely than not to diminish the opportunity or ability of protected class members to participate in the political process and elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections, or is more likely than not to violate this act. If the secretary of state denies preclearance to a covered policy, the covered policy must not be enacted or implemented. (4) The covered jurisdiction bears the burden of proof in any determination as to preclearance of a covered policy. The secretary of state may request from a covered jurisdiction, at any time during the secretary of state's review, additional information for the purpose of developing the secretary of state's report and determination. If the covered jurisdiction fails to timely comply with reasonable requests for additional information, that failure may constitute grounds for the denial of preclearance. The secretary of state shall publish each report and determination on the department of state's website on completion of the report and determination. For each determination, the secretary of state shall provide in writing whether the secretary of state is approving or denying the covered policy and provide a detailed written explanation of the basis for the secretary of state's determination. The secretary of state may designate preclearance as preliminary and subsequently approve or deny final preclearance no later than 90 days after receiving the covered policy. (5) If the secretary of state approves preclearance to a covered policy under subsection (3), the covered jurisdiction may enact or implement the covered policy no earlier than 10 days following the approval of preclearance for any covered policy concerning the location of polling places or absent voter ballot drop boxes, and no earlier than 30 days following the approval of preclearance for any other covered policy. A determination by the secretary of state to approve preclearance does not bar a subsequent action challenging the covered policy, and is not admissible in, or shall otherwise be considered by, a court in that action. (6) If the secretary of state fails to approve or deny preclearance to a covered policy within the time period set forth in subsection (7), that covered policy is considered precleared and the covered jurisdiction may enact and implement the covered policy no earlier than 10 days following the approval of preclearance for any covered policy concerning the location of polling places or absent voter ballot drop boxes, and no earlier than 30 days following the approval of preclearance for any other covered policy. (7) The time periods of review by the secretary of state for any covered policy, for public comment, and for any determination by the secretary of state to approve or deny preclearance to the covered policy are as follows: (a) For any covered policy concerning the location of polling places or absent voter ballot drop boxes, the time period for public comment is 10 business days, and the time period in which the secretary of state shall review the covered policy, including any public comment on the covered policy, and make a determination to approve or deny preclearance to the covered policy, is not more than 30 days after the secretary of state receives the covered policy, except that the secretary of state may invoke 1 extension of not more than 20 days to make the determination. (b) For any covered policy not concerning the location of polling places or absent voter ballot drop boxes, the time period for public comment is 10 business days, except that, for any covered policy that concerns the implementation of a district-based method of election or an alternative method of election, districting or redistricting plans, or a change to a local government's form of government, the time period is 20 business days, and the time period in which the secretary of state shall review the covered policy, including any public comment on the public policy, and make a determination to approve or deny preclearance to the covered policy, is not more than 90 days after the secretary of state receives the covered policy, except that the secretary of state may invoke up to 2 extensions of not more than 90 days each to make the determination. (8) The secretary of state may adopt rules under the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, to establish an expedited, emergency preclearance process under which the secretary of state may address covered policies that are submitted during or immediately preceding an election as a result of any attack, disaster, emergency, or other exigent circumstance. Any preclearance approved under the rules adopted under this subsection must be designated preliminary, and the secretary of state may subsequently approve or deny final preclearance not later than 90 days after receiving the covered policy. (9) Any denial of preclearance by the secretary of state may be appealed to the court of claims. (10) If a covered jurisdiction seeks preclearance of a covered policy from the court of claims, the covered jurisdiction shall submit, in writing, the covered policy to the court of claims and may obtain preclearance in accordance with this section, if the covered jurisdiction also contemporaneously transmits to the secretary of state a copy of the covered policy. As soon as practicable, but not later than 10 days after receiving the covered policy, the secretary of state shall publish on the department of state's website the covered policy. The failure by the covered jurisdiction to provide a copy to the secretary of state results in an automatic denial of the preclearance. Notwithstanding the transmission of the copy of the covered policy to the secretary of state, the court of claims has exclusive jurisdiction over the covered policy. The covered jurisdiction bears the burden of proof in the court of claims's determination as to preclearance. If the court of claims receives a covered policy, the court of claims shall do both of the following: (a) Approve or deny preclearance no later than 90 days after receiving the covered policy. (b) Deny preclearance to a covered policy only if the court of claims determines that the covered policy is more likely than not to diminish the opportunity or ability of protected class members to participate in the political process and elect candidates of the protected class member's choice, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections, or is more likely than not to violate this act. If the court of claims denies preclearance to a covered policy, or fails to make a determination within 90 days after receiving the covered policy, that covered policy must not be enacted or implemented. (11) If the court of claims approves preclearance for the covered policy, the covered jurisdiction may immediately enact and implement that covered policy. A determination by the court of claims to approve preclearance to a covered policy is not admissible in, or shall otherwise be considered by, a court in any subsequent action challenging that covered policy. (12) Any denial of preclearance under subsection (10) may be appealed to the court of appeals. (13) In any proceeding under this section, the court shall consider submissions from interested nonparties. (14) The secretary of state may adopt rules under the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, to effectuate the purposes of this section. On the request of the secretary of state, any state entity identified by the secretary of state as possessing data, statistics, or other information that the secretary of state requires to carry out the secretary of state's duties and responsibilities under this section shall provide to the secretary of state that data, statistics, or information. Any estimates prepared by the secretary of state for identifying covered jurisdictions under this section, including estimates of eligible electors, must be prepared using the most advanced, peer-reviewed, and validated methodologies available. (15) If any covered jurisdiction enacts or implements any covered policy without obtaining preclearance for the covered policy in accordance with this section, the secretary of state or any party described in section 21 may file an action in the court of claims seeking a declaratory judgment that the covered jurisdiction has violated this section. In that action, the court of claims has broad authority to order adequate remedies consistent with section 23. To the extent the court of claims finds the covered jurisdiction has violated this section, the court of claims is encouraged to exercise the court's discretion to impose civil penalties on the local government as provided under section 23. (16) Any individual who is a member of a protected class, any entity whose membership includes individuals who are members of a protected class, any entity whose mission would be frustrated either by a failure by the secretary of state to properly implement this section or by any action or decision by the secretary of state that is inconsistent with this section, or any entity that would expend resources in order to fulfill the entity's mission as a result of a failure by the secretary of state to properly implement this section or by any action or decision by the secretary of state that is inconsistent with the provisions of this section, may file an action in the court of claims under any of the following circumstances: (a) The secretary of state has approved preclearance to a covered policy in violation of the provisions of this section. Any claim under this subdivision must be brought against both the covered jurisdiction and the secretary of state, and must be filed after the covered policy has been approved for preclearance, but before the covered policy is enacted and implemented. In any claim under this subdivision, the court of claims has discretion to stay the implementation of the covered policy until the court of claims can make a determination with respect to whether preclearance should have been approved. A claim under this subdivision does not preclude, bar, or limit any other claims that may be brought regarding the covered policy in any way, including claims brought under other sections of this act. (b) The secretary of state has identified a list of local governments that are covered jurisdictions that is inconsistent with the requirements of this section. (c) The secretary of state has failed to properly implement any of the provisions of this section. (17) In any action brought under subsection (16), the court of claims shall evaluate any claims on a de novo basis and shall not give deference to the secretary of state. The court of claims has broad authority to order adequate remedies consistent with section 23. In addition, the court of claims has broad authority to impose any injunctive relief on any party, including, but not limited to, the secretary of state, as the court of claims considers necessary to effectuate this section. If the court of claims finds that the secretary of state has failed to properly implement any of the provisions of this section or has made any determination that is inconsistent with the provisions of this section, the court of claims is encouraged to exercise the court's discretion to impose civil penalties on the secretary of state as provided under section 23. (18) This section takes effect June 1, 2025. (19) As used in this section: (a) "Covered jurisdiction" means any of the following: (i) Any local government that in the previous 25 years has been subject to any court order, including a court-approved consent decree or settlement, or government enforcement action based on a finding of any violation of this act, the federal voting rights act, any state or federal civil rights law, the Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, if the violation concerns the right to vote or a pattern, practice, or policy of discrimination against any protected class, or any other settlement of any action alleging a violation in which the local government conceded that a violation occurred. (ii) Any local government that in the previous 5 years has failed to comply with obligations to provide data or information to the Michigan voting and elections database and institute as created in section 5 of the voting and elections database and institute act. (iii) Any local government that in the previous 25 years was found to have enacted or implemented a covered policy without obtaining the required preclearance for the covered policy. (iv) Any local government that in any year in the previous 10 years contained at least 1,000 eligible electors of a protected class, or in which members of any protected class constituted at least 10% of the eligible voter population of the local government, and the percentage of electors of that protected class in the local government that participated in any general election for any local government office was at least 10% lower than the percentage of all electors in the local government that participated in the election. (v) Any local government that in any year in the previous 10 years contained at least 1,000 eligible electors of a protected class, or in which members of any protected class constituted at least 10% of the voting eligible population of the local government, and the percentage of eligible electors of that protected class who were registered to vote was at least 10% lower than the percentage of all eligible electors in the local government who were registered to vote. (b) "Covered policy" means any new or modified qualification for admission as an elector, prerequisite to vote, or law, ordinance, regulation, standard, practice, procedure, or policy concerning any of the following: (i) Districting or redistricting in a local government. (ii) Method of election for a local government. (iii) Governmental reorganization, including, but not limited to, annexation, incorporation, dissolution, consolidation, or division of a local government. (iv) Removal of individuals from voter registration lists and other activities concerning the cancellation or denial of voter registration. (v) Voter challenges. (vi) Hours, locations, or number of polling places or absent voter ballot drop boxes. (vii) Reorganization of precincts, including assignment of precincts to polling places. (viii) Assistance offered to protected class members. (ix) Providing translation or interpretation services to electors in any language other than English, including creating or distributing voting materials in any language other than English. (x) Providing assistance to electors with disabilities, including the creating or distributing of voting materials for electors with disabilities. (xi) Any additional subject matter the secretary of state identifies for inclusion, under a rule promulgated by the secretary of state under the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, if the secretary of state determines that any qualification for admission as an elector, prerequisite to vote, or law, ordinance, regulation, standard, practice, procedure, or policy concerning that subject matter may have the effect of diminishing the right to vote of any protected class member or have the effect of violating this act. Sec. 21. The attorney general, any individual aggrieved by a violation of section 7 or 9, any entity whose membership includes individuals aggrieved by a violation of section 7 or 9, any entity whose mission would be frustrated by a violation of section 7 or 9, or any entity that would expend resources in order to fulfill its mission as a result of a violation of section 7 or 9, may file a cause of action in the court of claims. Sec. 23. (1) In any action brought under this act or under article II of the state constitution of 1963, the court has broad authority to order adequate remedies that are tailored to address the violation. Unless otherwise prohibited by law, adequate remedies include, but are not limited to, any of the following: (a) Drawing new or revised districting or redistricting plans. (b) Adopting a different method of election, including adopting a district-based or alternative method of election, or reasonably increasing the size of the legislative body. (c) Adding voting days or hours. (d) Adding polling places or absent voter ballot drop boxes. (e) Eliminating staggered elections so that all members of the legislative body are elected at the same time. (f) Ordering a special election. (g) Restoring or adding individuals to a voter registration list or requiring expanded opportunities for admitting electors. (h) Reorganizing a local government, including, but not limited to, an annexation, incorporation, dissolution, consolidation, or division of a local government. (i) Imposing nominal or compensatory damages. (j) Imposing punitive damages in the form of a civil fine that must be deposited in the voter education fund created in section 29. (k) Any other form of declaratory or injunctive relief that, in the court's judgment, is tailored to address the violation. (l) Retaining jurisdiction for a period of time the court considers appropriate. (2) In any action brought under this act or under article II of the state constitution of 1963, the court may order a remedy only if the remedy will not impair the ability of protected class members to participate in the political process and elect the protected class member's preferred candidates, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections. (3) In any action brought under this act or under article II of the state constitution of 1963, the court shall consider remedies proposed by any parties and interested nonparties and shall not provide deference or priority to a proposed remedy offered by the defendant or the local government simply because the remedy has been proposed by the defendant or the local government. (4) In any action brought under this act or under article II of the state constitution of 1963, the court has the authority to order remedies that may be inconsistent with other provisions of state or local law, when the inconsistent provisions of law would otherwise preclude the court from ordering an adequate remedy. Sec. 24. (1) If a local government meets any of the following conditions, a disabled elector, or an organization whose mission includes advocating on behalf of disabled electors, may bring an action in the circuit court of the county in which that local government is located seeking the appointment of a monitor for future elections conducted by that local government: (a) In the previous 15 years, the local government has been subject to any court order or government enforcement action in state or federal court, or any administrative tribunal, based on a finding of any violation of a state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors. (b) In the previous 15 years, the local government has rendered moot a state or federal lawsuit regarding an alleged violation of a state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors in a manner that provided effective relief that remedied the alleged violations. (c) In the previous 15 years, the local government settled a state or federal lawsuit regarding an alleged violation of a state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors, and conceded liability as part of the settlement. (2) If the circuit court determines that any of the conditions provided in subsection (1) have been met, the circuit court shall order the appointment of a monitor for that local government, at the local government's expense, for a period of not less than 10 years. The monitor's duties include all of the following: (a) Investigating all complaints that are submitted to the circuit court or to the monitor regarding the local government's compliance with a state or federal law that, in whole or in part, involves the rights of disabled electors. (b) If the monitor determines that any complaint indicates that the local government has violated or will likely violate a state or federal law that, in whole or in part, involves the rights of disabled electors, the monitor shall inform the circuit court of the violation or likely violation and the circuit court shall do the following: (i) Order any and all relief that is necessary to remedy the violation. (ii) If the circuit court finds that a violation has already occurred, order a penalty of $1,000.00 payable to an elector whose state or federal rights were violated if that elector reported the violation to the monitor. (c) If the monitor receives a report of an alleged violation within 40 days before an election and the report indicates that a disabled elector is unable to vote because of that alleged violation, the monitor shall bring the issue to the circuit court's attention immediately and the circuit court shall order a hearing on an emergency basis to ensure that the disabled elector is not disenfranchised. This subdivision does not prohibit an elector from filing a separate lawsuit to enforce state or federal law if the state or federal law provides that elector with a cause of action. (d) Undertake any investigations or inspections that the monitor considers reasonably necessary during the 180 days before any election administered by the local government to ensure that the local government is in full compliance with any state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors. (e) No less than 90 days before any election administered by the local government, produce a report to the circuit court regarding the local government's compliance, anticipated compliance, or lack of compliance, with any state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors. If the monitor's report indicates any concerns that the local government will not comply with any state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors, the circuit court shall hold a hearing to address those concerns and shall order any relief the circuit court determines necessary to ensure the local government's full compliance with the laws. The hearing and any orders resulting from those hearings must occur in sufficient time before the election to ensure that electors are not disenfranchised. (f) On election day, and during the early voting period, the monitor shall be available to receive reports by disabled electors, or any organization representing disabled electors, of any violations of a state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors. The monitor shall bring any meritorious reports of violations to the circuit court's attention immediately, and if the circuit court finds that a violation of state or federal law has likely occurred or is likely occurring, the circuit court shall issue emergency relief the same day, as necessary, to ensure that the elector is not disenfranchised. (g) If a circuit court orders a remedy under this subsection, that remedy must include, if the circuit court determines that a violation of a state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors has occurred, extending the term of the monitor at least through the next election administered by the local government. (3) A monitor appointed under this section must be an individual who meets all of the following requirements: (a) Has extensive knowledge of and experience with the rights of disabled individuals. (b) Has an established history of advocating on behalf of disabled individuals. (c) Has significant knowledge regarding election law. (4) A monitor shall bill the local government for the monitor's time on an hourly basis at a rate that is customary in this state for an individual with the required experience and qualifications. (5) In any state lawsuit concerning an alleged violation of any state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors, the court shall order that appointment of a monitor as provided in subsection (2) as part of the remedy if the court finds that a violation of the state or federal law has occurred. (6) In any federal lawsuit concerning an alleged violation of any state or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors, the court may order that the appointment of a monitor, as provided in subsection (2), be a part of the remedy to the extent compatible with federal law. If the federal court declines to appoint a monitor, any appropriate plaintiff may bring a subsequent action in the appropriate circuit court as provided under subsection (1) based on the finding of liability in the previous federal lawsuit. (7) As used in this section: (a) "Disabled elector" means an elector who has a disability as that term is defined under section 103 of the persons with disabilities civil rights act, 1976 PA 220, MCL 37.1103. (b) "State or federal law involving, in whole or in part, the rights of disabled electors" includes, but is not limited to, any of the following: (i) Section 726a of the Michigan election law, 1954 PA 116, MCL 168.726a. (ii) The persons with disabilities civil rights act, 1976 PA 220, MCL 37.1101 to 37.1607. (iii) The Americans with disabilities act of 1990, Public Law 101-336. (iv) The federal voting rights act. (v) The voting accessibility for the elderly and handicapped act, 52 USC 20101 to 20107. (vi) The national voter registration act of 1993, 52 USC 20501 to 20511. (vii) The help America vote act of 2002, 52 USC 20901 to 21145. Sec. 25. In any action brought under this act, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs, including expert witness fees and expenses, to the party, other than this state or a local government, that filed the action and prevailed in the action. The party that filed the action is considered to have prevailed if, as a result of the action, the party against whom the action was filed has yielded some or all of the relief sought in the action. If the party against whom the action was filed prevails in the action, the court shall not award that party any costs unless the court finds the action is frivolous, unreasonable, or without merit. Sec. 27. Because of the frequency of elections, the severe consequences and irreparable harm of holding elections under unlawful conditions, and the expenditure to defend potentially unlawful conditions that benefit incumbent officials, actions brought under this act are subject to expedited pretrial and trial proceedings and must receive an automatic calendar preference. In any action alleging a violation of this act in which a plaintiff party seeks preliminary relief with respect to an upcoming election, the court shall grant relief if the court determines that the plaintiffs are more likely than not to succeed on the merits and it is possible to implement an adequate remedy that would resolve the alleged violation in the upcoming election. Sec. 29. (1) The voter education fund is created in the state treasury. (2) The state treasurer may receive money or other assets from any source for deposit into the fund. The state treasurer shall direct the investment of money in the fund and credit interest and earnings from the investments to the fund. (3) Money in the fund at the close of the fiscal year remains in the fund and does not lapse to the general fund. (4) The department of civil rights shall be the administrator of the fund for audits of the fund. (5) The department of civil rights shall expend money from the fund, on appropriation, only for 1 or more of the following purposes: (a) Developing and distributing educational materials on voting rights and the voting process, including information on voter registration, absentee voting, and polling place accessibility. (b) Conducting public education campaigns to inform electors about changes to voting laws, procedures, or polling locations and to counteract false or misleading information about voting. (c) Providing training and resources to local election officials, poll workers, and volunteers on how to ensure fair and equitable access to the ballot for all eligible electors. (d) Establishing and maintaining voter hotlines, online portals, or other mechanisms for electors to report incidents of voter intimidation, suppression, or discrimination and for election officials to respond to those reports. (e) Supporting voter outreach efforts targeted at historically underrepresented communities, including, but not limited to, members of protected classes, low-income individuals, youth, and individuals with disabilities. (f) Providing grants to community-based organizations, civic groups, and civil rights organizations to conduct voter education and mobilization activities, including, but not limited to, voter registration drives, candidate forums, and get-out-the-vote campaigns, or to engage in nonpartisan advocacy, litigation, or other legal actions to protect voting rights, challenge discriminatory voting practices, or seek redress for victims of voter suppression or intimidation. (g) Partnering with schools and universities to develop and implement curricula on civic engagement, voting rights, and the importance of participating in the democratic process. (h) Funding research and evaluation projects to assess the impact of voter education and outreach efforts on voter participation and civic engagement, and to identify best practices for improving access to the ballot. (i) Any other activities, projects, or initiatives that further the purposes of this act. Enacting section 1. This act does not take effect unless all of the following bills of the 102nd Legislature are enacted into law: (a) Senate Bill No. 402. (b) Senate Bill No. 403. |
|---|