Public Rights Project (PRP) recently filed an amicus brief with the Michigan Court of Appeals in Harrison v. Halas on behalf of a coalition of current election officials. The brief urges the court to reverse the circuit court’s decision and require that recount requesters pay for the recounting of early voting sites. Signatories are county clerks serving Dickinson, Ingham, Kalamazoo, Kalkaska, Midland, and Sanilac Counties.
In 2022, 60% of Michigan voters approved a package of amendments to the state constitution known as Proposal 2. As a result, the Michigan Constitution now provides for at least nine days of early voting, subject to rules similar to those for election day voting. Separately, Michigan law has long required that candidates or voters who request election recounts must pay a certain amount for each precinct recounted. The Harrison v. Halas case addresses the question of whether recount requesters must pay for the recounting of ballots cast at early voting sites. The circuit court recognized that recount requesters must pay for the recounting of each election day precinct and each absentee ballot precinct (known as an absent voter counting board), but held that recount requesters need not pay for the recounting of each early voting site precinct.
PRP’s brief argues that the circuit court misinterpreted Michigan law, which explicitly states that early voting sites are “subject to the same requirements as an election day polling place,” with minor exceptions. On a practical level, as the brief explains, early voting sites operate almost identically to election day precincts and absent voter counting board precincts—they have their own tabulators, poll books, and ballot containers. As such, there is no plausible justification for treating early voting sites differently for the purposes of recounts. Finally, the brief argues that in-person early voting makes the voting process more accessible and convenient for voters, but that the circuit court’s ruling creates poor incentives for both counties and candidates. Under the circuit court’s ruling, counties will have to pay for the recounting of early voting sites and will not receive compensation from recount requesters. This may discourage them from expanding early voting despite its benefits for voters. On the other hand, because the court did not require recount requesters to pay for the recounting of early voting sites, they may be incentivized to request futile recounts, wasting government resources and unnecessarily delaying election certification.
