Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.674 (2026)

Precinct and early voting site election inspector; appointment; chairperson; political party membership; challenge; vacancies.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW


Act 116 of 1954


168.674 Precinct and early voting site election inspector; appointment; chairperson; political party membership; challenge; vacancies.

Sec. 674.

    (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary and subject to this section, the city and township board of election commissioners, at least 21 days before each election, but in no case less than 5 days before the date set for holding schools of instruction, shall appoint for each election precinct and early voting site at least 3 election inspectors and as many more as in the board's opinion is required for the efficient, speedy, and proper conduct of the election. The board of election commissioners may appoint as election inspector an individual on the list submitted by a major political party under section 673a who is qualified to serve under section 677. An appointment of an election inspector under this section is void if a properly completed application for that election inspector is not on file in the clerk's office as prescribed in section 677.

    (2) The board of election commissioners shall designate 1 appointed election inspector as chairperson. The board of election commissioners shall appoint at least 1 election inspector from each major political party and shall appoint an equal number, as nearly as possible, of election inspectors in each election precinct from each major political party. The board of election commissioners may appoint election inspectors in an election precinct from minor political parties. Not later than 2 business days following the appointment of election inspectors under subsection (1) for elections in which a federal or state office appears, the board of election commissioners shall notify by certified mail, personal service, or electronic transmission capable of determining date of receipt the county chair of each major political party of the names and political party affiliations of appointed election inspectors and the precincts to which those election inspectors were appointed. A board of election commissioners shall not appoint an individual as an election inspector if that individual declares a political party preference for 1 political party but is a known active advocate of another political party. As used in this section, "a known active advocate" means an individual who meets 1 or more of the following:

    (a) Is a delegate to the convention or an officer of that other political party.

    (b) Is affiliated with that political party through an elected or appointed government position.

    (c) Has made documented public statements specifically supporting by name the other political party or its candidates in the same calendar year as the election for which the appointment is being made. As used in this subdivision, "documented public statements" means statements reported by the news media or written statements with a clear and unambiguous attribution to the applicant.

    (3) The county chair of a major political party may challenge the appointment of an election inspector based on the qualifications of the election inspector, the legitimacy of the election inspector's political party affiliation, or whether there is a properly completed declaration of political party affiliation in the application for that election inspector on file in the clerk's office. The challenge must be in writing, specifically identify the reason for the challenge, and include any available documentation supporting the challenge. The county chair of the political party shall file a challenge under this subsection with the board of election commissioners not later than 4 business days following receipt of the board of election commissioners' notice of appointed election inspectors under subsection (2).

    (4) Upon receipt of a challenge under subsection (3), the board of election commissioners shall determine whether the appointee has the necessary qualifications by reviewing the application or any other official records, such as voter registration records, or whether the applicant has a properly completed certification of political party affiliation in the application. If the challenge alleges that the appointee is a known active advocate of a political party other than the one on the appointee's application, the board of election commissioners immediately shall provide the appointee with a copy of the challenge by certified mail, personal service, or electronic transmission capable of determining date of receipt. The appointee may respond to the challenge within 2 business days after receiving a copy of the challenge. A response must be by affidavit addressing the specific reasons for the challenge. Failure to respond results in revocation of the appointment. Within 2 business days after receiving the challenge or a response from the appointee, whichever is later, the board of election commissioners shall make a final determination and notify the appointee and the county chair of the political party of the determination.

    (5) If a vacancy occurs in the office of chairperson or in the office of election inspector before election day, the chairperson of the board of election commissioners shall designate some other properly qualified applicant or election inspector as chairperson or some other qualified applicant as election inspector, as applicable, subject to this section. If a vacancy occurs in the office of chairperson on election day, the remaining election inspectors shall designate 1 of the election inspectors as chairperson.

    

    

History: 1954, Act 116, Eff. June 1, 1955 ;-- Am. 1955, Act 271, Imd. Eff. June 30, 1955 ;-- Am. 1958, Act 192, Eff. Sept. 13, 1958 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 261, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 207, Imd. Eff. May 21, 1996 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 120, Eff. Dec. 31, 2018 ;-- Am. 2023, Act 81, Eff. Feb. 13, 2024 ;-- Am. 2023, Act 259, Eff. Feb. 13, 2024

PopularName Notes:

Election Code
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2013–2024 · leading case: White v. Highland Park Election Comm, 878 N.W.2d 491 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
White v. Highland Park Election Comm, 878 N.W.2d 491 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 9× “In essence, the Legislature has created a form of public enforcement through an administrative appeal process, and has made that process available only to county chairs of the major political parties.”
Hanlin v. Saugatuck Twp., 829 N.W.2d 335 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “MCL 168.674. To be appointed an election inspector, a person shall file an application with a city, township, or village clerk in the county where the person wishes to serve as an election inspector.”
20240307_C364048_37_364048.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 52× “-1- the city of Flint’s board of election commissioners violated the requirements stated in MCL 168.674 and MCL 168.765a, which require that a city’s board of election commissioners shall appoint, “as nearly as possible,” the same number of election inspectors3 from each major…”
Philip M O'Halloran Md v. Sec'y of State (Mich. 2024). · cites it 7× “673a] and [MCL 168.674] apply to the appointment of election inspectors to absent voter counting boards under this section.”
20240307_C364048_37_364048.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 6× “Plaintiffs’ action for declaratory relief and mandamus arise from their claims that during the 2022 election cycle, defendants violated the requirements in MCL 168.674 requiring the city’s board of election commissioners to “appoint an equal number, as nearly as possible, of…”
20241120_C369115_35_369115.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs do not have a legally protected interest in the enforcement of MCL 168.674(2) and MCL 168.765a(2) that is in jeopardy of being adversely affected that is different from the interest of the public at large.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.674(1) — 4 cases
White v. Highland Park Election Comm, 878 N.W.2d 491 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “In essence, the Legislature has created a form of public enforcement through an administrative appeal process, and has made that process available only to county chairs of the major political parties.”
20240307_C364048_37_364048.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “-1- the city of Flint’s board of election commissioners violated the requirements stated in MCL 168.674 and MCL 168.765a, which require that a city’s board of election commissioners shall appoint, “as nearly as possible,” the same number of election inspectors3 from each major…”
20240307_C364048_37_364048.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “Plaintiffs’ action for declaratory relief and mandamus arise from their claims that during the 2022 election cycle, defendants violated the requirements in MCL 168.674 requiring the city’s board of election commissioners to “appoint an equal number, as nearly as possible, of…”
Philip M O'Halloran Md v. Sec'y of State (Mich. 2024). “673a] and [MCL 168.674] apply to the appointment of election inspectors to absent voter counting boards under this section.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.674(2) — 5 cases
White v. Highland Park Election Comm, 878 N.W.2d 491 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “In essence, the Legislature has created a form of public enforcement through an administrative appeal process, and has made that process available only to county chairs of the major political parties.”
20240307_C364048_37_364048.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “-1- the city of Flint’s board of election commissioners violated the requirements stated in MCL 168.674 and MCL 168.765a, which require that a city’s board of election commissioners shall appoint, “as nearly as possible,” the same number of election inspectors3 from each major…”
Philip M O'Halloran Md v. Sec'y of State (Mich. 2024). “673a] and [MCL 168.674] apply to the appointment of election inspectors to absent voter counting boards under this section.”
20240307_C364048_37_364048.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “Plaintiffs’ action for declaratory relief and mandamus arise from their claims that during the 2022 election cycle, defendants violated the requirements in MCL 168.674 requiring the city’s board of election commissioners to “appoint an equal number, as nearly as possible, of…”
20241120_C369115_35_369115.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “Plaintiffs do not have a legally protected interest in the enforcement of MCL 168.674(2) and MCL 168.765a(2) that is in jeopardy of being adversely affected that is different from the interest of the public at large.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.674(3) — 3 cases
White v. Highland Park Election Comm, 878 N.W.2d 491 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “In essence, the Legislature has created a form of public enforcement through an administrative appeal process, and has made that process available only to county chairs of the major political parties.”
20240307_C364048_37_364048.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “-1- the city of Flint’s board of election commissioners violated the requirements stated in MCL 168.674 and MCL 168.765a, which require that a city’s board of election commissioners shall appoint, “as nearly as possible,” the same number of election inspectors3 from each major…”
20240307_C364048_37_364048.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “Plaintiffs’ action for declaratory relief and mandamus arise from their claims that during the 2022 election cycle, defendants violated the requirements in MCL 168.674 requiring the city’s board of election commissioners to “appoint an equal number, as nearly as possible, of…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.674(4) — 1 case
20240307_C364048_37_364048.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “-1- the city of Flint’s board of election commissioners violated the requirements stated in MCL 168.674 and MCL 168.765a, which require that a city’s board of election commissioners shall appoint, “as nearly as possible,” the same number of election inspectors3 from each major…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.674(a) — 1 case
20240307_C364048_37_364048.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “-1- the city of Flint’s board of election commissioners violated the requirements stated in MCL 168.674 and MCL 168.765a, which require that a city’s board of election commissioners shall appoint, “as nearly as possible,” the same number of election inspectors3 from each major…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.