Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 168 / Act 116 of 1954
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.727 (2026)

Challenge; duty of election inspector; indiscriminate challenge; penalty.

✓ 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


168.727 Challenge; duty of election inspector; indiscriminate challenge; penalty.

Sec. 727.

    (1) An election inspector shall challenge an applicant applying for a ballot if the inspector knows or has good reason to suspect that the applicant is not a qualified and registered elector of the precinct, or if a challenge appears in connection with the applicant's name in the registration book. A registered elector of the precinct present in the polling place may challenge the right of anyone attempting to vote if the elector knows or has good reason to suspect that individual is not a registered elector in that precinct. An election inspector or other qualified challenger may challenge the right of an individual attempting to vote who has previously applied for an absent voter ballot and who on election day is claiming to have never received the absent voter ballot or to have lost or destroyed the absent voter ballot.

    (2) Upon a challenge being made under subsection (1), an election inspector shall immediately do all of the following:

    (a) Identify as provided in sections 745 and 746 a ballot voted by the challenged individual, if any.

    (b) Make a written report including all of the following information:

    (i) All election disparities or infractions complained of or believed to have occurred.

    (ii) The name of the individual making the challenge.

    (iii) The time of the challenge.

    (iv) The name, telephone number, and address of the challenged individual.

    (v)  Other information considered appropriate by the election inspector.

    (c) Retain the written report created under subdivision (b) and make it a part of the election record.

    (d) Inform a challenged elector of his or her rights under section 729.

    (3) A challenger shall not make a challenge indiscriminately and without good cause. A challenger shall not handle the poll books while observing election procedures or the ballots during the counting of the ballots. A challenger shall not interfere with or unduly delay the work of the election inspectors. An individual who challenges a qualified and registered elector of a voting precinct for the purpose of annoying or delaying voters is guilty of a misdemeanor.

History: 1954, Act 116, Eff. June 1, 1955 ;-- Am. 1955, Act 271, Imd. Eff. June 30, 1955 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 261, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 92, Imd. Eff. Apr. 26, 2004

Compiler's Notes:

    Act 269 of 2001, which was approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on January 11, 2002, provided for the amendment of MCL 168.31, 168.73, 168.283, 168.393, 168.509y, 168.509aa, 168.561a, 168.624, 168.624a, 168.686, 168.706, 168.727, 168.737, 168.745, 168.769, 168.782b, 168.795, 168.795c, 168.797a, 168.798c, 168.799a, 168.803, 168.804, 168.842, and 168.931 of, the addition of Sec. 701 to, and the repeal of Sec. 509 of, Act 116 of 1954, known as the Michigan Election Law. A petition seeking a referendum on Act 269 of 2001 was filed with the Secretary of State. The Board of State Canvassers officially declared the sufficiency of the referendum petition on May 14, 2002. Const 1963, art 2, sec 9, provides that no law as to which the power of referendum properly has been invoked shall be effective thereafter unless approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon at the next general election. A referendum on Act 269 of 2001 was presented to the electors at the November 5, 2002, general election as Proposal 02-1, which read as follows:

    “A REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC ACT 269 OF 2001--AN ACT TO AMEND CERTAIN SECTIONS OF MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW

    Public Act 269 of 2001 would:

    --Eliminate “straight party” vote option on partisan general election ballots.

    --Require Secretary of State to obtain training reports from local election officials.

    --Require registered voters who do not appear on registration list to show picture identification before voting a challenged ballot.

    --Require expedited canvass if presidential vote differential is under 25,000.

    --Require ballot counting equipment to screen ballots for voting errors to ensure the accurate tabulation of absentee ballots. Permit voters in polls to correct errors.

    --Provide penalties for stealing campaign signs or accepting payment for campaign work while being paid as a public employee to perform election duties.

    Should this law be approved?

    Yes __________

    No __________”

    Act 269 of 2001 was not approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon at the November 5, 2002, general election.

PopularName Notes:

Election Code
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2024 · leading case: In Re Request for Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2005 Pa 71, 740 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Request for Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2005 Pa 71, 740 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 14× “" The statute indicates, however, that an elector voting without identification is "subject to challenge" under the challenge procedures outlined in MCL 168.727. [24] *452 The opposing Attorney General maintains that voters without photo identification are impermissibly burdened…”
Bay Cnty. Democratic Party v. Land, 347 F. Supp. 2d 404 (E.D. Mich. 2004). “Sections 168.727 and 168.729 authorize election officials to challenge a voter whom they suspect “is not a qualified and registered elector of the precinct.”
Philip M O'Halloran Md v. Sec'y of State (Mich. 2024). · cites it 67× “MCL 168.727 and MCL 168.733 both address the authority of election challengers.”
Promote the Vote v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 5× “On such trial, the correspondence of the number endorsed on a ballot as herein provided with the number of the ballot placed opposite the name of any person on the poll lists shall be received as prima facie proof that such ballot was cast by such person: Provided, That the…”
Philip M O'Halloran Md v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “, for a reason other than those listed in MCL 168.727(1) or MCL 168.733(1)(c). The trial court also addressed the prohibition on making repeated impermissible challenges and it resulting in the challenger’s removal.”
Promote the Vote v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “Issuing a challenged ballot instead, as a matter of course—rather than because “the inspector knows or has good reason to suspect that the applicant is not a qualified and registered elector of the precinct,” MCL 168.727(1)—violates the elector’s rights.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.727(1) — 5 cases
In Re Request for Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2005 Pa 71, 740 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. 2007). “" The statute indicates, however, that an elector voting without identification is "subject to challenge" under the challenge procedures outlined in MCL 168.727. [24] *452 The opposing Attorney General maintains that voters without photo identification are impermissibly burdened…”
Philip M O'Halloran Md v. Sec'y of State (Mich. 2024). “MCL 168.727 and MCL 168.733 both address the authority of election challengers.”
Promote the Vote v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “Issuing a challenged ballot instead, as a matter of course—rather than because “the inspector knows or has good reason to suspect that the applicant is not a qualified and registered elector of the precinct,” MCL 168.727(1)—violates the elector’s rights.”
Promote the Vote v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “On such trial, the correspondence of the number endorsed on a ballot as herein provided with the number of the ballot placed opposite the name of any person on the poll lists shall be received as prima facie proof that such ballot was cast by such person: Provided, That the…”
Philip M O'Halloran Md v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “, for a reason other than those listed in MCL 168.727(1) or MCL 168.733(1)(c). The trial court also addressed the prohibition on making repeated impermissible challenges and it resulting in the challenger’s removal.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.727(2) — 2 cases
Philip M O'Halloran Md v. Sec'y of State (Mich. 2024). “MCL 168.727 and MCL 168.733 both address the authority of election challengers.”
Philip M O'Halloran Md v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “, for a reason other than those listed in MCL 168.727(1) or MCL 168.733(1)(c). The trial court also addressed the prohibition on making repeated impermissible challenges and it resulting in the challenger’s removal.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.727(2)(a) — 1 case
Promote the Vote v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “On such trial, the correspondence of the number endorsed on a ballot as herein provided with the number of the ballot placed opposite the name of any person on the poll lists shall be received as prima facie proof that such ballot was cast by such person: Provided, That the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.727(2)(b) — 1 case
Philip M O'Halloran Md v. Sec'y of State (Mich. 2024). “MCL 168.727 and MCL 168.733 both address the authority of election challengers.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.727(2)(b)(i) — 1 case
Philip M O'Halloran Md v. Sec'y of State (Mich. 2024). “MCL 168.727 and MCL 168.733 both address the authority of election challengers.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.727(2)(c) — 1 case
Philip M O'Halloran Md v. Sec'y of State (Mich. 2024). “MCL 168.727 and MCL 168.733 both address the authority of election challengers.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.727(3) — 4 cases
In Re Request for Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2005 Pa 71, 740 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. 2007). “" The statute indicates, however, that an elector voting without identification is "subject to challenge" under the challenge procedures outlined in MCL 168.727. [24] *452 The opposing Attorney General maintains that voters without photo identification are impermissibly burdened…”
Promote the Vote v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “On such trial, the correspondence of the number endorsed on a ballot as herein provided with the number of the ballot placed opposite the name of any person on the poll lists shall be received as prima facie proof that such ballot was cast by such person: Provided, That the…”
Philip M O'Halloran Md v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “, for a reason other than those listed in MCL 168.727(1) or MCL 168.733(1)(c). The trial court also addressed the prohibition on making repeated impermissible challenges and it resulting in the challenger’s removal.”
Philip M O'Halloran Md v. Sec'y of State (Mich. 2024). “MCL 168.727 and MCL 168.733 both address the authority of election challengers.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.727(c) — 1 case
Philip M O'Halloran Md v. Sec'y of State (Mich. 2024). “MCL 168.727 and MCL 168.733 both address the authority of election challengers.”
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.