MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW
Act 116 of 1954
168.932 Prohibited conduct; violation as felony.
Sec. 932.
A person who violates 1 or more of the following subdivisions is guilty of a felony:
(a) A person shall not attempt, by means of bribery, menace, or other corrupt means or device, either directly or indirectly, to influence an elector in giving his or her vote, or to deter the elector from, or interrupt the elector in giving his or her vote at any election held in this state.
(b) A person not duly authorized by law shall not, during the progress of any election or after the closing of the polls and before the final results of the election have been ascertained, break open or violate the seals or locks of any ballot box or voting machine used or in use at that election. A person shall not willfully damage or destroy any ballot box or voting machine. A person shall not obtain undue possession of that ballot box or voting machine. A person shall not conceal, withhold, or destroy a ballot box or voting machine, or fraudulently or forcibly add to or diminish the number of ballots legally deposited in the box or the totals on the voting machine. A person shall not aid or abet in any act prohibited by this subdivision.
(c) An inspector of election, clerk, or other officer or person having custody of any record, election list of voters, affidavit, return, statement of votes, certificates, poll book, or of any paper, document, or vote of any description, which pursuant to this act is directed to be made, filed, or preserved, shall not willfully destroy, mutilate, deface, falsify, or fraudulently remove or secrete any or all of those items, in whole or in part, or fraudulently make any entry, erasure, or alteration on any or all of those items, or permit any other person to do so.
(d) A person shall neither disclose to any other person the name of any candidate voted for by any elector, the contents of whose ballots were seen by the person, nor in any manner obstruct or attempt to obstruct any elector in the exercise of his or her duties as an elector under this act.
(e) A person who is not involved in the counting of ballots as provided by law and who has possession of an absent voter ballot mailed or delivered to another person shall not do any of the following:
(i) Open the envelope containing the ballot.
(ii) Make any marking on the ballot.
(iii) Alter the ballot in any way.
(iv) Substitute another ballot for the absent voter ballot that the person possesses.
(f) A person other than an absent voter; a person whose job it is to handle mail before, during, or after being transported by a public postal service, express mail service, parcel post service, or common carrier, but only during the normal course of his or her employment; a clerk or assistant of the clerk; a member of the immediate family of the absent voter including father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, grandparent, or grandchild; or a person residing in the absent voter's household shall not do any of the following:
(i) Possess an absent voter ballot mailed or delivered to another person, regardless of whether the ballot has been voted.
(ii) Return, solicit to return, or agree to return an absent voter ballot to the clerk of a city, township, village, or school district.
(g) A person who assists an absent voter who is disabled or otherwise unable to mark the ballot shall only render his or her assistance by showing the absent voter how to vote the ballot as the absent voter desires or by marking the ballot as directed by the absent voter. A person who assists an absent voter who is disabled or otherwise unable to mark the ballot shall not suggest or in any manner attempt to influence the absent voter on how he or she should vote or allow any other person to do so.
(h) A person present while an absent voter is voting an absent voter ballot shall not suggest or in any manner attempt to influence the absent voter on how he or she should vote.
(i) A person shall not plan or organize a meeting at which absent voter ballots are to be voted.
History: 1954, Act 116, Eff. June 1, 1955 ;-- Am. 1957, Act 220, Eff. Sept. 27, 1957 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 201, Imd. Eff. July 1, 1982 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 261, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996
PopularName Notes:
Election Code
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2000–2024 · leading case:
People v. Pinkney, 912 N.W.2d 535 (Mich. 2018).
People v. Pinkney, 912 N.W.2d 535 (Mich. 2018).
· cites it 7× “937 in that manner, that is, as only a penalty provision, would create an absurd result by permitting individuals who do not meet the definitions set forth in MCL 168.932 to commit common-law forgery in the election process without recourse under the Michigan Election Law.”
People v. Pinkney, 891 N.W.2d 891 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “Furthermore, interpreting MCL 168.937 in that manner, that is, as only a penalty provision, would create an absurd result by permitting individuals who do not meet the definitions set forth in MCL 168.”
People v. Woods, 616 N.W.2d 211 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 5× “1931 (unauthorized handling of absentee ballots), MCL 168.932(e); MSA 6.1932(e) (absentee ballot tampering), and MCL 168.”
People v. Hall, 880 N.W.2d 785 (Mich. 2016).
“931; MCL 168.932. 12 MCL 168.934. 13 MCL 168.935.”
People of Michigan v. John MacAuley Burkman (Mich. 2024).
· cites it 117× “796, for having designed and financed a robocall in 2020 targeting voters in Michigan who lived in areas with a significant Black population.”
People of Michigan v. John MacAuley Burkman (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 32× “The trial court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in binding defendants over in light of the content of the message, the e-mails exchanged between defendants regarding their desire to “hijack” the election, the community to which the message was…”
People of Michigan v. Sherikia Lavette Hawkins (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 24× “The Court reviewed the legislative history of relevant provisions of the Michigan Election Law, including MCL 168.932, to support its conclusion. The Court observed from that historical analysis that its predecessor, 1948 CL 195.”
20241213_C356600_113_356600Op.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 20× “The trial court also rejected the contention that the prosecution violated defendants’ First Amendment rights, noting that the state had a compelling interest in protecting the right to vote and that the Legislature had narrowly tailored MCL 168.932 to prevent any attempt to…”
20241213_C356600_113_356600Op.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 17× “As a result of the contents of the robocall and other evidence, defendants were bound over to the circuit court on charges of attempting to influence, deter, or interrupt electors, MCL 168.932(a);1 conspiracy to commit that offense, MCL 750.”
Michigan All. for Retired Americans v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “, 11 days after League II was filed in this Court but before League II was decided, plaintiffs filed this action in the Court of Claims, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, again claiming (as was claimed in League II) that the ballot receipt deadline was unconstitutional,…”
Michigan All. for Retired Americans v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “761; MCL 168.932(f); MCL 168.935. The fourth and final method is that a voter, who is unable to return his or her absent voter ballot by any of the other authorized methods, may “request by telephone that the clerk who issued the ballot provide assistance in returning the ballot.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.932(a) — 4 cases
People of Michigan v. John MacAuley Burkman (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“The trial court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in binding defendants over in light of the content of the message, the e-mails exchanged between defendants regarding their desire to “hijack” the election, the community to which the message was…”
20241213_C356600_113_356600Op.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“The trial court also rejected the contention that the prosecution violated defendants’ First Amendment rights, noting that the state had a compelling interest in protecting the right to vote and that the Legislature had narrowly tailored MCL 168.932 to prevent any attempt to…”
20241213_C356600_113_356600Op.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
“As a result of the contents of the robocall and other evidence, defendants were bound over to the circuit court on charges of attempting to influence, deter, or interrupt electors, MCL 168.932(a);1 conspiracy to commit that offense, MCL 750.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.932(b) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.932(c) — 4 cases
People v. Pinkney, 912 N.W.2d 535 (Mich. 2018).
“937 in that manner, that is, as only a penalty provision, would create an absurd result by permitting individuals who do not meet the definitions set forth in MCL 168.932 to commit common-law forgery in the election process without recourse under the Michigan Election Law.”
People v. Pinkney, 891 N.W.2d 891 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“Furthermore, interpreting MCL 168.937 in that manner, that is, as only a penalty provision, would create an absurd result by permitting individuals who do not meet the definitions set forth in MCL 168.”
People of Michigan v. Sherikia Lavette Hawkins (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“The Court reviewed the legislative history of relevant provisions of the Michigan Election Law, including MCL 168.932, to support its conclusion. The Court observed from that historical analysis that its predecessor, 1948 CL 195.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.932(d) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.932(e) — 3 cases
People v. Pinkney, 912 N.W.2d 535 (Mich. 2018).
“937 in that manner, that is, as only a penalty provision, would create an absurd result by permitting individuals who do not meet the definitions set forth in MCL 168.932 to commit common-law forgery in the election process without recourse under the Michigan Election Law.”
People v. Pinkney, 891 N.W.2d 891 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“Furthermore, interpreting MCL 168.937 in that manner, that is, as only a penalty provision, would create an absurd result by permitting individuals who do not meet the definitions set forth in MCL 168.”
People v. Woods, 616 N.W.2d 211 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“1931 (unauthorized handling of absentee ballots), MCL 168.932(e); MSA 6.1932(e) (absentee ballot tampering), and MCL 168.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.932(f) — 3 cases
People v. Woods, 616 N.W.2d 211 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“1931 (unauthorized handling of absentee ballots), MCL 168.932(e); MSA 6.1932(e) (absentee ballot tampering), and MCL 168.”
Michigan All. for Retired Americans v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“, 11 days after League II was filed in this Court but before League II was decided, plaintiffs filed this action in the Court of Claims, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, again claiming (as was claimed in League II) that the ballot receipt deadline was unconstitutional,…”
Michigan All. for Retired Americans v. Sec'y of State (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“761; MCL 168.932(f); MCL 168.935. The fourth and final method is that a voter, who is unable to return his or her absent voter ballot by any of the other authorized methods, may “request by telephone that the clerk who issued the ballot provide assistance in returning the ballot.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.932(f)(i) — 1 case
People v. Woods, 616 N.W.2d 211 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“1931 (unauthorized handling of absentee ballots), MCL 168.932(e); MSA 6.1932(e) (absentee ballot tampering), and MCL 168.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.932(i) — 1 case
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.