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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.952 (2026)

Recall petition under MCL 168.960; requirements; submission to board of county election commissioners; determination that reason for recall is factual and of sufficient clarity; notice; meeting; presentation of arguments; appeal; validity of petition.

✓ 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


168.952 Recall petition under MCL 168.960; requirements; submission to board of county election commissioners; determination that reason for recall is factual and of sufficient clarity; notice; meeting; presentation of arguments; appeal; validity of petition.

Sec. 952.

    (1) A petition for the recall of an officer listed in section 960 must meet all of the following requirements:

    (a) Comply with section 544c(1) and (2).

    (b) Be printed.

    (c) State factually and clearly each reason for the recall. Each reason for the recall must be based upon the officer's conduct during his or her current term of office. The reason for the recall may be typewritten.

    (d) Contain a certificate of the circulator. The certificate of the circulator may be printed on the reverse side of the petition.

    (e) Be in a form prescribed by the secretary of state.

    (2) Before being circulated, a petition for the recall of an officer under subsection (1) must be submitted to the board of county election commissioners of the county in which the officer whose recall is sought resides.

    (3) The board of county election commissioners, not less than 10 days or more than 20 days after submission to it of a petition for the recall of an officer under subsection (1), shall meet and shall determine whether each reason for the recall stated in the petition is factual and of sufficient clarity to enable the officer whose recall is sought and the electors to identify the course of conduct that is the basis for the recall. If any reason for the recall is not factual or of sufficient clarity, the entire recall petition must be rejected. Failure of the board of county election commissioners to meet as required by this subsection constitutes a determination that each reason for the recall stated in the petition is factual and of sufficient clarity to enable the officer whose recall is being sought and the electors to identify the course of conduct that is the basis for the recall.

    (4) The board of county election commissioners, not later than 3 business days after receipt of a petition for the recall of an officer as provided under subsection (2), shall notify the officer whose recall is sought of each reason stated in the recall petition and of the date of the meeting of the board of county election commissioners to consider whether each reason is factual and of sufficient clarity.

    (5) The officer whose recall is sought and the sponsors of the recall petition may appear at the meeting and present arguments on whether each reason is factual and of sufficient clarity.

    (6) The determination by the board of county election commissioners may be appealed by the officer whose recall is sought or by the sponsors of the recall petition drive to the circuit court in the county. The appeal must be filed not more than 10 days after the determination of the board of county election commissioners. If a determination of the board of county election commissioners is appealed to the circuit court in the county, the recall petition is not valid for circulation and must not be circulated until a determination of whether each reason is factual and of sufficient clarity is made by the circuit court or until 40 days after the date of the appeal, whichever is sooner.

    (7) A petition is not valid for circulation if at any time a circuit court determines that each reason on the recall petition is not factual and of sufficient clarity.

    (8) A recall petition is valid for 180 days after either of the following, whichever occurs later:

    (a) The date of determination of whether each reason is factual and of sufficient clarity by the board of county election commissioners.

    (b) The sooner of the following:

    (i) The date of determination of whether each reason is factual and of sufficient clarity by the circuit court.

    (ii) Subject to subsection (7), 40 days after the date of the appeal under subsection (6).

    (9) A recall petition that is filed after the 180-day period described in subsection (8) is not valid and must not be accepted by the filing official under section 961. This subsection does not prohibit a person from resubmitting a recall petition for a determination of sufficient clarity and factualness under this section.

History: 1954, Act 116, Eff. June 1, 1955 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 66, Imd. Eff. Apr. 2, 1976 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 456, Imd. Eff. Dec. 30, 1982 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 45, Imd. Eff. May 27, 1993 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 137, Eff. Jan. 1, 1994 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 417, Imd. Eff. Dec. 20, 2012 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 190, Imd. Eff. June 20, 2018

Compiler's Notes:

    Enacting section 2 of Act 417 of 2012 provides:

    "Enacting section 2. As provided in section 5 of 1846 RS 1, MCL 8.5, this act is severable."

    Enacting section 3 of Act 417 of 2012 provides:

    "Enacting section 3. The legislature recognizes the importance of the electoral process, and it is the intent of the legislature that this amendatory act uphold each of the following:

     (a) Section 4 of article II of the state constitution of 1963.

     (b) Section 8 of article II of the state constitution of 1963.

     (c) Section 26 of article V of the state constitution of 1963."

PopularName Notes:

Election Code
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1960–2023 · leading case: Bogaert v. Land, 572 F. Supp. 2d 883 (W.D. Mich. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bogaert v. Land, 572 F. Supp. 2d 883 (W.D. Mich. 2008). · cites it 19× “§ 168.952(3) the Wayne County Election Commission is charged with determining if the recall petition is sufficiently clear.”
Jeremy Hooker v. Brenda M Moore, 928 N.W.2d 287 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “952, this Court was tasked with determining the "clarity" of recall petitions, and we noted that our review was limited in scope: The standard of review for clarity of recall petitions has been described as both "lenient," and "very lenient." "Thus, recall review by the courts…”
Donigan v. Oakland Cnty. Election Comm'n, 755 N.W.2d 209 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 9× “23(1) and MCL 168.952. 1 The circuit court granted plaintiffs motion, ruling that the language in the petition is not sufficiently clear and does not satisfy the clarity requirement of MCL 168.”
In Re Wayne Cnty. Election Comm'n, 388 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “Arguments at the hearing centered around the constitutionality of § 952, MCL 168.952; MSA 6.1952, which authorizes the commission to review the recall petition for clarity of the statement of reasons contained therein, and the severability of the provision from the remainder of…”
Noel v. Oakland Cnty. Clerk, 284 N.W.2d 761 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 4× “On October 24, 1978, plaintiffs filed suit, alleging, inter alia, that the petitions were legally insufficient as they merely stated general conclusions in contravention of MCL 168.952; MSA 6.1952, which provides that such petitions "shall state clearly the reason or reasons for…”
Wallace v. Tripp, 101 N.W.2d 312 (Mich. 1960). · cites it 4× “The particular section dealing with the recall petitions of the present law (PA 1954, No 116), being section 952 thereof (CLS 1956, § 168.952 [Stat Ann 1956 Rev § 6.1952]), provides in part: "All petitions for the recall of an officer shall be in substantially the following…”
Risk v. Lincoln Charter Twp. Bd. of Trs., 760 N.W.2d 510 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “” MCL 168.952(1)(c). Further, “[a] separate petition shall be circulated for each officer sought to be recalled.”
Dimas v. MacOmb Cnty. Election Comm'n, 639 N.W.2d 850 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 7× “In separate actions, Dimas, followed by Busse and Klein, appealed to the circuit court, arguing that the commission should not have approved the petitions under MCL 168.952 because (1) appellant had failed to state “each reason [for the recall] in a single petition,” and (2) the…”
Recall Blanchard Comm. v. Sec'y of State, 380 N.W.2d 71 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “1951); (3) the requirement that proposed petitions be submitted to the Board of County Election Commissioners for determination of whether the reasons for recall are stated with sufficient clarity in the proposed petition (MCL 168.952[2]; MSA 6.1952[2]); (4) the requirement that…”
Mastin v. Oakland Cnty. Elections Comm'n, 341 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “MCL 168.952(3); MSA 6.1952(3), as amended by 1982 PA 456 .”
Schmidt v. Genesee Cnty. Clerk, 339 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “The petitions therefore violated MCL 168.952; MSA 6.1952. He ruled that the petitions concerning each plaintiff were invalid.”
Molitor v. Miller, 301 N.W.2d 532 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “After a hearing on March 13, 1980, the court ruled that the reasons were not "clearly stated", as required by MCL 168.952; MSA 6.1952. The court concluded that the reasons were conclusory and failed to *347 adequately apprise the officer or the electorate of the circumstances…”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.952(1)(3) — 1 case
Donigan v. Oakland Cnty. Election Comm'n, 755 N.W.2d 209 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “23(1) and MCL 168.952. 1 The circuit court granted plaintiffs motion, ruling that the language in the petition is not sufficiently clear and does not satisfy the clarity requirement of MCL 168.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.952(1)(c) — 4 cases
Risk v. Lincoln Charter Twp. Bd. of Trs., 760 N.W.2d 510 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “” MCL 168.952(1)(c). Further, “[a] separate petition shall be circulated for each officer sought to be recalled.”
Donigan v. Oakland Cnty. Election Comm'n, 755 N.W.2d 209 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “23(1) and MCL 168.952. 1 The circuit court granted plaintiffs motion, ruling that the language in the petition is not sufficiently clear and does not satisfy the clarity requirement of MCL 168.”
Dimas v. MacOmb Cnty. Election Comm'n, 639 N.W.2d 850 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “In separate actions, Dimas, followed by Busse and Klein, appealed to the circuit court, arguing that the commission should not have approved the petitions under MCL 168.952 because (1) appellant had failed to state “each reason [for the recall] in a single petition,” and (2) the…”
Oscar Barnes v. Cnty. of Lake Election Comm'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.952(2) — 2 cases
Donigan v. Oakland Cnty. Election Comm'n, 755 N.W.2d 209 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “23(1) and MCL 168.952. 1 The circuit court granted plaintiffs motion, ruling that the language in the petition is not sufficiently clear and does not satisfy the clarity requirement of MCL 168.”
Oscar Barnes v. Cnty. of Lake Election Comm'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.952(3) — 9 cases
Bogaert v. Land, 572 F. Supp. 2d 883 (W.D. Mich. 2008). “§ 168.952(3) the Wayne County Election Commission is charged with determining if the recall petition is sufficiently clear.”
Donigan v. Oakland Cnty. Election Comm'n, 755 N.W.2d 209 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “23(1) and MCL 168.952. 1 The circuit court granted plaintiffs motion, ruling that the language in the petition is not sufficiently clear and does not satisfy the clarity requirement of MCL 168.”
In Re Wayne Cnty. Election Comm'n, 388 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “Arguments at the hearing centered around the constitutionality of § 952, MCL 168.952; MSA 6.1952, which authorizes the commission to review the recall petition for clarity of the statement of reasons contained therein, and the severability of the provision from the remainder of…”
Mastin v. Oakland Cnty. Elections Comm'n, 341 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “MCL 168.952(3); MSA 6.1952(3), as amended by 1982 PA 456 .”
Dimas v. MacOmb Cnty. Election Comm'n, 639 N.W.2d 850 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “In separate actions, Dimas, followed by Busse and Klein, appealed to the circuit court, arguing that the commission should not have approved the petitions under MCL 168.952 because (1) appellant had failed to state “each reason [for the recall] in a single petition,” and (2) the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.952(6) — 4 cases
In Re Wayne Cnty. Election Comm'n, 388 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “Arguments at the hearing centered around the constitutionality of § 952, MCL 168.952; MSA 6.1952, which authorizes the commission to review the recall petition for clarity of the statement of reasons contained therein, and the severability of the provision from the remainder of…”
Mastin v. Oakland Cnty. Elections Comm'n, 341 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “MCL 168.952(3); MSA 6.1952(3), as amended by 1982 PA 456 .”
Bogaert v. Land, 572 F. Supp. 2d 883 (W.D. Mich. 2008). “§ 168.952(3) the Wayne County Election Commission is charged with determining if the recall petition is sufficiently clear.”
Oscar Barnes v. Cnty. of Lake Election Comm'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.952(7) — 2 cases
Bogaert v. Land, 572 F. Supp. 2d 883 (W.D. Mich. 2008). “§ 168.952(3) the Wayne County Election Commission is charged with determining if the recall petition is sufficiently clear.”
Paul H Scott v. Dir. of Elections (Mich. 2011).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.952(8) — 1 case
Richard McCoy v. Berrien Cnty. Clerk (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.952(a) — 1 case
Roseville Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Macomb Cnty. Clerk, 254 N.W.2d 611 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.952(l)(c) — 2 cases
Donigan v. Oakland Cnty. Election Comm'n, 755 N.W.2d 209 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “23(1) and MCL 168.952. 1 The circuit court granted plaintiffs motion, ruling that the language in the petition is not sufficiently clear and does not satisfy the clarity requirement of MCL 168.”
Dimas v. MacOmb Cnty. Election Comm'n, 639 N.W.2d 850 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “In separate actions, Dimas, followed by Busse and Klein, appealed to the circuit court, arguing that the commission should not have approved the petitions under MCL 168.952 because (1) appellant had failed to state “each reason [for the recall] in a single petition,” and (2) the…”
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.