MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW
Act 116 of 1954
168.954 Recall petitions; eligibility of signers; prohibited conduct; violations; misdemeanor; felony; penalties.
Sec. 954.
(1) A recall petition must be signed by registered and qualified electors of the electoral district of the official whose recall is sought. Each signer of a recall petition shall affix his or her signature, address, and the date of signing. An individual who signs a recall petition must be a registered and qualified elector of the governmental subdivision designated in the heading of the petition.
(2) An individual shall not do any of the following:
(a) Sign a recall petition with a name other than his or her own.
(b) Make a false statement in a certificate on a recall petition.
(c) If not a circulator, sign a recall petition as a circulator.
(d) Sign a name as circulator other than his or her own.
(3) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (4), an individual who violates subsection (2) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $500.00 or imprisonment for not more than 93 days, or both.
(4) An individual shall not sign a recall petition with multiple names. An individual who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony.
(5) If an individual signs a recall petition in violation of this section, any signature by that individual on the petition is invalid and must not be counted.
History: 1954, Act 116, Eff. June 1, 1955 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 66, Imd. Eff. Apr. 2, 1976 ;-- Am. 2003, Act 302, Eff. Jan. 1, 2005 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 650, Imd. Eff. Dec. 28, 2018
PopularName Notes:
Election Code
Notes of Decisions
Smeets v. Genesee Cnty. Clerk, 484 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Why then should Linden gubernatorial votes be included in the voting base that determines the sufficiency of a recall petition? Moreover, MCL 168.954; MSA 6.1954 provides that "[t]he petitions shall be signed by registered and qualified electors of the electoral district of the…”
Schmidt v. Genesee Cnty. Clerk, 339 N.W.2d 526 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 3× “The court ruled that these irregularities violated MCL 168.954; MSA 6.1954 and MCL 168.957; MSA 6.”
Sys. Soft Tech., LLC v. Artemis Tech., Inc., 837 N.W.2d 449 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
“” There is no similar mandatory provision contained in MCL 168.544c, and defendants fail to refer to any other statute requiring the elector to include the date of signing on a nominating petition.”
Recall Blanchard Comm. v. Sec'y of State, 380 N.W.2d 71 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
“1952[1]); (5) & (6) the requirement that the petition be signed by registered voters and the requirement that the signatures be verified by the city or township clerk as being those of registered voters (MCL 168.954, 168.961; MSA 6.1954, 6.1961); (7) the requirement that a…”
Richard McCoy v. Berrien Cnty. Clerk (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 6× “] In Schmidt v Genesee Co Clerk, 127 Mich App 694, 701 ; 339 NW2d 526 (1983), we explained that the language chosen by the Legislature in MCL 168.954 “clearly and unambiguously requires the signer of the petition to affix the date of signing personally.”
Davenport v. Genesee Cnty., 737 F. Supp. 2d 809 (E.D. Mich. 2010).
“§ 168.954 states: A recall petition shall be signed by the registered and qualified electors of the electoral district of the official whose recall is sought.”
Families Against Incinerator Risk v. Haines, 695 N.W.2d 69 (Mich. 2005).
“The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether, in light of MCL 168.954's provision that "[e]ach signer of the petition shall affix his signature, address and the date of signing," the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that if a "signature matches the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.954(1) — 1 case
Richard McCoy v. Berrien Cnty. Clerk (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“] In Schmidt v Genesee Co Clerk, 127 Mich App 694, 701 ; 339 NW2d 526 (1983), we explained that the language chosen by the Legislature in MCL 168.954 “clearly and unambiguously requires the signer of the petition to affix the date of signing personally.”
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.