Background
Michigan’s Secretary of State issued 2024 guidance instructing election inspectors to process absent-voter ballots returned with missing ballot stubs or stub numbers that did not match the ballot return envelope as “challenged ballots” for tabulation. The Republican National Committee, Michigan Republican Party, and Chesterfield Township Clerk Cindy Berry sued, claiming MCL 168.768 prohibited tabulation of such ballots and required their rejection.
The Court of Claims initially granted partial relief in October 2024, requiring the Secretary to clarify procedures. After the 2024 election, in December 2025, the Court of Claims sided entirely with plaintiffs, declaring that MCL 168.768 prohibits tabulation of ballots with missing or mismatched stubs. The court then imposed a permanent injunction requiring defendants to implement a 10-step cure procedure allowing voters whose ballots were rejected to attempt to cure the defect. The Secretary of State appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that MCL 168.768 does not prohibit election inspectors from tabulating absent-voter ballots with missing or mismatched stubs. The statute requires inspectors to compare ballot stub numbers with envelope numbers, but contains no language mandating rejection if numbers do not match or if a stub is missing. The court distinguished MCL 168.768 from MCL 168.797a(2), which governs in-person ballots and explicitly requires rejection if stub numbers do not agree. The Legislature’s use of different language for absent-voter versus in-person ballots indicated an intent not to impose mandatory rejection in the absent-voter context.
The court also found that the Court of Claims abused its discretion by imposing permanent mandatory injunctive relief without making required legal findings. The court had not found that plaintiffs faced a real and imminent danger of irreparable injury, had not held an evidentiary hearing, had not adequately tailored the remedy, and had not give defendants a meaningful opportunity to brief the standards for injunctive relief before imposing the 10-step procedure. The Secretary’s guidance allowing challenged-ballot processing remains consistent with the statute and the constitutional protection for absent-voter ballot rights.
Key Takeaways
- MCL 168.768 does not require rejection of absent-voter ballots with missing or mismatched ballot stubs; the statute merely prescribes what to do when numbers match.
- The Secretary of State has statutory authority to issue election administration guidance, and the challenged-ballot procedure satisfies MCL 168.768 by preserving votes while identifying discrepancies.
- Absent-voter ballots receive different statutory treatment than in-person ballots; the Legislature’s choice of different language is dispositive.
- Courts must make specific findings of irreparable injury and tailor relief carefully before imposing permanent mandatory injunctions in election administration cases.
Why It Matters
This decision provides critical clarity for Michigan election officials handling absent-voter ballots with stub discrepancies. Rather than requiring ballot rejection, the Secretary’s challenged-ballot approach allows votes to be counted while preserving them for review in case of election contest—balancing election integrity with voter access. The opinion reinforces the Secretary of State’s delegated authority to manage election administration through guidance consistent with statutory requirements.
The decision also establishes important procedural limits on judicial intervention in election administration. Courts cannot impose statewide election procedures through mandatory injunctions without evidentiary hearings, findings of irreparable injury, and tailoring to the specific facts. This protects both democratic self-correction through the Secretary’s rulemaking authority and the integrity of judicial process in election disputes.