HOLD SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS IN

IN NOVEMBER OF EVEN-NUMBERED YEARS

House Bills 4005 & 4006

Sponsor:  Rep. Kurt Heise

Committee:  Redistricting and Elections

Complete to 3-14-11

A SUMMARY OF HOUSE BILLS 4005 AND 4006 AS INTRODUCED 1-13-11

The bills would amend various laws to require that after January 1, 2012, school board elections be held at the general election in November of even numbered years. 

(Under the Election Law, the term "school board" means the governing body of a school district, including the board of trustees of a community college.  The term "school district" means a school district, a local act school district, or an intermediate school district, as those terms are defined in the Revised School Code, or a community college district under the Community College Act of 1966.)

More specifically, House Bill 4005 would amend the Michigan Election Law (MCL 168.302, 168.644g, and 168.642c) to specify that beginning January 1, 2012, a school district shall hold its regular election for the office of school board member at the general November election. (The Michigan Election Law at MCL 168.2 defines the "general November election" to mean the election held on the November regular election date in an even numbered year.)

House Bill 4006 would amend three sections of the Revised School Code (MCL 380.4, 380.5, and 380.614) to provide that intermediate school board elections, and regular school elections be held on the date set under Section 642c of the Michigan Election Law (that is, the section of the law that would be added with the enactment of House Bill 4005).

 

House Bill 4006 is tie-barred to House Bill 4005 so that it would not go into effect unless House Bill 4005 was also enacted into law.

Currently, Section 642(8) of the Election Law says that, with certain specified exceptions, as of September 1, 2004, a school district must hold its regular school board elections at the odd-year general November election.  If as of that date, a school district held its regular election at another date, then the board could choose to switch its regular election date to any of the following by adopting a resolution:  (a) the odd-year May regular election date (the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May); (b) the November regular election date in both even and odd years (the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November); or (c) the May regular election date in both even and odd years. 

Section 168.642 of the Michigan Election Law (which sets the dates for city and village regular elections, regular election primaries, and the dates for school district regular elections) requires that before adopting a resolution to set election dates, local officials hold at least one public hearing; that the notices of all public hearings be designed to reach the largest number of the jurisdiction's qualified electors in a timely fashion; that the notices state the issue in detail; that the council or school board votes on the resolution and, on a record roll call vote, a majority adopt the resolution; and that the resolution be filed with the secretary of state.]

FISCAL IMPACT:

Current school board elections cost between $25,000 and $50,000 for a stand-alone election and $5,000 to $10,000 when added on to an existing millage election.  Restricting board elections to November would create savings to school districts by eliminating those costs and eliminating the need for elections in years when the districts do not have a millage election.  When a school board election is added to a November election, the other relevant local units would incur the minimal costs of adding school board elections to the local ballot.  Local school districts may still incur costs for millage elections, which are usually held in May. 

     

                                                                                           Legislative Analyst:   J. Hunault

                                                                                                  Fiscal Analyst:   Mary Ann Cleary

                                                                                                                           Bethany Wicksall

■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House staff for use by House members in their deliberations, and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.