![Michigan appeals court rules absentee ballots received after polls close cannot be counted](https://www.jurist.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/11/Absentee-Ballot.jpg)
The Michigan Court of Appeals denied a request Wednesday to require the counting of absentee ballots received after the polls close on election day.
In November 2018 Michigan voters approved Proposal 3, which allows all Michigan voters the constitutional right to vote by absentee ballot without stating a reason. This was incorporated into 2018 PA 603, which amended provisions of the Michigan Election Law.
The League of Women Voters of Michigan, members of the league, and Michigan voters filed a complaint contending that some provisions were not amended to conform with the amendments to Const. 1963, art. 2, § 4. They challenged the statutory requirement that absentee ballots be received by 8 PM on election day, which they alleged violates the purity of elections clause in Const. 1963, art. 2, § 4; the free speech and assembly clauses of Const. 1963, art. 1, §§ 3 and 5; the right to equal protection under Const. 1963, art.1, § 2; and the right to vote under Const. 1963, art. 2 § 4(1)(a). They also challenged the statutory requirement that voters pay the postage to return an absentee ballot. The plaintiffs asserted that any absentee ballot submitted by mail in the 40 days before an election must be counted, even if it is received after 8 PM on election day.
The court believed that the most significant issue presented by the plaintiffs was whether the statutory requirement that absentee ballots be received by 8 PM on election day violated Const 1963, art 2, § 4. The court concluded that it did not by looking at the language of the legislation, looking to the plain language and the circumstances surrounding its adoption.
The court stated that voters’ rights are not impaired because the voter still has the right to submit an absentee ballot, and any deadline imposes the possibility that a voter will be disenfranchised. The court also stated that requiring voters to pay for postage is “a reasonable, minimal, and nondiscriminatory restriction.”
Because of this, the court denied the request.