the center for local, state, and urban policy michigan...

This report presents the opinions of Michigan’s local government leaders on issues related to election administration in their jurisdictions, including problems encountered, worker recruitment and training, updating voting equipment, and potential reforms. These findings are based on statewide surveys of local government leaders in the Spring 2017 wave of the Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS).

Key Findings

• Officials in 91% of Michigan’s townships and cities—the types of local govern-ments that administer elections—are very confident in the ability of their juris-dictions to administer elections accurately, while 8% are somewhat confident, and 1% are not very confident.

• When it comes to problems with election administration, the most common problems identified are the ability to recruit poll workers with the needed skills (29%) and recruiting enough poll workers at all, regardless of skill level (27%). In addition, 25% say the costs of administering elections are a problem for their jurisdiction’s budget.

» The state’s largest cities and townships (those with more than 30,000 residents) are more likely than small jurisdictions to report experiencing a range of election-related problems, including 48% that struggle to recruit enough poll workers with the needed skills, 24% that experience equip-ment failures, 18% that suffer long wait times for voters at the polls, 17% that report errors by poll workers, and 15% that experience disturbances at polling places.

• Local officials generally give high marks to their county government’s training of local poll workers and the State of Michigan’s initial and ongoing training of the township and city clerks who oversee elections.

• Two-thirds (67%) of local officials overall support the State’s initiative to update voting equipment by August 2018, while 57% agree it will be worth the costs involved and 58% think the State’s plan for cost-sharing is appropriate. However, less than half (48%) agree the new equipment will help significantly improve their jurisdiction’s election administration.

» Township and city clerks are significantly more likely than other types of local officials to agree with all of these assessments.

• When it comes to possible types of reform to election administration in Michigan, local officials are more likely to support than oppose:

» absentee voting with no excuse required (66% support vs. 19% oppose) » synchronizing voter lists with other states (50% vs. 10%) » stricter regulation of voter registration drives (49% vs. 10%) » stricter voter ID requirements (46% vs. 17%) » pre-registration of 16-year-olds (39% vs. 27%) » requiring employers to provide people time off to vote (30% vs. 29%)

• At the same time, they are more likely to oppose than support:

» same-day voter registration on Election Day (66% oppose vs. 17% support) » having County government take over local election administration from

cities and townships (57% vs. 23%) » on-site early voting prior to Election Day (50% vs. 32%)

Local leaders’ views on elections in Michigan: accuracy, problems, and reform options

>> The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS) is a census survey of all 1,856 general purpose local governments in Michigan conducted by the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP) at the University of Michigan in partnership with the Michigan Municipal League, Michigan Townships Association, and Michigan Association of Counties. The MPPS takes place twice each year and investigates local officials’ opinions and perspectives on a variety of important public policy issues. Respondents for the Spring 2017 wave of the MPPS include county administrators, board chairs, and clerks; city mayors, managers, and clerks; village presidents, managers, and clerks; and township supervisors, managers, and clerks from 1,372 jurisdictions across the state.

For more information, please contact: [email protected]/ (734) 647-4091. You can also follow us on Twitter @closup

By Debra Horner and Thomas Ivacko

www.closup.umich.edu

The Center for Local, State, and Urban PolicyGerald R. Ford School of Public Policy >> University of Michigan

Michigan Public Policy Survey November 2017

2 www.closup.umich.edu

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

BackgroundNationwide, the general election of November 8, 2016 was unusual in a number of ways, not the least of which concerned issues surrounding how voters’ ballots were cast and counted, and whether the election itself would be fairly administered.1 Issues of election administration have been highlighted by the closeness of the vote count in many states. Here in Michigan, Donald Trump’s margin of victory over Hillary Clinton in the presidential race was extraordinarily close, just barely more than 10,000 votes out of almost 4,800,000 cast.2 The state’s election results remained officially uncalled until November 28, 2016. During that time serious concerns surfaced over possible poll worker error and voting equipment failures in Detroit resulting in ballot discrepancies in 59% of the city’s precincts,3 in addition to one-third of precincts in Wayne County as a whole, which cast a shadow over the aborted statewide recount of presidential election results.4

Michigan is not the only state that faced concerns over last November’s election administration. On Election Day, widespread difficulties at polling places were reported in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other key battleground states.5 Beyond these challenges, election officials have also raised red flags about attempted outside hacking of their electronic systems,6 which is prompting states like Virginia to attempt a return to a system that produces a paper trail of ballots.7

Yet even prior to the concerns prompted by the 2016 election, local and state governments— including Michigan’s—have been making plans to update their voting equipment. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least half of state legislatures have considered or adopted new election technology in recent years, and they predict that number will rise due to increasing public demands for secure and reliable voting infrastructure in the wake of last November’s experiences.8

Up until this past year, the equipment used in most Michigan polling places was more than a decade old, first introduced when Michigan began using optical-scan voting systems statewide.9 However, the State has recently initiated a plan to replace all of the voting machines in Michigan polling places beginning in 2017, with full replacement completed by the fall of 2018. According to the replacement plan, county clerks will choose the equipment to be used by every jurisdiction in their county from among three vendors approved by the State Administrative Board.10 The new equipment will be paid for with $30 million in federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) money, along with $10 million approved by the Legislature with the support of Gov. Rick Snyder.11 This funding will cover most of the up-front cost for the new systems, with individual cities and townships covering the remaining costs as well as extended service and maintenance expenses after five years.

However, equipment and technology are not the only areas of election administration undergoing change both in Michigan and across the nation. As shown in the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s report after the 2016 election, many states are introducing reforms to their election policies involving everything from voter registration regulations and pre-election voting (including absentee ballots) to Election Day voting itself.12

When it comes to election administration and potential changes to statewide procedures, Michigan faces particular hurdles because the state has one of the largest and most decentralized election systems in the U.S.13 Michigan elections are administered in concert by 83 county clerks, 280 city clerks and 1,240 township clerks, with the Secretary of State acting as the “chief election officer” and with State, county, and local boards of canvassers and election commissions all playing specific roles in the process.14

To get a sense of just what is happening at the local level across all parts of the state, the MPPS sent surveys in spring 2017 to local leaders in all of Michigan’s cities and townships—the types of local governments that administer elections in Michigan—with a series of questions regarding election administration in their jurisdictions. Since township and city clerks are the local officials who actually administer the elections, the MPPS also sent surveys to any township and city clerks who weren’t included in the standard MPPS survey sample, to be able to compare local “election administrators’” views with those of others such as township supervisors and managers, and city mayors and managers. In the following report, statewide data will contain combined responses from both clerks and non-clerks, but then will also be broken out by jurisdiction type and by position to help identify any important differences of opinion.

3

Michigan Public Policy Survey

Most local officials are confident in their jurisdictions’ electionsStatewide, the overwhelming majority of local officials (91%) in cities and townships—the types of jurisdictions that administer Michigan’s elections—believe that their local governments are able to administer elections accurately. Meanwhile, 8% of officials are “somewhat” confident, and 1% are “not very” confident (see Figure 1a). These 9% of officials who are less than

“very confident” in the accuracy of their elections represent approximately 137 jurisdictions across the state.

When looking specifically at the officials tasked with running Michigan elections—township and city clerks themselves—confidence increases further, as they express higher levels of confidence in local election administration compared with other types of local officials such as mayors, city administrators, and township supervisors or managers. As shown in Figure 1b, among township officials, 93% of clerks are very confident in their jurisdiction’s ability to conduct elections accurately, compared with 89% of township supervisors or managers. Meanwhile, 94% of city clerks express the highest confidence, compared with 89% of city mayors and administrators.

Regardless of community size, very few local leaders overall across Michigan express particularly low confidence about their jurisdictions’ abilities to run elections accurately. Among local leaders in the state’s smallest jurisdictions (those fewer than 1,500 residents), just 1% are “not very confident” in these abili-ties, while the same is true of 4% among the largest jurisdic-tions (those with more than 30,000 residents).

Figure 1aLocal officials’ confidence in their township’s or city’s ability to administer elections accurately

Figure 1bLocal officials’ confidence in their township’s or city’s ability to administer elections accurately, by jurisdiction type and official’s position

Figure 1cLocal officials’ confidence in their township’s or city’s ability to administer elections accurately, by jurisdiction size

Somewhat confident

Not very confident

Don't know

Very confident

91%

1%1%

8%

Don't know

94% 89%

9%9%

93% 89%

6%1%

Township clerks

Township supervisors

and managers

City mayors and

managers

City clerks

Somewhat confident

Not very confident

Very confident

1%1%

1%4% 1%

1%1%

91%

7%1% 1% 1%

< 1,500 1,500-5,000 5,001-10,000 10,001-30,000 > 30,000

92% 87%

10%

88%

4%4% 4%

91%

8% 8% 2%

Somewhat confident

Not very confident

Don't know

Very confident

1% 1%



Slightly less certainty over recount processes, but confidence still widespreadIn addition to administering elections themselves, local jurisdictions might need to have their ballots reviewed by their county clerk’s office if a recount is ordered. At this stage of election administration, problems with accuracy could happen either during the recount process itself, or could have begun at the original polling locations themselves, such as through spoiled ballots, mismatches between the number of voters logged in and the number of ballots counted, equipment malfunctions, improperly secured ballots, or other issues. When asked about the ability of their county clerk’s office to administer a recount accurately, 80% of local officials overall are very confident, while 16% are somewhat confident, 2% are not very confident, and 1% are not confident at all (see Figure 2a).

Township and city clerks are more likely to express confidence in their county clerk’s office than are other township and city officials such as mayors, supervisors, and managers. For example, 89% of township clerks are very confident in the ability of the county clerk’s office to administer a recount accurately, compared with 77% of township supervisors and managers (see Figure 2b). Meanwhile, the differences are even greater among city officials: 83% of city clerks are very confident, compared with 63% of mayors and managers.

Doubts about the ability of county clerks’ offices to administer recounts accurately do increase somewhat with the size of the individual jurisdiction. Over one in ten (11%) leaders from the state’s largest townships and cities are not very confident (4%) or not confident at all (7%) in the ability of their county clerk’s office, compared with just 1% among the smallest jurisdictions (see Figure 2c).

Figure 2aLocal officials’ confidence in their county clerk’s ability to administer recounts accurately

Figure 2bLocal officials’ confidence in their county clerk’s ability to administer recounts accurately, by jurisdiction type and official’s position

Figure 2cLocal officials’ confidence in their county clerk’s ability to administer recounts accurately, by jurisdiction size

Somewhat confident

Not very confident

Not confident at all

Don't know

Very confident

80%

2%2% 1%

16%

83%

12%

63%

28%

5%

89% 77%

18%

9%1%

Township clerks


and managers

City mayors and

managers

City clerks

1% 2%1%1%

3%1% 1%

3%1%

Somewhat confident

Not very confident


Don't know

Very confident

85%

12%1% 2% 2%2%

< 1,500 1,500-5,000 5,001-10,000 10,001-30,000 > 30,000

73% 74%

18%

8%

56%

29%

4%4% 7%

81%

15%21%

2%1%1% 1%2%

Somewhat confident

Not very confident


Don't know

Very confident

5


Problems with election administration most likely to involve recruitment of poll workers or election costs, though other concerns noted, tooIn the wake of the November 2016 elections, the Spring 2017 MPPS asked about a range of potential problems local governments might experience when conducting elections. Among all types of local leaders combined, the most commonly cited statewide problems are ones related to recruiting poll workers. Overall, 29% of township and city officials indicate they have a significant problem or somewhat of a problem recruiting poll workers with necessary skills (e.g., computer skills, ability to follow protocols, etc.) and 27% report problems simply recruiting enough poll workers, regardless of their skills (see Figure 3a). A quarter of local jurisdictions (25%) also report that the cost of election administration is somewhat of a problem or a significant problem for their city or township budget. Some jurisdictions also report problems with election equipment failures or malfunctions (17%) and reliable internet service for election-related communication with the State government (15%). Meanwhile, just 4% of townships and cities overall report problems with long wait times for voters at the polls, 3% experience inaccurate voter registration lists, and 2% say they’ve had disturbances at polling places.

There are significant differences in these reports when looking at clerks vs. other types of officials, as explored on the following pages and in Appendix A. There are also some notable differences in reports of election-related problems when broken down by community population size. The state’s largest jurisdictions are more likely than the smallest ones to report problems recruiting enough poll workers with the needed skills (48% among the largest jurisdictions vs. 27% among the smallest), enough poll workers regardless of skill level (39% vs. 28%), equipment failures or malfunctions (24% vs. 13%), long wait times for voters at the polls (18% vs. 1%), errors by poll workers (17% vs. 4%), disturbances at polling places (15% vs. 1%), and inaccurate voter registration lists (6% vs. 3%). At the same time, mid-sized cities and townships (those with between 10,001-30,000 residents) are particularly likely to report that costs to run elections are problematic for their budgets (34%). Appendix B provides breakdowns by population size.

Figure 3aLocal officials’ assessments of problems with election administration in their jurisdictions

27%

32%38%

38% 33%

29%

46%

48%

36%

8%

58%

58%

26%

35%

73%24%

44%

11%

31%14%5%

28%

25%

1% 4%

1%3%

24%

8%

5%

Not a problem at allNot much of a problemA significant problemDon't know Somewhat of a problem

Disturbances at polling places

Inaccurate voter registration lists

Long wait times for any voters

Poll worker errors in following election procedures

28%45%22%

Election equipment failures/malfunctions 36%45%14%

Reliable internet for communication with Secretary of State

Cost on jurisdiction's budget

Recruiting enough poll workers

Recruiting poll workers with necessary skills

2% 3%

2% 3%

2%1%

1%4%

1%2%

3%3%



Clerks, particularly in cities, are more likely than other types of officials to report recruitment problems Since city and township clerks directly oversee elections in their jurisdictions, the MPPS compared their views with those of other elected and appointed officials to see if there are significant differences of opinion based on their levels of involvement. And for at least some types of election-related problems, the data do reveal differences (not just when comparing clerks to others types of officials, but also when comparing across the jurisdiction types of cities vs. townships). For instance, as shown in Figure 3b, city and township clerks are more likely than mayors, supervisors, and managers to sound the alarm about problems with skilled poll worker recruitment. In fact, among city clerks, more than half (52%) say this is a problem for their jurisdiction, compared with 38% of city mayors and managers. At the same time, 31% of township clerks identify this recruitment as a problem, compared with 24% of township supervisors and managers. So while the problem appears to be more severe in cities than in townships, in both cases it is also true that the clerks who manage elections are more likely than the jurisdiction’s other elected and appointed officials to say recruitment of skilled poll workers is a challenge.

Similarly, when it comes to problems with recruiting enough poll workers regardless of their skill levels, city clerks (45%) are more likely than city mayors and managers (38%) or township clerks (29%) or supervisors and managers (24%) to say that this is a problem in their jurisdiction (see Figure 3c).

And although poll worker error in following election procedures is not one of the top problems generally identified by local officials in their election administration, it is the other main issue where there are notable differences between officials in different positions. In townships, 10% of clerks say poll worker error is a problem compared with 2% of supervisors and managers, while 19% of city clerks say it is a problem, compared with 6% of mayors and managers (see Appendix A).

Figure 3bLocal officials’ assessments of problems with recruiting skilled poll workers in their jurisdictions, by jurisdiction type and official’s position

Figure 3cLocal officials’ assessments of problems with recruiting enough poll workers in their jurisdictions, by jurisdiction type and official’s position

17%

31%

32%

20%

25%

36%

33%

5%

33%

34%

25%

6%

33%

41%

22%

1%

Township clerks


and managers

City mayors and

managers

City clerks

2%2%

1% 1%

Not much of a problem

Somewhat of a problem

A significant problem

Don't know

Not a problem at all

15%

39%

30%

15%

25%

36%

34%

4%

36%

33%

23%

6%

43%

2%

Township clerks


and managers

City mayors and

managers

City clerks

2%1% 1%1%




Don't know

Not a problem at all32%

22%

7


Township clerks least likely to identify election costs as a problem for the jurisdictionOn the other hand, there are some election-related issues for which the differences between clerks and other types of officials are more negligible, or even reversed in some cases. For example, as shown in Figure 3d, concerns about the costs of elections are more consistent between city clerks (30%) and other officials in cities (27%). Meanwhile, township clerks are actually less likely to identify election costs as a problem (19%), compared with township supervisors and managers (29%).

Figure 3dLocal officials’ assessments of problems with election administration cost in their jurisdictions, by jurisdiction type and official’s position

23%

46%

26%

19%

53%

26%

1%

36%

42%

17%

25%

43%

24%

2%

Township clerks


and managers

City mayors and

managers

City clerks

2%3%5%

1% 1%4%




Don't know

Not a problem at all



The MPPS also provided local leaders an opportunity to share additional feedback, experiences, and concerns regarding local election administration through an open-ended question. Some of the comments regarding problems they have experienced include the following:

Voices Across Michigan Quotes from local leaders about problems their jurisdictions have faced in election administration

“Like most, if not all, other municipalities in the state, we have a hard time recruiting election workers. We advertise but what we really need is a broad statewide initiative to get registered voters to sign up to work. We also need well-publicized voter education initiatives that go beyond just the presidential election season. Our city advertises elections, our need for workers, any changes made to election procedures but it never seems to be enough to encourage voters to vote. Instead of looking for ways to make voting more restrictive and/or confusing, the legislators and election officials need to work together to educate and encourage voters.”

“There should be a person at the county level to help townships with any computer program issues before and during an election.’”

“We find that as election equipment evolves and as expectations of the electorate increase, it is more difficult to secure election officials. People are too busy, and while there are exceptions, most of our election officials are older and less able to transition to the newer way of serving the voter. Until we reach a point where our workers are electronically savvy at the time they submit an application to work an election, we will continue to face significant hurdles regarding training.”

“Finding willing and able election workers, and training them every two years is financially draining and frankly, dangerous to the election process. It takes time, effort, and willingness to make good election workers. In my case, I am only able to find enough workers to cover the entire day, no split shifts for us. By the end of a 16-17 hour day when the most important part, election night closing, is done, everyone is exhausted and that’s when problems occur.”

“The age of election workers is rising. Younger workers are difficult to find as most have jobs away during the days of elections.”

“Elections are expensive. It would be very helpful if school systems would hold their elections combined with other elections, not separate from everything else. Besides costs, the time it takes to run one and the trouble getting people involved (especially in August) makes it not worth the while.”

“Last election in November we had [a number of] machines shut down but were able to borrow from other Townships and we completed everything perfectly.”

“The bottleneck for our election lines is the electronic pollbook. If we could have multiple pollbooks, lines would move at a much higher rate.”

“Our township does not have the ability to have internet service at the hall where the voting will be held. There is no way for us to send in the information from the hall at the elections if, as I have been told, everything must be done on the internet.”

“The most significant concern in our Township is the availability of facilities to house precincts. We don’t have enough government buildings and need to use some school buildings. With security concerns this becomes a challenge for everyone.”

9


Local officials generally find election training provided by counties and the State to be effective When asked about various election-related training provided to their jurisdictions, local officials of all types express widespread agreement that training provided by county governments and by the State of Michigan is effective. Statewide, 78% of these local officials believe poll worker training by their county is effective, with nearly half (46%) saying it is very effective (see Figure 4). Only 5% rate county training of their poll workers as ineffective. Similarly, 64% of these local officials say the State’s training for new clerks is somewhat or very effective, and 67% say the same regarding State-provided continuing education for clerks.

However, it is important to note that these overall assessments (containing a mix of clerks’ and non-clerks’ opinions) contain a large number of “don’t know” responses, since training issues are one of the few areas where non-clerk officials (township supervisors and managers; city mayors and managers) answer with particularly high levels of “don’t know” compared with clerks. For example, 30% of non-clerks say they don’t know about the effectiveness of initial clerk training and 24% don’t know how to rate the continuing education for clerks by the State. It makes sense that non-clerks would not be familiar with training outcomes, given the position-specific nature of poll worker and clerk training. Looking only among clerks, those from townships (84%) are significantly more likely than those from cities (68%) to rate their county’s training of poll workers as effective. Meanwhile, for initial training of clerks by the State, township and city clerks give similarly high marks for effectiveness (77% and 76%, respectively), and city clerks give slightly higher ratings for continuing training (84%) than do township clerks (77%).

Voices Across Michigan Quotes from local leaders about election administration training

“Training by both the State and our County Clerk is always essential in having a successful election. I wish there was more in-person training sessions. The e-learning center is very helpful but being able to connect with others in person is far more beneficial.”

“The local clerks should be allowed to do training of their election workers over the time period that is between elections. There is a lot of stress in the training that is done at the last minute before the election. If the clerks were allowed to present the material over several classes on the local level covering all the rules and running mock elections, the workers would be much more comfortable when the big day comes. There isn’t any funding at the local level for this type of training.”

“My new clerk training was too far out. It was in March. As a new clerk, no training, no QVF data entries. Maybe more dates for new clerk training. I am looking forward to continuing education, for clerks.”

Figure 4Local officials’ assessments of training for poll workers and clerks

33%

31%

7%

34%

33%

5%9%

6%

46%

32%

4%

Poll worker training by the County

Continuing education for clerks

by the State

Initial training for new clerks by the State

11%1%

2%2%

17%

5%

Somewhat effective

Neither effective nor ineffective

Very ineffective

Somewhat ineffective

Don't know

Very effective

22%



Widespread support overall for State plans to update voting equipment, especially among clerksAs described earlier, the State of Michigan has launched an initiative requiring cities and townships to update their voting equipment by August 2018. The State plans to provide funding to cover most or all of the initial costs, with cities and townships paying for any remaining cost beyond the State’s contribution, and for service and maintenance of the equipment after five years. When the MPPS asked about these plans for updating voting equipment, it found that two-thirds (67%) of local officials overall either somewhat (31%) or strongly (36%) support the State’s initiative (see Figure 5a). By contrast, 8% somewhat oppose the plan, and only 3% strongly oppose it. This widespread support for modernizing equipment comes at a time when, nationally, voting systems have come under scrutiny for their vulnerability to hacking and other interference.15 And although, as shown back in Figure 3a, only 17% of local officials overall report that election equipment failures or malfunctions are a problem for their jurisdictions, at the same time only about a third (36%) say this is not a problem at all, which may help explain support for new machines across the board.

Clerks express significantly stronger support for this State initiative than do mayors, supervisors and managers. Among township clerks, 81% support the State’s plan for updating voting equipment compared with 54% of township supervisors and managers (see Figure 5b). Meanwhile, only 6% of township clerks oppose the plan, compared to 18% of non-clerk township officials. Among cities, 84% of clerks express support compared with 66% of mayors and managers.

Figure 5aLocal officials’ support for and opposition to State of Michigan initiative requiring updates to voting equipment

Figure 5bLocal officials’ support for and opposition to State of Michigan initiative requiring updates to voting equipment, by jurisdiction type and official’s position

Somewhat support

Neither support nor oppose

Strongly oppose

Somewhat oppose

Don't know

Strongly support

36%

31%

2%

3%

19%

8%

63%

21%

9%

26%

40%

8%

23%

55%

26%

11%

25%

24%

30%

12%

1%

Township clerks


and managers

City mayors and

managers

City clerks

4%2% 4%

6% 1% 1%5%

Somewhat support


Strongly oppose

Somewhat oppose

Don't know

Strongly support

2%

11


Clerks more positive than other local officials regarding costs and expected benefits of the State’s plans for updating voting equipment When it comes to evaluating particular aspects of the State’s plan to update voting equipment, local officials overall generally express support on both issues of cost and of effectiveness, although as seen below, this masks important differences between clerks and non-clerks. Overall, a majority (57%) of local township and city officials agree that the new equipment will be worth any additional costs their jurisdiction will incur, while only 17% disagree (see Figure 6a). And a similar majority (58%) agree that the State’s approach to sharing the costs is appropriate. A somewhat smaller percentage (48%) believe the new voting equipment will significantly improve their city’s or township’s election administration, although only 17% disagree. And worth noting, in open-ended comments about the change to voting equipment, many officials who oppose the policy refer to it as an unfunded mandate and are unhappy to be forced to change machines when they feel their current equipment is working well for them.

Voices Across Michigan Quotes from local leaders about plans to update voting equipment

“I am so glad that we are getting new voting equipment. My current equipment has given our township trouble in past elections.”

“I believe the State should be responsible to upgrade and maintain the election equipment. Forcing the local unit of government to share in these costs is just another unfunded mandate.”

“Small community that always had two machines. Now with new equipment the state will only pay for 1 machine because of our size. Now we have to come up with [redacted] to cover other machine.”

“I feel the state should have gone with one vendor so that the entire state was on the same system. Less error and much easier to audit if all on the same system.”

“Unhappy with the County Clerk’s decision to overrule our jurisdictions within county on the purchase of election equipment.”

“My only concern with new voting equipment in the Township is the age of the polling location and lack of wall outlets and internet capability to handle the requirements of new voting equipment.”

“I view the new equipment as very positive, however, the cost for an AVCB tabulator would be a hardship for the township to fund.

“It is definitely time for election equipment to be updated.”

Figure 6aLocal officials’ opinions on State of Michigan initiative requiring updates to voting equipment

28%

30%

16%

20%

28%

11%

29%

6%

25%

32%

4%

New equipment will be worth

new costs

New equipment will significantly improve jurisdiction's election

administration

The State’s cost-sharing approach is appropriate

11%

23%

13%

5%6%8%

Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Don't know

Strongly agree

4%



As with overall support for the State’s initiative on voting equipment, clerks also tend to express significantly more agree-ment with detailed aspects of the plans, compared with mayors, supervisors, and managers. For example, 70% of township clerks and 72% of city clerks believe the new costs sustained by the jurisdiction will be worth the money, compared with 47% of other township officials and 53% of other city officials (see Figure 6b).

When it comes to approval of the State’s approach to cost-shar-ing for the new equipment, clerks are again more likely to say that it is appropriate, with 74% of both township and city clerks reporting that they agree (see Figure 6c). By contrast, non-clerk officials are a bit more skeptical about how much the State is contributing. Among township supervisors and managers, 47% agree the State’s approach to cost-sharing is appropriate, while 29% disagree. And among mayors and city managers, 45% agree with the approach while almost a third (31%) disagree.

In addition, as shown in Figure 6d, most township clerks (64%) and city clerks (67%) believe the new voting equipment will significantly improve their jurisdiction’s election administra-tion, compared with substantially fewer township supervisors and managers (38%) or mayors and city managers (41%).

Figure 6bLocal officials’ opinions on whether new voting equipment is worth new costs to the jurisdiction, by jurisdiction type and official’s position

Figure 6cLocal officials’ opinions on whether the State’s cost-sharing approach is appropriate, by jurisdiction type and official’s position

Figure 6dLocal officials’ opinions on whether new voting equipment will significantly improve election administration in the jurisdiction, by jurisdiction type and official’s position

47%

25%

15%

16%

37%

12%

29%

40%

30%

6%

19%

23%

18%

29%

15%

3%

Township clerks


and managers

City mayors and

managers

City clerks

2%5%10%

3% 3%3%6%

Somewhat agree


Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Don't know

Strongly agree

4%

47%

27%

10%

15%

30%

10%

21%

18%

42%

32%

6%

13%

19%

20%

27%

17%

2%

Township clerks


and managers

City mayors and

managers

City clerks

4%5%12%

3% 6%6%6%

Somewhat agree


Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Don't know

Strongly agree

37%

30%

22%

10%

31%

4%

13%

36%

33%

31%

7%

22%

30%

14%

24%

14%

3%

Township clerks


and managers

City mayors and

managers

City clerks

3%7%

11%

1% 6%5%5%

Somewhat agree


Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Don't know

Strongly agree

13


Election reform: General opposition overall to the idea of county governments taking over election administration for local jurisdictionsMichigan has one of the most decentralized election administration systems in the nation, and, as noted back in Figure 3a, some local governments find that the costs of conducting elections are a burden on their jurisdiction’s budget. One possible reform to address these issues would be to have Michigan county governments conduct elections on behalf of those local governments that might wish to cede responsibility to them. When Michigan township and city officials overall were asked whether—if given the option—they would support or oppose having their county administer their jurisdiction’s elections, only a small percentage were interested in the idea. Overall, less than a quarter (23%) of township and city officials said they would strongly (9%) or somewhat (14%) support having the county administer elections on their behalf (see Figure 7a). Meanwhile, 57% oppose the idea, with 42% expressing strong opposition.

Opposition to having county government run local elections is highest among township supervisors and managers, with 68% opposing the idea, including 52% who strongly oppose it (see Figure 7b). Township clerks are also more likely to oppose (55%) than support the idea (25%). However, among cities there is slightly more interest in the idea, with 30% of mayors, city managers, and clerks supporting county-administered elections, if given the option. This includes 17% of city clerks who strongly support the option. Yet opposition among all city officials combined (42%) still outweighs support (30%).

Voices Across Michigan Quotes from local leaders regarding the option of County government administering the jurisdiction’s elections

“Michigan does a great job of conducting pristine elections because they are administered at the local level with many checks and balances including duties that must be performed by two people of different party affiliations, a local receiving team that ensures recountability and a bipartisan county board of canvassers that reviews the work of every precinct in the county.”

“It would be too hard for a county to handle the volume of voters without increasing opportunities for fraud and incurring long waiting lines and increased costs.”

“County administration would allow smaller cost per voter as duplication of facilities could be reduced.”

“My career started in [another state], where the county handled everything with elections (and also assessing). I believe this model worked out very well. The City did pay a portion of the cost of the elections, but it was worth not needing to worry about having staff trained in elections.”

Figure 7aLocal officials’ support for and opposition to having the county government administer their jurisdiction’s elections

Figure 7bLocal officials’ support for and opposition to having the county government administer their jurisdiction’s elections, by jurisdiction type and official’s position

Somewhat support


Strongly oppose

Somewhat oppose

Don't know

Strongly support14%

15%

5% 9%

15%

42%

17%

13%

11%

33%

20%

10%

20%

15%

29%

19%

11%

14%

15%

40%

15%

12%

6%10%

16%

Township clerks


and managers

City mayors and

managers

City clerks

5% 4%

52%

7%7%

Somewhat support


Strongly oppose

Somewhat oppose

Don't know

Strongly support



Election reform: Broad support for relaxing absentee voting rules, strengthening registration drive and voter ID regulation, as well as for syncing voter lists nationwideThe MPPS also asked local officials about a range of other possible reforms to election administration in the state. Overall, as shown in Figure 8a, there is relatively strong support for allowing absentee voting with no reason required of voters (66%), as well as for synchronizing voter lists with other states (50%), stricter regulation of voter registration drives (49%), and stricter voter ID requirements (46%).

By far the strongest support is for changing absentee voting rules. Currently, Michigan requires voters who wish to submit an absentee ballot to meet certain criteria (e.g., age, disability, absence, etc.) or else they must vote at the polls on Election Day.16 When local officials were asked whether they would support or oppose allowing absentee voting with no excuse required, two-thirds (66%) express support, including 43% who strongly support it, compared with 19% of officials who oppose such a change.

There are mixed feelings among local officials about other possible election reforms, such as pre-registration of 16-year-olds (e.g., when they get their driver’s licenses), where overall 39% support the change, but 27% oppose it. Similarly, when asked whether employers should be required to provide people time off to vote, 30% overall indicate support, but 29% oppose the idea.

Meanwhile, city and township officials express widespread opposition to same-day voter registration on Election Day (66%) as well as to on-site early voting prior to Election Day (50%).

Figure 8aLocal officials’ support for and opposition to other potential reforms to election administration in Michigan

5%

8% 11% 23%

25%

26%

14%

31%

14% 16%

15%19% 17%

12%

6%44%

13% 14% 25%

7% 10% 20%

17%

43%

Strongly supportSomewhat supportStrongly oppose Somewhat oppose

Allow same-day voter registration (on Election Day)

Require employers to provide time off to vote

On-site early voting (before Election Day)

Pre-registration of 16-year-olds(e.g., when they get their driver's licenses)

25%5%

Stricter regulation of voter registration drives (e.g., volunteer certification required)

27% 22%5% 5%

22% 11%

Stricter voter ID requirements

Synchronize Michigan voterlists with other states’ lists

Absentee voting with no excuse required

Note: responses for “neither support nor oppose” and “don’t know” not shown

15


While a majority of township officials support relaxing absentee ballot rules, even more city officials express support for allowing absentee voting with no excuse required. Nearly all city clerks (93%) support absentee ballot voting with no excuse, with three-quarters supporting it strongly (see Figure 8b). And by a wide margin, city mayors and managers also support (79%) this reform, while just 13% oppose it. Township officials also support absentee ballot reform, with levels of support among township clerks (70%) far exceeding opposition.

The gap between city and township opinion on reform is widest when it comes to the idea of on-site early voting before Election Day. As shown in Figure 8c, 55% of township clerks and 53% of township supervisors and managers oppose on-site early voting in their jurisdictions. Conversely, 51% of city clerks and 49% of city mayors and managers support it.

Figure 8bLocal officials’ support for and opposition to absentee voting with no excuse required, by jurisdiction type and official’s position

Figure 8cLocal officials’ support for and opposition to on-site early voting, by jurisdiction type and official’s position

Strongly oppose

22% 48%

36%

75%

47%32%9%

18%2%

1%

4%

20%14%12%

93%9%7%Township

clerks


and managers

City mayors and managers

City clerks

Somewhat supportSomewhat oppose Strongly support

Strongly oppose

15% 14%

13%

30%14%20%

22%27%17%

21%

13%

13%21%32%

18%37%Township clerks


and managers


City clerks






Meanwhile, majorities of both city and township officials oppose allowing same-day voter registration, with opposition stronger among clerks than mayors, supervisors, and managers. Among clerks, 75% from townships and 71% from cities oppose this reform. Among non-clerks, 65% of township supervisors and managers oppose the idea, as do 49% of city mayors and managers (see Figure 8d). On the other hand, almost a third (29%) of city mayors and managers support allowing same-day voter registration.

See Appendix C for support for and opposition to all eight potential reforms broken out by jurisdiction type and official’s position.

It is also important to note that many types of election reform have become polarized between the national political parties, with issues such as stricter voter ID requirements more recently being associated with Republican support,17 and same-day voter registration being associated with Democratic support.18 Not surprisingly, the MPPS finds some significant differences in opinion on election reforms when broken down by party ID, but at the same time, also finds areas with more common ground. In terms of significant differences, 57% of Republican local officials support stricter regulation of voter registration drives, compared with just 30% of Democrats. Similarly, 56% of Republicans support stricter voter ID requirements, while just 29% of Democrats agree. On the other hand, majorities of both Republicans (61%) and Democrats (73%) support absentee voting with no excuse required. And on the question of synchronizing Michigan voter registration lists with other states, both Republicans and Democrats are far more likely to offer support (52% and 48%, respectively), than opposition (11% in both cases).

See Appendix D for responses of support and opposition to all eight potential reforms by partisan identification.

Figure 8dLocal officials’ support for and opposition to allow same-day voter registration, by jurisdiction type and official’s position

Strongly oppose

9% 3%

6%

8%20%51%

12%17%22%

11%

27%

10%24%41%

22%53%Township clerks


and managers


City clerks



17


ConclusionThe overwhelming majority of local leaders across Michigan (91%) express very high confidence in how their jurisdictions administer elections, and 80% are similarly confident in the ability of their county clerks’ offices to administer recounts accurately, if needed. By and large, these views are very positive about one of the most important services provided by local governments.

Nonetheless, elections are complex undertakings and present many opportunities for things to go wrong, any of which could undermine the accuracy of the process. When asked about nine different types of problems their jurisdictions may have experienced recently when running elections, the most common problems identified are difficulty in recruiting poll workers with the necessary skills, cited by 29% of local officials, or even just recruiting enough poll workers at all, regardless of their skill levels (27%). In addition, the costs required to administer elections are cited as problematic by 24%. None of the other six types of problems asked about were cited by more than 17% of jurisdictions, overall.

On the other hand, Michigan’s largest jurisdictions—where about 44% of the state’s residents live—report problems more frequently when compared to these statewide averages. Among these largest jurisdictions, 48% cite problems recruiting skilled poll workers, 24% report voting equipment failures, 18% say voters face long wait times, 17% identify errors committed by their poll workers, and 15% report disturbances happening at their polling places. These are serious challenges for Michigan’s local governments to face, and their potential impact should not be underestimated.

Looking ahead, local leaders express a range of opinions regarding potential reforms to election administration in Michigan. Out of eight potential reforms presented to them, five garnered more support than opposition: allowing broader absentee voting with no excuses required, synchronizing Michigan’s voter registration lists with those from other states, strengthening regulation of voter registration drives, enacting stricter voter ID requirements, and pre-registering 16 year olds when they get their driver’s license. Meanwhile, three of the eight potential reforms produced more opposition than support: allowing on-site early voting before Election Day, requiring employers to provide time-off for voting, and allowing same-day voter registration on Election Day.



Notes1. James, T. S. (2016, November 5). The US election won’t be rigged – but the system has to be fixed. The Conversation. Retrieved

from https://theconversation.com/the-us-election-wont-be-rigged-but-the-system-has-to-be-fixed-67679

2. Michigan Secretary of State. (2016, November 28). 2016 Michigan election results. Retrieved from http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/2016GEN_CENR.html

3. Alter, C. (2016, December 13). Detroit voting machine failures were widespread on Election Day. Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://time.com/4599886/detroit-voting-machine-failures-were-widespread-on-election-day/

4. Livengood, C., & Kurth, J. (2016, December 5). Half of Detroit votes may be ineligible for recount. Detroit News. Retrieved from http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/05/recount-unrecountable/95007392/

5. Wolf, R., & McCoy, K. (2016, November 8). Voters in key states endured long lines, equipment failures. USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/08/voting-polls-election-day/93201770/

6. Perlroth, N., Wines, M., & Rosenberg, M. (2017, September 1). Russian election hacking efforts, wider than previously known, draw little scrutiny. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/russia-election-hacking.html

7. Johnson, R. (2017, September 29). Voting like it’s 1999: Va. jurisdictions to back up ballots on paper. Hubbard Radio. Retrieved from https://wtop.com/virginia/2017/09/voting-like-1999-va-jurisdictions-back-ballots-paper/

8. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (2017, July 21). Election costs: What states pay. Washington, D.C.: NCSL. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/election-costs.aspx

9. Gray, K. (2017, January 24). State of Michigan selects vendors for new voting machines. Detroit Free Press. Retrieved from http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/24/state-michigan-selects-vendors-new-voting-machines/97006862/

10. Michigan Secretary of State. (2017). Voting system purchase resources and instructions for Michigan’s election officials. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1633_11976_78903---,00.html

11. Michigan Secretary of State. (2016, November 28). Secretary Johnson announces next-generation voting equipment [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/SecJohnsonAnnounce_549600_7.pdf

12. U.S. Election Assistance Commission. (2017). Election administration and voting survey 2016 comprehensive report: A report to the 115th Congress. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Retrieved from https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/2016_EAVS_Comprehensive_Report.pdf

13. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (June 2016). Election administration at state and local levels. Washington, D.C.: NCSL. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/election-administration-at-state-and-local-levels.aspx

14. Michigan Secretary of State. (2017). Michigan’s elections system structure overview. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1633_8716-27476--,00.html

15. Shepardson, D., & Volz, D. (2017, September 22). Wisconsin, Ohio, California among states targeted by Russian hackers in 2016 race. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-usa-election-russia/wisconsin-ohio-california-among-states-targeted-by-russian-hackers-in-2016-race-idUSKCN1BX2WS

19


16. Michigan Bureau of Elections. (2017, February). Election officials manual [chap. 6]. Lansing, MI: Michigan Bureau of Elections. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/VI_Michigans_Absentee_Voting_Process_265992_7.pdf

17. Wilson, R. (2016, July 19). GOP platform calls for tough voter ID laws. The Hill. Retrieved from http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/288302-gop-platform-calls-for-tough-voter-id-laws

18. Carney, J. (2015, May 4). Dems push for same-day voter registration. The Hill. Retrieved from http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/240960-dems-press-for-same-day-voter-registration

Survey Background and MethodologyThe MPPS is a biannual survey of each of Michigan’s 1,856 units of general purpose local government, conducted once each spring and fall. While the spring surveys consist of multiple batteries of the same “core” fiscal, budgetary and operational policy questions and are designed to build-up a multi-year time-series of data, the fall surveys focus on various other topics.

In the Spring 2017 iteration, surveys were sent by the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP) via the internet and hardcopy to top elected and appointed officials (including county administrators and board chairs; city mayors and managers; village presidents, clerks, and managers; and township supervisors, clerks, and managers) from all 83 counties, 280 cities, 253 villages, and 1,240 townships in the state of Michigan. In addition, an oversample of township and city clerks received just the battery of questions related to election administration, to ensure these officials had the opportunity to weigh in specifically on this topic.

The Spring 2017 wave was conducted from April 3 – June 2, 2017. A total of 1,372 jurisdictions in the Spring 2017 wave returned valid surveys (70 counties, 232 cities, 170 villages, and 900 townships), resulting in a 74% response rate by unit. A total of 881 clerks returned valid surveys (678 township clerks and 203 city clerks), resulting in a 58% response rate among clerks. The margin of error for the survey for the survey as a whole is +/- 1.34%. The key relationships discussed in the above report are statistically significant at the p<.05 level or below, unless otherwise specified. Missing responses are not included in the tabulations, unless otherwise specified. Some report figures may not add to 100% due to rounding within response categories. Quantitative data are weighted to account for non-response. “Voices Across Michigan” verbatim responses, when included, may have been edited for clarity and brevity. Contact CLOSUP staff for more information.

Detailed tables of the data analyzed in this report broken down three ways—by jurisdiction type (county, city, township, or village); by population size of the respondent’s community, and by the region of the respondent’s jurisdiction—are available online at the MPPS homepage: http://closup.umich.edu/mpps.php.

The survey responses presented here are those of local Michigan officials, while further analysis represents the views of the authors. Neither necessarily reflects the views of the University of Michigan, or of other partners in the MPPS.



AppendicesAppendix ALocal officials’ assessments of problems with election administration in their jurisdictions, by jurisdiction type and official’s position

Township Clerks

Township Supervisors

and Managers

City ClerksCity

Mayors and Managers

Total


Not a problem at all 33% 33% 17% 25% 32%

Not much of a problem 34% 41% 31% 36% 38%

Somewhat of a problem 25% 22% 32% 33% 25%

A significant problem 6% 2% 20% 5% 4%

Don't know 1% 2% 1% 1% 1%






Don't know 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Cost on jurisdiction’s budget





Don't know 2% 3% 1% 1% 2%

Election equipment failures/malfunctions





Don't know 2% 3% 1% 2% 2%






Don't know 5% 11% 3% 9% 8%






Don't know 2% 4% 1% 1% 3%

21


Township Clerks


and Managers

City ClerksCity

Mayors and Managers

Total






Don’t know 1% 2% 1% 1% 1%






Don’t know 2% 5% 1% 2% 3%






Don’t know 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%



Appendix BLocal officials’ assessments of problems with election administration in their jurisdictions, by jurisdiction size

<1,500 1,500-5,000 5,001-1,0000

10,001-30,000 >30,000 Total


Not a problem at all 35% 37% 26% 14% 11% 32%

Not much of a problem 37% 39% 39% 33% 39% 38%

Somewhat of a problem 22% 21% 32% 42% 39% 25%

A significant problem 5% 2% 3% 7% 9% 4%

Don't know 1% 1% 0% 4% 2% 1%






Don't know 1% 2% 0% 4% 2% 1%

Cost on jurisdiction’s budget





Don't know 1% 3% 0% 3% 4% 2%

Election equipment failures/malfunctions





Don't know 1% 3% 1% 4% 4% 2%






Don't know 8% 8% 6% 16% 8% 8%






Don't know 3% 3% 2% 5% 4% 3%

23


<1,500 1,500-5,000 5,001-1,0000

10,001-30,000 >30,000 Total






Don’t know 1% 2% 0% 3% 2% 1%






Don’t know 3% 4% 2% 6% 4% 3%






Don’t know 1% 2% 0% 4% 2% 1%



Appendix CLocal officials’ support for and opposition to other potential reforms to election administration in Michigan, by jurisdiction type and official’s position

Township Clerks


and Managers

City ClerksCity

Mayors and Managers

Total

Synchronize Michigan voter lists with other states’ lists

Strongly support 36% 18% 52% 23% 25%

Somewhat support 22% 26% 24% 31% 25%

Neither support nor oppose 25% 32% 12% 27% 29%

Somewhat oppose 4% 6% 6% 8% 5%

Strongly oppose 5% 6% 2% 2% 5%

Don’t know 7% 13% 3% 10% 10%

Pre-registration of 16-year-olds (e.g., when they get their driver’s licenses)






Don’t know 3% 5% 4% 5% 4%







Don’t know 6% 8% 6% 5% 6%







Don’t know 3% 5% 1% 4% 4%







Don’t know 1% 2% 1% 0% 1%

25


Township Clerks


and Managers

City ClerksCity

Mayors and Managers

Total







Don’t know 2% 4% 1% 3% 3%







Don’t know 2% 3% 1% 2% 2%







Don’t know 3% 3% 4% 3% 3%



Appendix DLocal officials’ support for and opposition to other potential reforms to election administration in Michigan, by official’s partisan identification

Republicans Independents Democrats Total

Synchronize Michigan voter lists with other states’ lists

Strongly support 25% 23% 24% 25%

Somewhat support 27% 25% 24% 25%

Neither support nor oppose 28% 31% 32% 29%

Somewhat oppose 5% 7% 7% 5%

Strongly oppose 6% 3% 4% 5%

Don’t know 10% 11% 9% 10%

Pre-registration of 16-year-olds (e.g., when they get their driver’s licenses)






Don’t know 4% 5% 2% 4%







Don’t know 6% 6% 4% 6%







Don’t know 4% 4% 3% 4%







Don’t know 1% 1% 1% 1%

27


Republicans Independents Democrats Total







Don’t know 3% 3% 2% 3%







Don’t know 2% 1% 0% 2%







Don’t know 4% 1% 1% 3%



Previous MPPS reportsMichigan local government officials report complex mix of improvement and decline in fiscal health, but with overall trend moving slowly upward (October 2017)

Michigan local leaders want their citizens to play a larger role in policymaking, but report declining engagement (August 2017)

Michigan local leaders’ views on state preemption and how to share policy authority (June 2017)

Improving communication, building trust are seen as keys to fixing relationships between local jurisdictions and the State government (May 2017)

Local leaders more likely to support than oppose Michigan’s Emergency Manager law, but strongly favor reforms (February 2017)

Local government leaders’ views on drinking water and water supply infrastructure in Michigan communities (November 2016)

Michigan local leaders say property tax appeals are common, disagree with ‘dark stores’ assessing (October 2016)

Local officials say Michigan’s system of funding local government is broken, and seek State action to fix it (September 2016)

Michigan local governments report first declines in fiscal health trend since 2010 (August 2016)

Michigan local leaders’ doubts continue regarding the state’s direction (July 2016)

Hospital access primary emergency medical concern among many Michigan local officials (July 2016)

Firefighting services in Michigan: challenges and approaches among local governments (June 2016)

Most local officials are satisfied with law enforcement services, but almost half from largest jurisdictions say their funding is insufficient (April 2016)

Local leaders say police-community relations are good throughout Michigan, but those in large cities are concerned about potential civil unrest over police use-of-force (February 2016)

Report: Responding to budget surplus vs. deficit: the preferences of Michigan’s local leaders and citizens (December 2015)

Michigan’s local leaders concerned about retiree health care costs and their governments’ ability to meet future obligations (October 2015)

Fiscal health rated relatively good for most jurisdictions, but improvement slows and decline continues for many (September 2015)

Confidence in Michigan’s direction declines among state’s local leaders (August 2015)

Michigan local government leaders’ views on private roads (July 2015)

Few Michigan jurisdictions have adopted Complete Streets policies, though many see potential benefits (June 2015)

Michigan local leaders have positive views on relationships with county road agencies, despite some concerns (May 2015)

Michigan local government leaders say transit services are important, but lack of funding discourages their development (April 2015)

Michigan local leaders see need for state and local ethics reform (March 2015)

Local leaders say Michigan road funding needs major increase, but lack consensus on options that would raise the most revenue (February 2015)

Michigan local government leaders’ views on employee pay and benefits (January 2015)

Despite increasingly formal financial management, relatively few Michigan local governments have adopted recommended policies (December 2014)

Most Michigan local officials are satisfied with their privatized services, but few seek to expand further (November 2014)

Michigan local governments finally pass fiscal health tipping point overall, but one in four still report decline (October 2014)

Beyond the coast, a tenuous relationship between Michigan local governments and the Great Lakes (September 2014)

Confidence in Michigan’s direction holds steady among state’s local leaders (August 2014)

Wind power as a community issue in Michigan (July 2014)

Fracking as a community issue in Michigan (June 2014)

The impact of tax-exempt properties on Michigan local governments (March 2014)

Michigan’s local leaders generally support Detroit bankruptcy filing despite some concerns (February 2014)

Michigan local governments increasingly pursue placemaking for economic development (January 2014)

Views on right-to-work legislation among Michigan’s local government leaders (December 2013)

29


Michigan local governments continue seeking, and receiving, union concessions (October 2013)

Michigan local government fiscal health continues gradual improvement, but smallest jurisdictions lagging (September 2013)

Local leaders evaluate state policymaker performance and whether Michigan is on the right track (August 2013)

Trust in government among Michigan’s local leaders and citizens (July 2013)

Citizen engagement in the view of Michigan’s local government leaders (May 2013)

Beyond trust in government: government trust in citizens? (March 2013)

Local leaders support reforming Michigan’s system of funding local government (January 2013)

Local leaders support eliminating Michigan’s Personal Property Tax if funds are replaced, but distrust state follow-through (November 2012)

Michigan’s local leaders satisfied with union negotiations (October 2012)

Michigan’s local leaders are divided over the state’s emergency manager law (September 2012)

Fiscal stress continues for hundreds of Michigan jurisdictions, but conditions trend in positive direction overall (September 2012)

Michigan’s local leaders more positive about Governor Snyder’s performance, more optimistic about the state’s direction (July 2012)

Data-driven decision-making in Michigan local government (June 2012)

State funding incentives increase local collaboration, but also raise concerns (March 2012)

Local officials react to state policy innovation tying revenue sharing to dashboards and incentive funding (January 2012)

MPPS finds fiscal health continues to decline across the state, though some negative trends eased in 2011 (October 2011)

Public sector unions in Michigan: their presence and impact according to local government leaders (August 2011)

Despite increased approval of state government performance, Michigan’s local leaders are concerned about the state’s direction (August 2011)

Local government and environmental leadership: views of Michigan’s local leaders (July 2011)

Local leaders are mostly positive about intergovernmental cooperation and look to expand efforts (March 2011)

Local government leaders say most employees are not overpaid, though some benefits may be too generous (February 2011)

Local government leaders say economic gardening can help grow their economies (November 2010)

Local governments struggle to cope with fiscal, service, and staffing pressures (August 2010)

Michigan local governments actively promote U.S. Census participation (August 2010)

Fiscal stimulus package mostly ineffective for local economies (May 2010)

Fall 2009 key findings report: educational, economic, and workforce development issues at the local level (April 2010)

Local government officials give low marks to the performance of state officials and report low trust in Lansing (March 2010)

Local government fiscal and economic development issues (October 2009)

All MPPS reports are available online at: http://closup.umich.edu/mpps.php

The Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy (CLOSUP), housed at the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, conducts and supports applied policy research designed to inform state, local, and urban policy issues. Through integrated research, teaching, and outreach involving academic researchers, students, policymakers and practitioners, CLOSUP seeks to foster understanding of today’s state and local policy problems, and to find effective solutions to those problems.

web: www.closup.umich.eduemail: [email protected]: @closupphone: 734-647-4091

University of Michigan

Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy

Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy

Joan and Sanford Weill Hall

735 S. State Street, Suite 5310

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-3091

Regents of the University of Michigan

Michael J. BehmGrand BlancMark J. Bernstein Ann ArborShauna Ryder DiggsGrosse PointeDenise Ilitch Bingham FarmsAndrea Fischer NewmanAnn ArborAndrew C. RichnerGrosse Pointe ParkRon WeiserAnn ArborKatherine E. WhiteAnn ArborMark S. Schlissel(ex officio)

the center for local, state, and urban policy michigan...

Documents