WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 4602

Elections: voting equipment; control over creating the test deck process; clarify. Amends sec. 794a of 1954 PA 116 (MCL 168.794a).

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Jay DeBoyer and 2 co-sponsors

HB 4602 keeps SOS testing authority but requires test-deck procedures to be transparent and reproducible by local boards, without proprietary or single-vendor control.

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND ETHICS
#elections:electionofficials #elections:votingequipment #stateagencies(existing):state
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 4602

Summary — HB 4602 (Michigan Election Law amendment)

  • Bill number: HB 4602
  • Subject: Elections — voting equipment test procedures (amends MCL 168.794a)
  • Sponsor: Rep. Rachelle Smit (co-sponsors Rep. Fox, Rep. DeBoyer)
  • Introduced/filed: March 12, 2025 (bill text introduced June 10, 2025)
  • House action: Passed House with immediate effect Sept. 9, 2025 (63–41); transmitted Sept. 9, 2025
  • Current status: Referred to Committee on Elections and Ethics (Sept. 11, 2025)

Purpose / intent

HB 4602 clarifies and constrains how voting-equipment "test decks" (sets of marked ballots with predetermined results used to verify voting-system accuracy) are prescribed, created, and used. The bill aims to ensure test-deck procedures are transparent, reproducible by local election officials without proprietary dependencies, and not centralized under a single private vendor.

Key provisions

  • Retains requirement that the secretary of state (SOS) prescribe procedures for preparing test decks and conducting accuracy tests, but adds requirements that those procedures be:
    • Clearly defined and readily understandable;
    • Capable of being replicated by a local board of election commissioners without relying on proprietary systems or nonpublic information;
    • Transparent and reproducible by an individual using the promulgated rules.
  • Explicitly affirms that each appropriate board of election commissioners retains control over creating its own test deck process, subject to SOS-prescribed procedures.
  • Prohibits the secretary of state from:
    • Prohibiting or restricting a local board from using any source to create test decks;
    • Entering agreements that grant exclusive control over creation of test decks to a single vendor/entity;
    • Mandating or permitting centralization of all Michigan ballot information with a single vendor for the purpose of creating test decks.
  • Maintains SOS authority to randomly select and test electronic voting systems prior to elections, and to use test decks prepared under the rules when conducting those tests.
  • Removes outdated 2002 provisions related to development of a uniform state voting system.

Who is affected

  • Local election bodies (county boards of commissioners, city/village legislative bodies, township boards, school district boards) — they retain and are clarified to have authority to create and run test-deck processes.
  • Secretary of State — retains rulemaking and random-testing authority but is restricted from centralizing or delegating exclusive control to a single vendor.
  • Voting-equipment vendors and contractors — restrictions on exclusive statewide control or centralization of ballot data could alter contracting practices.
  • Voters indirectly — impacts how election accuracy checks are performed and where control over test procedures resides.

Fiscal impact

  • The state currently has a single-vendor contract for testing services valued at $2.9 million over five years (through Aug. 2029). HB 4602 would prohibit exclusive contracting/centralization.
  • Potential fiscal effects:
    • Local governments that now rely on the state contract (which they may use at no cost) could face additional costs if they procure independent testing services.
    • State costs could decline if the SOS cancels the single contract, or increase if the state adds multiple vendors or modifies contracting.
  • Exact impacts will depend on subsequent contracting choices by the SOS and local jurisdictions.

Procedural / timeline notes

  • Passed the Michigan House (immediate effect granted on passage). Now pending consideration by the Committee on Elections and Ethics (next steps would include committee hearings, possible amendment, and Senate floor consideration).

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.