WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 529

Relating generally to liability insurance coverage for Board of Education

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Ryan Weld

Michigan SB 529 bans fixed per-signature pay for paid petition circulators, targeting fraud in initiative, nominating, qualifying, and recall petitions.

To House Finance
#boardsandcommissions #education(k12) #insurance
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 529

Note: multiple distinct bills numbered “SB 529” appear in the provided materials (California tax code changes for 529 college-savings deductions; Michigan petition-circulator/Election Law changes; Maryland professional‑engineer exam changes; and others). Because your subject and classification reference Ballot Issues / Elections, the summary below focuses on the Michigan SB 529 that would amend Michigan Election Law to restrict how petition circulators are paid. If you want a summary of one of the other SB 529 versions instead (e.g., the California ScholarShare tax deduction bill), tell me which one.

SB 529 (Michigan) — Prohibit pay‑per‑signature compensation for petition circulators

Status: (S) Died in Process (did not become law)
Introduced (per committee report): September 4, 2025
Sponsor: Senator Jeremy Moss
Subject: Ballot issues / elections — petition circulation

Main purpose / intent

To reduce incentives for fraudulent or deceptive petition‑gathering practices by banning compensation of paid petition circulators at a fixed rate per signature or per completed signature sheet. The bill aims to strengthen the integrity of initiative, referendum, nominating, qualifying, and recall petition processes.

Key provisions

  • Adds new statutory sections (proposed MCL 168.483b, 168.544g, 168.590i, 168.957a) that:
    • Prohibit any individual employed to circulate:
    • ballot initiative petitions,
    • nominating petitions,
    • qualifying petitions (including for candidates without party affiliation),
    • recall petitions
    • from being paid a fixed rate or amount for each signature collected or for each completed signature sheet.
  • Applies to paid circulators (i.e., “individual employed to circulate”).
  • Does not, in this text, create a new civil penalty or fee tied directly to this prohibition (other related bills in the package address reading petition summaries or signature duplications and do include penalties).

Who would be affected

  • Paid petition circulators and firms that contract them (companies that run signature drives).
  • Sponsors of ballot initiatives, nominating petitions, and recall campaigns who use paid circulators.
  • Political candidates and ballot‑measure proponents who depend on paid signature gathering to meet filing thresholds.
  • Potentially voters indirectly, through changes in petition‑gathering methods and costs.

Rationale and expected effects

  • Rationale cited in committee materials: concerns about large instances of fraudulent signature collection (e.g., estimated tens of thousands of fraudulent signatures discovered in the 2022 gubernatorial nominating petitions) and the belief that per‑signature pay structures create perverse incentives that increase fraud or misrepresentation.
  • Expected effects:
    • Reduce incentive for signature fabrication or careless practices by removing piece‑rate pay.
    • Potentially increase cost or change the business model for signature drives (shift to hourly pay, salaried staff, volunteer drives, or alternative compensation).
    • May reduce the supply of paid circulators or change operational practices of petition operations.

Fiscal impact and enforcement

  • Committee fiscal analyses reported no fiscal impact to state or local government from this prohibition alone.
  • Enforcement mechanism and penalties for violations are not detailed in the text of this provision as provided; related bills in the packet address other petition‑related compliance/penalties.

Procedural / timeline notes

  • The provision was part of a suite of bills (SB 529–531) considered by the Elections and Ethics Committee.
  • Committee materials show the bill was considered but ultimately marked “Died in Process” (S) — it did not become law in the session reflected in the materials.
  • Related measures in the package (e.g., requiring circulators to read petition summaries, limiting duplicate counted signatures) were handled alongside SB 529.

If you want: I can (a) produce a shorter 1‑page fact sheet for petition sponsors explaining operational implications (compliance options, likely costs), (b) summarize the California SB 529 (ScholarShare tax deduction) or other SB 529 variants in your packet, or (c) extract exact statutory language proposed for the Michigan Code sections. Which would you prefer?

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

Sign in to ask a question.