Election-officer offense added to guidelines

Summary#

SB 1198 would amend Michigan’s Code of Criminal Procedure by adding an election-law felony to the list covered by the sentencing-guidelines chapter. The bill’s goal appears to be setting a guidelines classification for certain repeat violations involving military or certain federal officers at an election. It takes effect only if SB 1197 is also enacted.

  • The added entry covers a third or later offense under the cited election-law provision involving unauthorized presence or conduct by military or certain federal officers or members at or during an election.
  • The entry classifies the offense as a Class E felony in the “public trust” category and lists a five-year statutory maximum.
  • This bill adds the offense to the sentencing-guidelines list; it does not amend the underlying election-law provision or set out the sentencing calculation.

What it means for you#

  • People charged with the listed repeat offense: If both bills become law, this offense would be covered by the sentencing-guidelines chapter. The entry lists a five-year maximum; this bill does not say it is changing that maximum.
  • Courts: The offense would have a listed guidelines classification. The bill does not set out how a sentence would be calculated.
  • Other voters and election workers: The bill does not directly change voting procedures, election duties, or rules for military or federal officers.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

  • The bill does not state an appropriation, staffing requirement, fee, or cost estimate.

What is unclear#

  • SB 1197 is not supplied, so its proposed offense, penalty, and definitions cannot be checked. SB 1198 depends on that bill becoming law.
  • The underlying Michigan election-law provision is not supplied, so its current wording and how it defines the covered conduct could not be verified.
  • The bill does not explain how the sentencing-guidelines calculation would apply to this entry or what sentence it might produce.
  • The text gives no start date beyond making this bill’s effect conditional on SB 1197’s enactment.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to include repeat violations involving unauthorized officer presence or conduct at elections in the sentencing-guidelines system.
  • A possible argument for the approach is that a listed classification gives courts a defined guidelines category for this offense.
  • The entry identifies the offense as a third-or-later offense, rather than grouping it with first offenses.

Case against#

  • The bill does not explain how the classification would affect actual sentences, so its practical effect is hard to judge from this text alone.
  • The guidelines entry depends on a separate bill whose contents are not included here; readers cannot assess the full proposed offense and penalty from SB 1198 alone.
  • The bill lists a five-year statutory maximum but does not itself explain whether or how the underlying law sets that maximum.