Michigan election protection ordinance: A strategic implementation guide¶
Michigan's constitutional framework strongly supports municipal election protection ordinances prohibiting city resources from assisting armed federal personnel near polling places. As a definitively home rule state with robust constitutional protections for local authority, Michigan charter cities possess broad powers to direct municipal police departments and allocate city resources—powers directly applicable to enforcing 18 U.S.C. § 592. Three cities stand out as optimal launch targets: East Lansing (currently Michigan's only municipality on the DOJ sanctuary list), Ann Arbor (designated an ACLU "Freedom City"), and Ferndale (LGBTQ civil rights hub). A strong coalition infrastructure already exists through Promote the Vote Michigan's network of 40+ organizations with established election protection programming.
Section 1: Legal battlefield analysis¶
Michigan is definitively a home rule state¶
Michigan's status as a home rule state is firmly established in both constitutional law and judicial precedent dating to the 1908 constitution. The Michigan Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this principle:
Wayne Co v. Hathcock (471 Mich 445, 2004): "Michigan is a home rule state, in which local governments are vested with general constitutional authority to act on all matters of local concern not forbidden by state law."
This was reaffirmed in Hackel v. Macomb Co Bd of Comm'rs (2025), confirming that the home rule doctrine remains the operative legal framework. Notably, Judge Thomas Cooley of the Michigan Supreme Court was a prominent early proponent of the "inherent right of local self-government" doctrine in 1871, representing a counterpoint to Dillon's Rule.
Article VII of the Michigan Constitution grants expansive municipal powers¶
Three provisions in Article VII (Local Government) provide the constitutional foundation for election protection ordinances:
Section 22 (Charters, Resolutions, Ordinances) grants the core authority:
"Each such city and village shall have power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns, property and government, subject to the constitution and law. No enumeration of powers granted to cities and villages in this constitution shall limit or restrict the general grant of authority conferred by this section."
Section 34 (Liberal Construction) requires courts to favor local authority:
"The provisions of this constitution and law concerning counties, townships, cities and villages shall be liberally construed in their favor. Powers granted to counties and townships by this constitution and by law shall include those fairly implied and not prohibited by this constitution."
Section 21 confirms cities' independent taxation and regulatory powers. Together, these provisions create what legal scholars recognize as one of the nation's strongest home rule frameworks.
MCL 117.4j provides comprehensive ordinance authority¶
The Home Rule City Act translates constitutional powers into statutory authority. MCL 117.4j(3) states:
"For the exercise of all municipal powers in the management and control of municipal property and in the administration of the municipal government, whether such powers be expressly enumerated or not; for any act to advance the interests of the city, the good government and prosperity of the municipality and its inhabitants and through its regularly constituted authority to pass all laws and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns subject to the constitution and general laws of this state."
MCL 117.4i(j) specifically authorizes enforcement of "police, sanitary, and other ordinances that are not in conflict with the general laws." MCL 117.4e grants explicit authority over police stations and public property.
Charter cities versus general law cities¶
All Michigan cities now fall under a single classification—Home Rule Cities—under the Home Rule City Act. By 2024, 277 cities and 46 villages had adopted home rule charters. The critical distinction:
- Charter cities can frame, adopt, and amend their own charters and exercise powers "whether such powers be expressly enumerated or not"
- General law villages (207 of 253) operate under more limited statutory constraints
- Counties generally lack general ordinance-making authority—only Wayne and Macomb have adopted home rule charters
For this project, charter cities possess the most robust authority to enact ordinances directing police resource allocation.
No existing Michigan law explicitly preempts this ordinance type¶
The preemption landscape is favorable. Michigan has no statewide sanctuary city ban:
- House Resolution 19 (January 2025) declared sanctuary communities ineligible for additional state funding—but resolutions are non-binding policy statements
- HB 4342 (2025) proposes prohibiting sanctuary policies but remains pending
- Prior bills (HB 4105, HB 4334 in 2017) died in committee
Crucially, no Michigan statute preempts local ordinances regarding police cooperation with or resource allocation related to federal law enforcement operations. The field remains largely unoccupied by state law.
Cities with existing sanctuary-type policies include Ann Arbor and Detroit. The Department of Homeland Security listed several jurisdictions as "sanctuary" in 2025: Ann Arbor, East Lansing, Oakland, Wayne, Kalamazoo, Wexford, Kent, and Washtenaw counties.
For analogous preemption examples, firearms regulation (MCL 123.1102) and labor standards (Public Act 105 of 2015) show Michigan can preempt local authority—but has not done so for police cooperation with federal authorities in election contexts.
18 U.S.C. § 592 alignment strengthens the ordinance¶
18 U.S.C. § 592 provides the federal foundation:
"Whoever, being an officer of the Army or Navy, or other person in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, orders, brings, keeps, or has under his authority or control any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both..."
A municipal ordinance aligned with this prohibition can be characterized as implementing rather than conflicting with federal law—a critical distinction under the Supremacy Clause. Related federal protections include 18 U.S.C. §§ 593 (armed forces intimidation), 594 (voter intimidation), and 595 (government employee interference).
Michigan case law favors municipal ordinances¶
City of Detroit v. Qualls (434 Mich 340, 1990) established the critical principle: "Ordinances are presumed valid" and "the burden is on the challenger to rebut the presumption of validity."
The two types of preemption under Michigan law are: 1. Conflict preemption: The ordinance "permits what the statute prohibits, or prohibits what the statute permits" 2. Field preemption: The state has "occupied the entire field of regulation"
Under Sterling Heights v. Bahnke (2024), an ordinance that merely adds to state regulations does not create conflict unless the state has acted to prevent such regulation. Courts require clear legislative intent for preemption in home rule jurisdictions.
Overall litigation risk: Moderate¶
Favorable factors: - Strong constitutional foundation (Article VII, §§ 22, 34) - Presumption of ordinance validity (Detroit v. Qualls) - No express state preemption - Alignment with federal law (18 U.S.C. § 592) - Police resource allocation is a quintessential "municipal concern" - State has not comprehensively regulated this field
Risk factors: - Evolving legislative landscape (HB 4342 pending) - Potential federal administration opposition - Federal funding threats to sanctuary jurisdictions - Novel legal territory for polling place-specific ordinances
Recommended drafting considerations: 1. Frame as implementing 18 U.S.C. § 592 and protecting election integrity 2. Focus narrowly on "armed federal personnel" at "polling places" 3. Emphasize the ordinance directs city resource allocation—a core municipal function 4. Include findings citing Article VII, Section 22 and MCL 117.4j authority 5. Add severability clauses
Section 2: Michigan localization kit¶
Voter intimidation statutes¶
MCL 168.932 (Felony) is the primary voter intimidation statute:
"A person shall not attempt, by means of bribery, menace, or other corrupt means or device, either directly or indirectly, to influence an elector in giving his or her vote, or to deter the elector from, or interrupt the elector in giving his or her vote at any election held in this state."
MCL 168.931b (Added 2023, effective February 2024) addresses election worker intimidation:
"An individual who intimidates an election official because of the election official's status as an election official, with the specific intent of interfering with the performance of that election official's election-related duties, is guilty of a crime..."
Penalties escalate from misdemeanor (first offense: 93 days, $500) to felony (third offense).
MCL 168.744 prohibits persuasion or interference within 100 feet of polling place entrances.
Firearms at polling places¶
MCL 750.234d (as amended by 2024 PA 157 & 158, effective April 2, 2025) now prohibits firearms at voting locations:
"A person shall not...(a) While the polls are open on an election day, possess a firearm in a polling place or within 100 feet from any entrance to a building in which a polling place is located. (b) On any day early voting is conducted...possess a firearm at an early voting site..."
Critical exception: MCL 750.234d(4)(a) exempts "a member of law enforcement in the course of their duties." This exception creates ambiguity regarding whether federal law enforcement personnel would be covered—a point the municipal ordinance could address by specifying armed federal personnel regardless of law enforcement status, consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 592's broader prohibition.
Municipal authority statutes¶
| Citation | Authority Granted |
|---|---|
| MCL 117.4j | All municipal powers for property management, government administration, and ordinances "relating to municipal concerns" |
| MCL 117.4e | Authority over police stations and public property |
| MCL 117.4i(j) | Enforcement of police ordinances "not in conflict with general laws" |
| MCL 117.4l | Ordinance powers (cannot criminalize acts already crimes under Penal Code) |
| MCL 168.662 | Local authority to provide polling places for precincts |
| MCL 168.678 | Election inspector authority to "maintain peace, regularity and order" |
2018 Proposal 3 and 2022 Proposal 2 interaction¶
Proposal 3 (2018) added automatic voter registration, same-day registration, no-excuse absentee voting, and audit rights. Proposal 2 (2022) added: - At least 9 days of early in-person voting - Expanded ballot drop boxes with video monitoring - Secretary of State supervision of local election officials in audits - Certification of results as "ministerial, clerical, and nondiscretionary"
These reforms centralize state oversight of election administration while local clerks retain day-to-day operational authority. Cities and townships must provide early voting sites per MCL 168.662. The ordinance should be drafted to complement, not conflict with, this framework—focusing on armed federal personnel rather than election procedures.
Section 3: Target cities for ordinance launch¶
East Lansing ranks as the optimal first target¶
Governing body: City Council (5 members—Mayor plus 4 Council members) - Mayor: George Brookover - Council: Kerry Ebersole Singh (Mayor Pro Tem), Erik Altmann, Dana Watson, Mark Meadows
Charter status: Home Rule Charter City under Michigan Home Rule City Act
Political composition: Strongly progressive. East Lansing is the only remaining Michigan municipality on the DOJ's "sanctuary cities" list as of August 2025. The city passed Resolution 2023-1 explicitly declaring itself a Sanctuary City, prohibiting city officials from collaborating with federal agents solely for immigration enforcement and prohibiting use of city resources to investigate, detain, or register persons based solely on civil immigration violations.
East Lansing received a perfect 100/100 score on the Human Rights Campaign's Municipality Equality Index. As home to Michigan State University, the city maintains a progressive voter base and strong institutional commitment to civil liberties.
Likelihood of passage: 85-90%. East Lansing has demonstrated clear willingness to resist federal overreach, and the sanctuary resolution already establishes the framework for limiting cooperation with federal authorities.
Ann Arbor provides deep institutional support¶
Governing body: City Council (11 members—Mayor plus 10 Council members, 2 per ward). All seats currently held by Democrats.
Charter status: Home Rule Charter City (charter adopted April 9, 1956, with subsequent amendments including a "Zone of Reproductive Freedom" provision)
Political composition: Strongly progressive. Designated an ACLU "Freedom City"—one of only a handful nationwide. In 2003, Ann Arbor passed a comprehensive civil liberties resolution against the USA PATRIOT Act (7-2 vote), requiring police to decline federal invitations to participate in unconstitutional activities. In 2017, police were directed not to collect immigration status information.
The city maintains strong ACLU of Michigan relationships—ACLU highlighted Ann Arbor as the 137th city nationwide to pass a civil liberties resolution. The Washtenaw County ACLU Lawyers Committee includes 15+ attorneys.
Likelihood of passage: 80-85%. Extensive track record of civil liberties ordinances and established ACLU institutional relationships for drafting and advocacy support. The larger 11-member council may require more consensus-building but holds a Democratic supermajority.
Ferndale offers a smaller-city model¶
Governing body: City Council (5 members—Mayor plus 4 Council members) - Mayor: Raylon Leaks-May (first African-American Mayor) - Council: Donnie Johnson, Rolanda Kelly (first openly gay woman elected to Ferndale), Laura Mikulski, Eddie Sabatini
Charter status: Home Rule Charter City with Council-Manager form of government
Political composition: Strongly progressive and inclusive. Ferndale is the hub of Michigan's LGBTQ community, electing Michigan's first openly gay mayor (Craig Covey, 2007). The city has the second-highest percentage of same-sex households in Michigan (after Pleasant Ridge).
Ferndale passed its Human Rights Ordinance over 15 years ago, prohibiting LGBTQ discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations. The city maintains partnerships with Affirmations (Michigan's largest LGBTQ community center) and has two official LGBTQ Liaisons advising the Mayor and Council.
Likelihood of passage: 75-80%. The smaller 5-member council allows faster decision-making. May benefit from framing the ordinance around broader civil liberties and voter protection rather than explicitly anti-federal.
Alternative targets worth consideration¶
| City | Charter Status | Key Factor |
|---|---|---|
| Ypsilanti | Charter City (7 members) | First living wage ordinance in MI; 1998 LGBTQ ordinance survived referendum; police directed not to question citizenship |
| Kalamazoo | Charter City (Commission form) | Kalamazoo County passed ICE detainer resolution in 2018; some political backtracking since |
| Detroit | Charter City (9 members) | Adopted "welcoming" status; complex politics may slow progress |
Section 4: Coalition partners¶
Tier 1—Established election protection infrastructure¶
ACLU of Michigan is the primary legal and advocacy partner: - State HQ: 2966 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48201 | (313) 578-6800 | aclu@aclumich.org - Legislative Office: 115 West Allegan Street, Lansing, MI 48933 | (517) 372-8503 - West Michigan Office: 1514 Wealthy St. SE, Suite 260, Grand Rapids, MI 49506 | (616) 301-0930 - Key staff: Kyle Zawacki (Legislative Director); Meghan Cullen (Clerk Engagement Program Manager, mcullen@aclumich.org) - Current priorities: "Protecting Democracy" regional convenings with election clerks; immigration litigation; Promote the Vote coalition member
League of Women Voters of Michigan provides nonpartisan credibility: - 600 W. Saint Joseph Street, Suite 3G, Lansing, MI 48933-2288 | (517) 484-5383 | Office@lwvmi.org - Filed motion to intervene in US v. Benson (Oct 2025) protecting voter file privacy - Local chapters in Detroit (lwvdetroit.org), Lansing (lwvlansing.org), Washtenaw County (membership@lwvwashtenaw.org) - Partner in Promote the Vote coalition and "No Red Tape for MI" campaign
Promote the Vote Michigan serves as the coalition coordinator: - info@promotethevotemi.com | media@promotethevotemi.com | www.promotethevotemi.com - President: Khalilah Spencer | Policy Director: Melanie Macey - Successfully passed Proposal 2 (2018) and Proposal 2 (2022) - Co-leads Michigan's statewide nonpartisan Election Protection Program - Coalition partners include: ACCESS, ACLU Michigan, Detroit Action, LGBT Detroit, League of Women Voters, NAACP Michigan State Conference, APIAVote-MI, and 15+ other organizations
Common Cause Michigan provides election protection infrastructure: - Executive Director: Quentin Turner | qturner@commoncause.org | (313) 909-6092 - Outreach Manager: Shannon Abbott | sabbott@commoncause.org - Co-leads Election Protection Coalition with hotlines: 866-OUR-VOTE (English), 888-VE-Y-VOTA (Spanish), 888-API-VOTE (Asian languages), 844-YALLA-US (Arabic)
Tier 2—Grassroots organizing capacity¶
Michigan Voices coordinates 40+ progressive nonprofits: - www.michiganvoices.org | Affiliate of State Voices national network - Co-Executive Directors: Tameka Ramsey (CEO), Sommer Foster (COO) - Programs in Detroit, Western Wayne County, Flint, Holland, Pontiac - Table partners include ACLU Michigan, Detroit Branch NAACP, Planned Parenthood Advocates
Voters Not Politicians provides signature collection and grassroots expertise: - PO Box 16180, Lansing, MI 48901 | (517) 225-1812 - Founder: Nancy Wang - Created Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (2018 Proposal 2) - 6,500+ trained volunteers; collected 170,000+ signatures for Proposal 2 (2022)
Detroit Action offers Detroit-specific organizing capacity: - info@detroitaction.org | detroitaction.org - 5,000+ members; 8,000+ activity participants - Won Detroit's "Right to Counsel" ordinance—demonstrates experience with municipal ordinance campaigns - Monthly political and voter education sessions
All Voting is Local Michigan coordinates directly with election officials: - allvotingislocal.org/michigan - Trained nearly 200 election defenders through de-escalation sessions - Coordinates weekly with Michigan Department of State - Tracks poll worker needs in 65 priority jurisdictions
Tier 3—Federal-local enforcement expertise¶
Michigan Immigrant Rights Center (MIRC) understands federal-local enforcement dynamics: - (734) 239-6863 | mirc@michiganimmigrant.org | michiganimmigrant.org - Key contact: Christine Sauvé, LMSW (Community Engagement & Communications)—Co-Chair of Detroit City Council's Immigration Task Force - Service areas: Kalamazoo, Washtenaw, Detroit Metro, Kent counties - Published "Preparing Your Community for Immigration Enforcement" toolkit
ACCESS (Arab Community Center) brings community trust and civic engagement infrastructure: - Multiple Dearborn locations | accesscommunity.org - Largest Arab American nonprofit in US - Part of Promote the Vote coalition - National Network for Arab American Communities (NNAAC): 36 members in 13 states, focus on civic engagement and policy advocacy
Tier 4—Community-specific partners¶
APIAVote-Michigan | contact@apiavotemi.org | apiavotemi.org - Executive Director: Rebeka Islam - 2022 results: 1,500+ voter registrations, 25,000 doors knocked, 650,000 texts, nearly 1 million phone calls - Multi-language voter education in 30+ languages
NAACP Michigan State Conference | info@minaacp.org | minaacp.org - Historic civil rights organization with chapters throughout Michigan - Part of Promote the Vote coalition
Voting Access for All Coalition (VAAC) | contact@votingaccessforall.org - Focus: Returning citizens, unhoused individuals, justice-impacted communities - Grassroots-led expertise with vulnerable populations
Section 5: Election Security Infrastructure¶
Michigan's election security infrastructure is anchored by exceptionally strong constitutional voter protections following Proposal 2 of 2022, which established voting as a "fundamental right" and created the nation's strongest private right of action for voter intimidation. The state's cybersecurity apparatus benefits from a dedicated Cyber Corps, the 272nd Cyber Operations Squadron (one of only 12 in the Air National Guard), and approximately $49.88 million in audited HAVA grants. Governor Whitmer's 2024 legislation banning open carry of firearms at polling places fills a critical physical security gap. The DOJ's 2025 lawsuit seeking unredacted voter file data -- which Michigan resisted -- demonstrates the state's commitment to defending election infrastructure against federal overreach.
State Election Authority & Legal Framework¶
Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson serves as Michigan's chief election officer under MCL section 168.21, with "supervisory control over local election officials." Her specific duties under MCL section 168.31 include promulgating rules under the Administrative Procedures Act, directing local officials, establishing training curricula, and creating an Election Day dispute resolution team with regional representatives. The Bureau of Elections (430 W. Allegan St., Lansing, MI 48933) is headed by a Director of Elections appointed under civil service regulations.
Michigan's constitutional framework is exceptionally strong following Proposal 2 of 2022, which amended Article II, section 4 to establish voting as a "fundamental right" and created a comprehensive set of self-executing protections including: no-excuse absentee voting, same-day registration, 9 days of early in-person voting, state-funded election security measures, mandatory risk-limiting audits, and ballot tracking. Critically, the amendment includes an explicit prohibition on "harassing, threatening, or intimidating conduct" that burdens voting rights.
Michigan's approximately 1,600 local clerks (city and township) administer elections in a highly decentralized system, with 83 county clerks playing supervisory roles.
Cybersecurity Infrastructure & Capabilities¶
The Department of Technology, Management & Budget (DTMB) houses state cybersecurity operations under CSO Jayson Cavendish and CIO Laura Clark. The 2024 Michigan Cyber Roadmap focuses on five domains: threat mitigation, local government protections, AI, partnerships, and workforce. The Michigan Cyber Corps deployed 5 times in 2024-2025 with 7 volunteer members at no cost to recipient entities.
Michigan's Qualified Voter File (QVF) (MCL section 168.509q) is a state-owned, web-based database accessed by municipal and county clerks with multi-factor authentication and specialized training requirements. The QVF is not connected to tabulators -- ePollbooks are downloaded pre-election and operate offline. In September 2025, the DOJ sued SOS Benson seeking unredacted QVF data; Michigan resisted, citing the Privacy Act, Driver Privacy Protection Act, and state law protections.
The 272nd Cyber Operations Squadron (110th Wing, Michigan Air National Guard, Battle Creek) is one of only 12 such squadrons in the Air National Guard. The unit participates in the Cyber 9-Line program linking Guard units with U.S. Cyber Command and NSA for rapid election incident response.
Michigan allocated an additional $5 million in HAVA grant funding to local jurisdictions ahead of the 2024 election for physical security, cybersecurity resilience, and voting equipment. Total HAVA grants audited at approximately $49.88 million.
Physical Security & Polling Place Protections¶
MCL section 168.744 establishes a 100-foot buffer zone from any entrance to a building containing a polling place, prohibiting voter solicitation, campaign material distribution, and donations. Violation is a misdemeanor.
Michigan enacted legislation (signed by Governor Whitmer in 2024) banning open carry of firearms within polling places and within 100 feet of entrances on Election Day and during early voting, within 100 feet of absentee ballot drop boxes for 40 days before elections, and within 100 feet of absentee ballot counting boards. Penalties: up to $100 fine and/or 90 days imprisonment. Concealed carry with a valid permit remains permitted.
Michigan uses a distinctive dual system of challengers and poll watchers. Challengers (MCL section 168.730) must complete mandatory training and receive certificates of completion. Election inspectors may order challengers to leave for disorderly conduct or repeatedly ignoring instructions (MCL sections 168.678; 168.733(3)); law enforcement may remove those who refuse.
Voter intimidation is a felony with up to 5-year maximum under MCL section 168.932(1)(a). In the landmark People v. Burkman and Wohl case, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled (June 2024) that this statute prohibits intentionally false speech related to voting requirements made to deter votes.
Legal Strategies & Key Contacts¶
Michigan IS a party to the 19-state lawsuit against EO 14248, with AG Dana Nessel joining on April 3, 2025. A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction on June 13, 2025 blocking documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements.
Michigan's private right of action provision (Article II, section 4(1)(a), Proposal 2 of 2022) is the strongest among battleground states: any citizen has standing to bring declaratory, injunctive, and/or monetary relief in circuit court, with mandatory attorney's fee shifting if the plaintiff prevails in whole or in part. This provision is self-executing and must be "liberally construed in favor of voters' rights."
Key contacts:
| Role | Contact |
|---|---|
| Bureau of Elections | 517-335-3234 |
| QVF/ePollbook Support | 800-310-5697 / 517-241-1911; EASupport@Michigan.gov |
| AG Voter Intimidation Reports | 517-335-7659 |
| DTMB Cybersecurity Grants | DTMB-CIP-SLCGP@michigan.gov |
Conclusion: A strategically favorable environment¶
Michigan presents an exceptionally favorable legal environment for municipal election protection ordinances. The state's strong home rule framework (Article VII, Sections 22 and 34, plus MCL 117.4j) grants charter cities broad authority to direct police resources and manage municipal property—precisely the powers needed for an ordinance prohibiting assistance to armed federal personnel near polling places.
The alignment with 18 U.S.C. § 592 transforms this from a "sanctuary" ordinance into a federal law enforcement measure, providing a powerful defense against preemption challenges. Combined with the presumption of ordinance validity under Detroit v. Qualls, municipalities hold significant legal advantages.
East Lansing's existing sanctuary infrastructure makes it the optimal launch target—the city has already demonstrated willingness to limit cooperation with federal authorities and has the legal framework in place. Ann Arbor's extensive civil liberties history and ACLU relationships provide strong secondary support, while Ferndale offers a smaller-city model with proven progressive leadership.
The coalition infrastructure already exists through Promote the Vote Michigan's 40+ partner organizations. Rather than building from scratch, this project can leverage existing relationships between ACLU Michigan, League of Women Voters, Michigan Voices, and Detroit Action—organizations already coordinating on election protection.
The primary risks center on Michigan's evolving legislative landscape (particularly HB 4342) and potential federal funding pressures. Drafting should emphasize the ordinance's federal law enforcement function rather than its limitation on federal authority, framing it as protecting election integrity under 18 U.S.C. § 592 rather than as a sanctuary policy.
With careful drafting that leverages Michigan's constitutional provisions, targets cities with proven civil liberties commitments, and engages the existing coalition infrastructure, this ordinance has strong prospects for passage and durability.
Printable Flyer¶
Download the Michigan Election Protection Flyer
A printable 5.5" × 8.5" flyer with Michigan-specific legal analysis, target cities, and coalition partners.
Open the flyer in your browser, then use File → Print or Ctrl+P to print or save as PDF. The flyer is optimized for half-letter (5.5" × 8.5") printing.
City-Specific Flyers¶
Printable flyers for individual cities with local council details, meeting schedules, and action steps.
Ann Arbor — ~123,000 East Lansing — ~49,000 Ferndale — ~19,400