Michigan Senate Bill SB0955

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

Caption

Civil rights: public records; certain writings requesting racial or ethnic identification; modify. Amends secs. 202a & 402a of 1976 PA 453 (MCL 37.2202a & 37.2402a).

Summary

Senate Bill 955 would amend the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to change how employers and educational institutions collect race and ethnicity information on written forms. If a form asks an individual to choose a racial or ethnic classification and is developed or printed 90 or more days after the bill’s effective date, the form would have to include a “multiracial” category, defined as having parents of different races, and could not use “other” as a classification. The same requirements would apply to educational institutions that collect this information, with the bill also specifying that the term “writing” has the meaning used in the state Freedom of Information Act. The bill also addresses situations where federal reporting rules do not recognize “multiracial.” In those cases, employers and educational institutions would be required to reassign individuals identified as multiracial into federally approved racial or ethnic categories using the same ratio those categories appear in the general population of the group from which the information was collected. The bill excludes certain public employers and public educational institutions, including public bodies and state public universities, from these requirements. In terms of state law, the bill would directly amend sections 202a and 402a of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, altering the content of race and ethnicity self-identification forms used in the private employment and nonexempt education settings. It would create a new statutory requirement to recognize multiracial identity on such forms while prohibiting the use of “other,” and it would establish a method for translating that category into federal reporting categories when necessary. The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is one of inclusion and standardization, aiming to better reflect multiracial identity in state-regulated data collection. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate or formal vote history here to indicate broader legislative support or opposition. The main point of potential contention is the federal reporting workaround: the bill requires multiracial responses to be redistributed into federally approved categories, which may be seen as undermining the new classification or as a practical necessity for compliance. Another likely issue is the scope of exemptions for public bodies and state public universities, which creates different rules depending on the type of employer or educational institution.

Impact

This bill would amend the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to require certain private employers and nonexempt educational institutions to add a “multiracial” option to race/ethnicity self-identification forms and remove “other” as a category. It would also require a federal-compliance reclassification method when multiracial responses must be reported in categories not recognized by federal agencies. Public bodies and state public universities would be exempt from these requirements.

Sentiment

The bill appears generally supportive of more inclusive racial and ethnic identification practices, particularly for people with parents of different races. No committee testimony or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from legislators in the available materials. The text suggests a policy goal of improving representation and consistency in data collection rather than imposing a punitive or controversial regulatory change.

Contention

The most notable contention is likely the treatment of multiracial responses for federal reporting: while the bill creates a new category on state-facing forms, it still requires those responses to be redistributed into federally approved categories when federal agencies do not accept “multiracial.” That could draw criticism from advocates who want the category preserved in reporting, as well as from administrators concerned about compliance complexity. Another possible point of debate is the exemption of public bodies and state public universities, which means the bill would not apply uniformly across all public-sector institutions.