1) Change the recall vote to a one day election. Currently, Michigan uses a two-day process. The recall is an up or down vote on the elected official. If the official is ousted, there is a replacement vote is held at a later date. Many states with recalls use this two-day process, but most of the states that are the big users of recalls (California, Wisconsin, Nevada, Colorado) use the one day election. There's a good reason to promote the one day recall -- a two-day process jacks up the cost (the Miami-Dade recall -- which also had a run-off, was estimated to cost $15 million).
From the legislation, it looks like Michigan is looking for a Wisconsin-style recall, where the recall operates as a straight new election. California's recall is different, as it has an up or down vote on the official, and, on the same ballot, has a replacement vote.
I believe this change would help incumbents. It gives them an opponent to hit. However, the cost savings makes it worthwhile
2) Another piece of legislation would require a "factual" determination of the charges. The Board of Elections to determine whether the charges in the recall petition are accurate. Currently, Michigan law has a board decide whether the petition language is clear (which itself takes time), but does not have a check on factual accuracy. How they determine the facts is of course a matter of great debate. We can only say for sure one thing -- Having them decide accuracy is basically begging for lawsuits on every recall. This helps scare off challengers, and increases the cost of trying to get a recall on the ballot -- which already may be the single biggest factor in recall races.
3) Recalls would only take place in May and November. This is probably argued as a money saving measure, but this may be a big incumbent protection move. I have to delve into this year's numbers, but I believe that recalls held as a special election are much more likely to succeed. (As an aside, the law is very unclear how this would operate -- it also says that the recall should be held on the regular election before the 95th day after the petitions are submitted).
4) There is also a proposal that the no recalls can be held in first and last six months of a term. I'm puzzled by this change, as I (and all the sources I've seen) thought this was the current law. It is certainly true that this would help incumbents.
Note this statement by one of the supporters. I assume he is talking about recall petitions, not actually recall races:
“In a one and a half-year time frame, we knew of 165 township officials facing recall,” said Tom Fraser of the Michigan Townships Association. “And school districts suffer the same type of situations.”