—
LANSING, Mich. — A Michigan ballot proposal that failed to be certified after an impasse on the Board of State Canvassers won’t appear on the November ballot after a challenge failed in court Thursday.
The Americans for Citizen Voting (ACV) proposal would clarify that only U.S. citizens may vote in Michigan elections, require voters appearing to vote to present photo identification, require the Secretary of State to verify citizenship and require systematic reviews of Michigan’s voter rolls for accuracy.
The legal battle began after the board’s two Republicans and two Democratic members couldn’t agree the ballot proposal had enough valid signatures.
More than 700,000 were submitted, but the board reviews only a sample of 1,000.
There is a threshold of 629 a ballot proposal must meet to qualify. Several hundred ballots were thrown out by the Bureau and Board, leaving the proposal just short.
ACV maintained there was evidence showing enough signatures to put them over the line, but the board could not agree, and therefore could not certify.
The campaign believes bias was involved in the process, noting that signatures were submitted to the Bureau of Elections in the spring and were not considered until late summer.
Typically, challenges on ballot proposals play out at the Michigan Supreme Court, and while it was submitted there, the state justices have yet to respond.
With ballots going out later this month, ACV petitioned the U.S. high court for review.
“We went to the U.S. Supreme Court because time was running out, not because we believed the Michigan Supreme Court should be relieved of its responsibility to decide this case,” ACV Chairman Paul Jacob said.
Initially, it was assigned to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who requested the Board of State Canvassers, and by extension the Michigan Department of State, provide a response.
In their response, the state denied the allegations, maintained the process was proper and claimed ACV cherry picked issues by asking the court to ignore decisions in the campaign’s favor.
The state also questions the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The court should decline to put its thumb on the scale in this manner, particularly in the case of a state administrative proceeding where a state court can provide more fulsome and comprehensive review,” the state response reads.
Ultimately, Kavanaugh denied the petition.
Soon after, the Michigan Supreme Court issued its decision on the case, denying ACV’s request that would have put their proposal on the ballot.
The order said the campaign was not entitled to relief because the actions taken by the Board of State Canvassers in this case were within its rights.
“Although this Court cannot order mandamus relief, the Legislature can amend MCL 168.476 to address whether audits should occur within a certain timeframe once signatures are submitted to the Bureau of Elections, whether and when affidavits must be considered in order to rehabilitate a rejected signature, and whether rejected signatures for which an affidavit has been submitted should be compared to the affidavit,” the court’s majority opinion reads.
In a statement, Jacob expressed disappointment.
“Michigan voters deserved better from the Board of State Canvassers. They deserved a timely and meaningful hearing from their Supreme Court. They deserved a process driven by the law and the evidence, not partisan considerations,” Jacob said. “Nearly 710,000 citizens who exercised their constitutional right to petition deserved the opportunity to have their fellow Michiganders vote on this proposal.”
Kristin Combs, a spokesperson for ACV, said the campaign fought until the very last possible moment because those who put their signature to the effort deserved to have their voices heard.
“We are enormously grateful to every signer, volunteer, donor and supporter who stood with us throughout this fight,” Combs said.
Justice Noah Hood, a Democrat, agreed with the court’s opinion, but sympathized with criticisms of the process, noting that current deadlines allow for long reviews by the state, and that can leave little time for challenges.
“As public participation in Michigan’s electoral processes grows, it may exceed the capacity of the statute’s current timelines,” Hood wrote. “The Legislature should consider revising MCL 168.476 to require earlier deadlines, which would allow more meaningful adversarial proceedings and judicial review.”
Hood suggests one option would be to require the Bureau to complete and publish its staff report either within two months of petition submission or at least one month before the Secretary of State’s ballot-notice deadline, two months before an election.”
Such amendments might correct the structural timing problem that presently limits meaningful review of these disputes,” Hood wrote.
The Michigan House of Representatives has launched a select committee to review the ballot proposal certification proccess.
The committee will provide recommendations on potential changes to the system, with majority House Republicans critical of how the ACV proposal was handled.
