Canvassers approve judicial filing manual; take public comment but defer action on circulator‑signature procedures

The Michigan State Board of Canvassers on Aug. 22 approved a revised manual for candidates seeking judicial elective office and directed staff to publish the updated document and maintain an up‑to‑date appendix of office designations. The board did not adopt a proposed set of detailed procedures for handling circulator‑signature challenges; instead members heard public comment and said staff will continue work on that topic.

The approved judicial manual includes clarifications the bureau recommended after written public comment. Staff said the revised manual clarifies when certificates of acceptance and party nomination certificates apply (for example, clarifying that some documentary requirements are limited to minor‑party or party‑nomination circumstances) and adds a change log and revision date. The board directed the Bureau of Elections to post the new manual and to update Appendix B — the office‑status listing — as offices are filled, vacated or otherwise reclassified.

Concerns about circulator challenge process Mark Brewer, an attorney appearing in his personal capacity, urged the board to require that investigations of circulator‑signature challenges be completed before the board certifies a candidate for the ballot. Brewer cited the statutory obligation he said requires the board to dispose of all challenges before certification and warned that leaving circulator challenges unresolved could leave the board without a post‑certification remedy. He also asked the board to remove language from the proposed procedure that, in his view, prejudges outcomes by presuming an inconsistent circulator signature supports broad invalidation without a full inquiry.

Other commentators echoed related points and asked the board for clearer procedural language. Eric Doster, who spoke briefly on related items, asked that the bureau place a revision date on the Appendix B listing so users can tell whether a posted office status is current. Board staff agreed to add a revision date to the appendix when they post the updated manual.

Board response and next steps Board members said they welcomed the public input and that the proposed circulator‑signature procedures require more work. Several members emphasized that circulator‑signature challenges are interwoven with challenges to elector (signer) signatures — an invalid circulator certificate can affect the validity of the voter signatures on an entire petition sheet — and that policies must ensure voters who signed in good faith are protected. The board did not vote on the circulator‑signature procedures at this meeting, and staff said they will revise the draft to address the points raised and return with updated language.

Vote The board approved the judicial filing manual and instructed staff to update Appendix B as designations change. The vote to approve the manual passed by voice vote.