Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Petition Integrity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State canvassers accept staff report on Cornel West petition; no board sanctions imposed
Summary
Staff reported 27 signatures did not match exemplars and one circulator’s (Elijah Dillahunt) signature sheets showed no matching exemplars. The board accepted the investigation findings but did not impose statutory sanctions, citing limits in the statute that require showing the candidate or committee knew of violations before filing.
Lansing — The Michigan Board of State Canvassers on July 18 accepted a staff report on a signature challenge to a petition circulated for Cornel West. Staff found a number of non‑matching signatures and identified one circulator whose submitted exemplars did not match signatures on the sheets, but the board did not impose sanctions.
What staff found: The Bureau of Elections reported that 27 signatures among the reviewed sheets did not match the exemplars provided, and that one circulator, identified in staff materials as Elijah Dillahunt, had multiple signature sheets where none of the signatures matched the exemplars. Staff estimated the direct cost to canvass the single challenged sheet at roughly $360.
Statutory limit on sanctions: Counsel and staff reminded the board that heightened sanctions in the Election Law apply only in narrow circumstances. Under the statutory scheme staff cited (MCL provisions governing petition canvasses and post‑canvass remedies), sanctions such as a civil fine, disqualification of an organization from collecting signatures for up to four years, or disqualification of the petition can be imposed only after a board finding that the circulator, the candidate (for nominating petitions), or the ballot committee knew of the violations before filing and failed to report them. Meeting counsel advised the board that the staff evidence did not establish that the candidate or sponsoring organization had such prior knowledge.
Board action: The board accepted the staff report and did not pursue additional sanctions. Commissioners noted the importance of improving detection and prevention — and assigned follow‑up work to staff — but declined to issue monetary or disqualification penalties given the legal elements required for those specific remedies.
Why it matters: The board’s decision highlights a procedural constraint in the law: some powerful post‑canvass remedies are tied to a showing that the candidate or sponsor knew of improper signatures before filing. Staff and members said this limitation underscores the need for additional procedural safeguards in the petition review and certification process.
Next steps: Staff will include lessons from this investigation in August’s agenda as the board considers updates to petition‑processing procedures, and continue to post and implement the updated manuals the board approved at the same meeting.
Ending: Board members and staff said they intend to pursue stronger pre‑certification review practices and clarified that prosecution of criminal misconduct is within the authority of the Attorney General or local prosecutors rather than the canvassers’ administrative sanctions.
