Michigan Board of Canvassers adopts procedure to handle circulator signature challenges

The Michigan State Board of Canvassers voted to adopt a written procedure for investigating challenges to circulator signatures on nominating and initiative petitions, a move staff said is intended to create predictability after difficulties in the 2024 petition cycle.

Director Bridal, who introduced the proposal, said the document was developed after the board and bureau faced signature‑validity challenges during last year’s presidential cycle. “We had some challenges to the validity of the signatures in the circulator box, for candidate Cornel West,” Bridal told the board, and the bureau’s aim is “to have a process that everybody understands at the front end.”

The procedure requires petition sponsors to provide exemplar signatures when circulators are unregistered Michigan voters or reside outside the state, a change staff described as a best practice intended to speed review. Staff member Adam told the board the edit was the principal substantive change: campaigns should supply official exemplars — for example a qualified voter file (QVF) record or a government‑issued ID — when available so the bureau can evaluate disputed circulator signatures quickly.

Public commenters and several board members warned that circulator challenges risk disenfranchising voters whose signatures were otherwise valid. Mark Brewer, speaking in a personal capacity, urged the board to plan for “pattern and practice” claims and to apply similar procedures to ballot‑proposal petitions; he warned against ignoring evidence when a pattern of irregularities appears. Eric Doster of Good Government argued adopting a special rule for circulator challenges could disenfranchise voters and said the court did not mandate a separate carve‑out.

Board members and staff spent the meeting debating two related issues: (1) what constitutes sufficient evidence to trigger an investigation and (2) how to avoid letting circulator inquiries determine ballot access when the sampled signatures used for sufficiency determinations remain unaffected. Staff and counsel explained the approach used in the procedure: challengers must present why they believe a circulator signature is invalid, staff will seek official exemplars when a challenge appears meritorious, and investigations that do not affect sample‑based sufficiency determinations may proceed as separate tracks for potential referral or further inquiry.

A member moved that “the Board of State Canvassers approve the procedure for investigating challenges regarding circulator signatures” and that staff use the described methodology for petitions submitted after the meeting. The motion passed by voice vote; multiple board members said “Aye” and at least one member stated opposition on the record but the motion carried.

The board’s adoption is limited to the internal procedure and does not change statutory standards. Staff emphasized that in cases where the challenged circulator evidence is outside the random sample used to assess petition sufficiency, those out‑of‑sample findings could prompt an investigation or criminal referral but would not automatically alter the recommendation about ballot access based on the sampled sheets.

Next steps: staff will apply the methodology to petitions submitted after the decision and are authorized to make non‑substantive clarifications to the procedure without further board approval. The board also directed staff to post petition materials and related documents online as part of improved public access.