Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Petition Challenge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board finds Cornel West petition sufficient amid circulator-forgery allegations and ongoing litigation
Summary
After extended testimony from challengers who alleged widespread circulator forgery and calls to pull a new sample, the Michigan Board of State Canvassers voted to accept bureau staffs random-sampling finding that Cornel West met the 12,000-signature threshold; challengers have filed appeals and urged further investigation.
The Michigan Board of State Canvassers voted to find Cornel Wests nominating petition sufficient for the November ballot after bureau staff presented a random-sampling review that, after processing challenges, returned 448 valid signatures in the sample against a 335 threshold.
Challengerss attorneys raised detailed allegations that circulator certificates in the West filing were forged or mismatched and argued the board has a statutory duty to investigate. "The board has an obligation to investigate these very serious circulator forgery allegations," attorney Mark Brewer told the board, urging the panel to demand circulator affidavits, pull a new sample excluding suspect sheets, or otherwise delay certification until investigators could verify circulator identities.
Brandon Debas, counsel for Cornel West, told the board staffs experts estimated a 99.9% statistical confidence that West met the 12,000-signature threshold and urged the board to rely on the established sampling procedures: "Our experts say that it is 99.9% likely that doctor West has the requisite number of signatures to appear on the ballot," he said.
Bureau staff explained their process to the board: petition sheets are sorted and scanned, a random sample (750 signatures for this filing) is selected and processed into a supplemental sample file, and sample signatures are compared to the qualified voter file for facial validity. Staff said they do not have a built-in procedure to compare or verify out-of-state circulator signatures and that verifying many circulators in the limited time before ballot deadlines would be operationally difficult.
Board members divided over procedural questions about whether the bureau should compel the campaign to provide circulator identification or affidavits for sample circulators. Some members said the board has an obligation to pursue additional information when challengers present specific evidence; others warned that changing procedures mid-process for a single candidate would risk due-process concerns and instability for ballot preparation.
After debate, a motion to accept staffs recommendation and find Cornel West's petition sufficient passed; several members said they nevertheless want the bureau and the legislature to consider procedural reforms for circulator verification going forward. The challengers have filed and continued litigation in court, and the board scheduled further meetings in September to address remaining procedural items and any court developments.
The board recorded the motion and vote in the minutes and adjourned to lunch after completing the day's agenda.
