Canvassers certify most nominating petitions, debate circulator-address rule and review forged-signature allegations

The State Board of Canvassers on May 21 certified a large batch of nominating petitions for the August 4, 2026 primary ballot while resolving multiple legal questions about circulator certificates and reviewing allegations of forged or improperly completed signatures in at least one congressional filing.

Staff told the board that election clerks processed nearly 500,000 signatures across more than 40,000 petition sheets this cycle and that many challenges raised common defects: missing or cut-off heading elements, circulator certificate irregularities and signatures collected outside the district. In multiple instances the board accepted staff recommendations to certify candidates whose petitions retained a sufficient validated-signature cushion after face review.

A recurring legal issue concerned whether a circulator’s mailing-city (post office) can satisfy the circulator-residence field when the statutory block requests city or township. Challengers argued strict application of Wickman v. Norway Township Clerk meant a circulator’s use of a postal city could invalidate entire sheets; petitioners and other counsel responded that Secretary of State guidance allows a commonsense reading when other petition text shows Michigan residency. The board followed staff guidance in approving several petitions while noting the issue’s legal subtlety.

The board also heard detailed forensic testimony alleging clusters of signatures appeared to be written by circulators rather than by distinct voters. Experts showed side-by-side comparisons and told the board they had identified multiple sheets with near-identical handwriting on both the voter-name/address lines and the signature blocks. Staff responded that investigators would refer suspicious sheets to the Department’s Office of Investigative Services, and that a supplemental staff re-review had processed hundreds of previously unexamined challenges. After reprocessing a subset, staff reported the targeted candidate (Robert Luerie) still had more than the 1,000 validated signatures required for congressional filings.

Board members debated transparency and process after staff issued an explanatory supplemental memo during the meeting describing which additional challenges had been reviewed and how the revised totals were calculated. Some challengers requested extra time to review revised figures and the staff workbook; staff said it had published the formal staff report in compliance with statutory timelines and that the supplemental memo was provided to clarify the underlying calculations.

Where staff found clear copying or heading defects that removed entire sheets, the board applied the statutory standard and struck sheets as required. In contested instances involving partial cutoffs or faint letters, board members said the decision required careful, case-by-case judgment: is a required word or letter present in the mandated typeface and thus compliant, or has a missing element rendered the sheet invalid? The board exercised its discretion in several of those close calls.

Staff said it would forward signature sheets it deemed suspicious to investigative authorities for further review; board members stressed that findings of suspension or criminality would require separate law‑enforcement action and were not a function of the canvass review itself.

The board adjourned at 3:31 p.m.