By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
A constitutional amendment that would require proof of citizenship to vote is dead for 2026 following Thursday’s denials by both the Michigan Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court of supporters’ requests to put the proposal on the November ballot.
Americans for Citizen Voting – Michigan went to both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Michigan Supreme Court seeking either to compel the Board of State Canvassers to certify its proposal for the ballot. The federal high court denied emergency relief Thursday afternoon.
Thursday evening, the Michigan Supreme Court, in an unsigned order, denied relief, ruling 6-1 the boards’ actions in this case were discretionary, so mandamus relief could not be issued. Justice Brian Zahra, the only justice nominated by the Michigan Republican Party, dissented.
The Michigan Supreme Court also denied relief in a separate case to keep the Michiganders for Money out of Politics proposal off the ballot. There will be two ballot proposals: whether to call a constitutional convention is Proposal 2026-1 and the money out of politics measure, which would block certain political spending from the state’s utilities and state contractors, will be Proposals 2026-2.
“We are deeply disappointed in this outcome, particularly because of the nearly 710,000 Michigan citizens who put their names on this petition believing they would have an opportunity to vote on it,” Kristin Combs, spokesperson for Americans for Citizen Voting-Michigan, said in a statement. “We fought until the very last possible moment because those people deserved to have their voices heard. We are enormously grateful to every signer, volunteer, donor and supporter who stood with us throughout this fight.”
After the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision, the Board of State Canvassers canceled its Friday morning meeting, where it was scheduled to consider a 100-word summary of the citizen voting proposal in case it was ordered to appear on the ballot.
Americans for Citizen Voting argued the board should have accepted affidavits from voters whose signatures were rejected by the Bureau of Elections saying they did in fact sign the petition. Several were denied because the group provided them to the board outside of the required deadline. Four were denied because the board determined the signatures on the affidavits did not match signatures in the Qualified Voter File.
Zahra wrote that he would have asked the board to reconsider the four that were determined to not match the QVF.
The Bureau of Elections used a 1,000-signature sample out of the 709,000 submitted to determine whether the group that the 446,000 valid signatures from registered voters needed to qualify for ballot access. The group needed 629 valid signatures in the sample to qualify. The board found they had 626, three short.
“In light of the fact that the board’s determinations are reviewable by this court, I would vacate the board’s decision declining to certify the four signatures with accompanying affidavits that allegedly did not match the signatures in the (QVF). I would remand the matter to the board limited to consideration of whether the four affidavits were in fact valid evidence that the affiants properly signed the petitions in question,” Zahra wrote. “As public servants, the members of the board are sworn to uphold the state Constitution. At a minimum, this court should have remanded to the board to cure the due-process violation by, for example, arranging an in camera review of the (QVF) signatures and providing plaintiffs an opportunity to rebut the comparison, or, alternatively, by accepting the affidavits as legally sufficient in their own right, or, finally, by accepting late submissions of additional affidavits.”
Justice Elizabeth Welch, in a concurring opinion, wrote what Zahra described as relief would violate statute, which requires the Board of State Canvassers to compare petition signatures to the QVF.
“The statute is clear that the Qualified Voter File is the comparator for signatures. Justice Zahra raises important policy concerns about the manner in which signatures are canvassed — concerns similar to those I raised in Drissman,” she wrote.
“But again, only the Legislature can fix that process.”
Justice Noah Hood also wrote a concurrence, opining the state’s statutory scheme needs to be amended. He noted the deadlines for ballots to be finalized and for the canvassers to complete its work on petitions essentially overlap.
“As public participation in Michigan’s electoral processes grows, it may exceed the capacity of the statute’s current timelines,” he wrote. “The Legislature should consider revising MCL 168.476 to require earlier deadlines, which would allow more meaningful adversarial proceedings and judicial review.”
Paul Jacob, chair of Americans for Citizen Voting, pointed to Zahra’s dissent, which concluded, “the people of Michigan deserve better.”
“That says it all,” Jacob said. “Michigan voters deserved better from the Board of State Canvassers. They deserved a timely and meaningful hearing from their Supreme Court. They deserved a process driven by the law and the evidence, not partisan considerations. And nearly 710,000 citizens who exercised their constitutional right to petition deserved the opportunity to have their fellow Michiganders vote on this proposal.”
Gongwer News Service
A constitutional amendment that would require proof of citizenship to vote is dead for 2026 following Thursday’s denials by both the Michigan Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court of supporters’ requests to put the proposal on the November ballot.
Americans for Citizen Voting – Michigan went to both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Michigan Supreme Court seeking either to compel the Board of State Canvassers to certify its proposal for the ballot. The federal high court denied emergency relief Thursday afternoon.
Thursday evening, the Michigan Supreme Court, in an unsigned order, denied relief, ruling 6-1 the boards’ actions in this case were discretionary, so mandamus relief could not be issued. Justice Brian Zahra, the only justice nominated by the Michigan Republican Party, dissented.
The Michigan Supreme Court also denied relief in a separate case to keep the Michiganders for Money out of Politics proposal off the ballot. There will be two ballot proposals: whether to call a constitutional convention is Proposal 2026-1 and the money out of politics measure, which would block certain political spending from the state’s utilities and state contractors, will be Proposals 2026-2.
“We are deeply disappointed in this outcome, particularly because of the nearly 710,000 Michigan citizens who put their names on this petition believing they would have an opportunity to vote on it,” Kristin Combs, spokesperson for Americans for Citizen Voting-Michigan, said in a statement. “We fought until the very last possible moment because those people deserved to have their voices heard. We are enormously grateful to every signer, volunteer, donor and supporter who stood with us throughout this fight.”
After the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision, the Board of State Canvassers canceled its Friday morning meeting, where it was scheduled to consider a 100-word summary of the citizen voting proposal in case it was ordered to appear on the ballot.
Americans for Citizen Voting argued the board should have accepted affidavits from voters whose signatures were rejected by the Bureau of Elections saying they did in fact sign the petition. Several were denied because the group provided them to the board outside of the required deadline. Four were denied because the board determined the signatures on the affidavits did not match signatures in the Qualified Voter File.
Zahra wrote that he would have asked the board to reconsider the four that were determined to not match the QVF.
The Bureau of Elections used a 1,000-signature sample out of the 709,000 submitted to determine whether the group that the 446,000 valid signatures from registered voters needed to qualify for ballot access. The group needed 629 valid signatures in the sample to qualify. The board found they had 626, three short.
“In light of the fact that the board’s determinations are reviewable by this court, I would vacate the board’s decision declining to certify the four signatures with accompanying affidavits that allegedly did not match the signatures in the (QVF). I would remand the matter to the board limited to consideration of whether the four affidavits were in fact valid evidence that the affiants properly signed the petitions in question,” Zahra wrote. “As public servants, the members of the board are sworn to uphold the state Constitution. At a minimum, this court should have remanded to the board to cure the due-process violation by, for example, arranging an in camera review of the (QVF) signatures and providing plaintiffs an opportunity to rebut the comparison, or, alternatively, by accepting the affidavits as legally sufficient in their own right, or, finally, by accepting late submissions of additional affidavits.”
Justice Elizabeth Welch, in a concurring opinion, wrote what Zahra described as relief would violate statute, which requires the Board of State Canvassers to compare petition signatures to the QVF.
“The statute is clear that the Qualified Voter File is the comparator for signatures. Justice Zahra raises important policy concerns about the manner in which signatures are canvassed — concerns similar to those I raised in Drissman,” she wrote.
“But again, only the Legislature can fix that process.”
Justice Noah Hood also wrote a concurrence, opining the state’s statutory scheme needs to be amended. He noted the deadlines for ballots to be finalized and for the canvassers to complete its work on petitions essentially overlap.
“As public participation in Michigan’s electoral processes grows, it may exceed the capacity of the statute’s current timelines,” he wrote. “The Legislature should consider revising MCL 168.476 to require earlier deadlines, which would allow more meaningful adversarial proceedings and judicial review.”
Paul Jacob, chair of Americans for Citizen Voting, pointed to Zahra’s dissent, which concluded, “the people of Michigan deserve better.”
“That says it all,” Jacob said. “Michigan voters deserved better from the Board of State Canvassers. They deserved a timely and meaningful hearing from their Supreme Court. They deserved a process driven by the law and the evidence, not partisan considerations. And nearly 710,000 citizens who exercised their constitutional right to petition deserved the opportunity to have their fellow Michiganders vote on this proposal.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
