LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – Michigan’s ballot-access system delivered another reminder recently that when it comes to petition signatures: what voters put in writing about candidates and issues matters less than what a government database thinks.
In a recent ruling, the Michigan Court of Appeals sided with Jocelyn Benson’s Department of State in a lawsuit brought by Oakland County Probate Court candidate Ariel Drissman, who was denied a place on the ballot after election officials determined he failed to collect enough valid signatures.
Affidavits from voters weren’t enough.
MORE NEWS: Whitmer Embarks on Sixth Overseas Trip Since 2025
According to legalnews.com, Drissman submitted 4,716 signatures, well above the required 4,000. After review, however, Oakland County officials determined only 3,862 were valid. Hoping to recover some of the rejected signatures, Drissman submitted 111 statements from voters swearing that they personally signed his petitions. The state refused to consider them.
Instead, election officials relied on comparisons with the state’s Qualified Voter File and determined that, even after correcting several errors made by the county clerk, Drissman still lacked enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. Officials also said voter affidavits submitted on his behalf could not be considered because they were filed after the state’s three-day deadline for challenging signature determinations.
Court upholds law but raises concerns about fairness.
The Court of Appeals agreed that state officials followed the law correctly. But the judges appeared less enthusiastic about the law itself.
In his opinion, Judge Christopher Trebilcock noted that Michigan’s current election statutes effectively prevent candidates from rehabilitating disputed signatures through affidavits from the voters who actually signed them. He wrote, “We end with an observation. The currently enacted legislative scheme seemingly does not permit a candidate to rehabilitate signatures through submission of affidavits because of the discretionary enforcement of the filing deadline as a deadline to submit supporting documentation and the statutory mandate that signatures be compared solely through use of the qualified voter file.”
Trebilcock went on to say, “These are policy choices our Legislature has made and ones we must enforce. We question, however, whether that decision rightly limits review of legitimate ballot-access considerations for those aspiring to hold public office.”
Other signature issues.
The ruling also arrives as former Republican gubernatorial contender and retired pastor Ralph Rebandt has been battling Michigan election officials over signatures submitted for his own ballot access effort. Rebandt submitted 18,214 petition signatures to qualify for the Republican gubernatorial primary ballot, well above the 15,000 required by state law. However, after the Michigan Board of State Canvassers conducted a random-sample review, they projected that only 533 of 750 signatures looked at were valid – short of the threshold – resulting in his removal from the ballot.
Rebandt challenged the decision in court but came up empty at every level. He first lost in the Michigan Court of Claims, then again in the Michigan Court of Appeals. His final effort ended when the Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear the case, closing the door on his bid to regain a spot on the ballot. In a brief order, the justices said they were “not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.”
Random samples, real consequences.
Rebandt has criticized the state’s practice of reviewing petition signatures through a random-sample verification rather than conducting a full count. Supporters argue that candidates who spend months gathering signatures deserve an actual review of every signature submitted rather than estimates based on a sample.
Rebandt said on X: “Their 750 sample isn’t fair, equitable or just.” And in a statement, he added, “A grassroots campaign got kept off the ballot by a process built to protect insiders.”
Random sample verification means election officials do not automatically check every signature on a petition. Michigan election law authorizes the Secretary of State to establish procedures for reviewing petition signatures, and state election officials have adopted random-sample verification as an approved method. Under that process, officials review a statistically valid sample of signatures and project the validity rate across the entire petition rather than examining every signature individually.
State officials say the process saves time and resources while critics of the current system say Michigan’s process increasingly resembles a game of signature roulette, where candidates can gather thousands of signatures from real voters only to find themselves at the mercy of database matches, handwriting interpretations and statistical projections.
For now, the courts are making one thing clear: whether the rules make sense or are fair is a question for lawmakers. The courts’ job, they say, is simply enforcing them. Whether they make sense or not.
