By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
Republican Ralph Rebandt’s efforts to overturn the Board of State Canvassers’ decision to disqualify him from the August ballot ended Monday at the Michigan Supreme Court.
In a unanimous unsigned order, the Supreme Court said it was not persuaded it needed to take up the question.
Last month, the Bureau of Elections determined Rebandt submitted 12,944 valid signatures, which is 2,056 fewer than the minimum threshold of certification of 15,000 signatures.
Staff used a random sample of 750 signatures to determine qualification for candidates. For Rebandt, only 533 were valid, which did not pass the 618 or more needed to be sufficient. Some of the reasoning cited in the report included signers not registered to vote, invalid signatures and the inability to read enough information provided by the signer. Rebandt turned in 18,214 signatures total.
The Board of State Canvassers later agreed with the recommendation to keep Rebandt off the ballot.
Rebandt challenged the process using a random sample rather than studying the entirety of the signatures his campaign submitted.
The Court of Appeals also denied Rebandt’s challenge, where he argued the Board of State Canvassers illegally used the sampling method for candidate signature submissions. The board has used the sampling method for ballot proposals and adopted a new policy to use it for candidates well.
Rebandt pointed to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer vetoing legislation in 2025 that would have codified the sample process for candidates as one reason why it should not be permitted.
The Court of Appeals, in its brief order denying the case, said the board did not act beyond its authority in using the sample method to determine candidate signature sufficiency.
Gongwer News Service
Republican Ralph Rebandt’s efforts to overturn the Board of State Canvassers’ decision to disqualify him from the August ballot ended Monday at the Michigan Supreme Court.
In a unanimous unsigned order, the Supreme Court said it was not persuaded it needed to take up the question.
Last month, the Bureau of Elections determined Rebandt submitted 12,944 valid signatures, which is 2,056 fewer than the minimum threshold of certification of 15,000 signatures.
Staff used a random sample of 750 signatures to determine qualification for candidates. For Rebandt, only 533 were valid, which did not pass the 618 or more needed to be sufficient. Some of the reasoning cited in the report included signers not registered to vote, invalid signatures and the inability to read enough information provided by the signer. Rebandt turned in 18,214 signatures total.
The Board of State Canvassers later agreed with the recommendation to keep Rebandt off the ballot.
Rebandt challenged the process using a random sample rather than studying the entirety of the signatures his campaign submitted.
The Court of Appeals also denied Rebandt’s challenge, where he argued the Board of State Canvassers illegally used the sampling method for candidate signature submissions. The board has used the sampling method for ballot proposals and adopted a new policy to use it for candidates well.
Rebandt pointed to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer vetoing legislation in 2025 that would have codified the sample process for candidates as one reason why it should not be permitted.
The Court of Appeals, in its brief order denying the case, said the board did not act beyond its authority in using the sample method to determine candidate signature sufficiency.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://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
