Perry Johnson

STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

____________
PERRY JOHNSON,
DOCKET NO. ____________________
Plaintiff,
v COMPLAINT FOR MANDAMUS AND

EX PARTE MOTION FOR ORDER FOR
MICHIGAN BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS, SHOW CAUSE
JOCELYN BENSON, in her official capacity as
Secretary of State, and JONATHAN BRATER, in his
official capacity as Director of the Michigan Bureau of
Elections.
Defendants.
Jonathan B. Koch (P80408) Jason B. Torchinsky*

D. Adam Tountas (P68579) Chris Winkelman**
Rachael M. Roseman (P78971) HOLTZMAN VOGEL BARAN
SMITH HAUGHEY RICE & ROEGGE TORCHINSKY & JOSEFIAK PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant Attorneys for Perry Johnson
100 Monroe Center NW 15405 John Marshall Highway
Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Haymarket, Virginia 20169
(616) 774-8000 (540) 341-8808 (phone)
jkoch@shrr.com (540) 341-8809 (fax)
RECEIVED by MCOA 5/27/2022 11:02:20 AM

jtorchinsky@holtzmanvogel.com
cwinkelman@holtzmanvogel.com
*Licensed to practice in Virginia and the

District of Columbia; application for pro
hac vice admission forthcoming
**Licensed to practice in Florida;
application for pro hac vice admission
forthcoming.
COMPLAINT FOR MANDAMUS AND EX PARTE MOTION FOR ORDER FOR SHOW
CAUSE
***EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION BY JUNE 1, 2022 REQUESTED***
There is no other pending or resolved civil action arising out of the

transactions or occurrences alleged in this complaint.
SHRR\5538106v1
Plaintiff Perry Johnson, through his attorneys Smith Haughey Rice and Roegge and
Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC, state the following:
Introduction
1. This is an original action in which Perry Johnson seeks a writ of mandamus to
compel the Michigan Secretary of State and Board of State Canvassers to certify his name as a
Republican candidate for the Office of Governor on the August 2, 2022 primary ballot.
2. The State must have a certified ballot by June 18, 2022 in order to comply with
federal law requirements for the August 2, 2022 primary election. And the Secretary of State has
represented that it needs to begin proofing and printing the ballots on June 3, 2022 to comply with
that deadline.
3. 15,000 signatures are needed to certify Perry Johnson’s nomination as a candidate
for the office of Governor. Mr. Johnson filed nominating petitions with over 22,700 1 signatures
and signed a sworn affidavit stating that they were valid and genuine to the best of his information,
knowledge, and belief.

4. The Board held a public hearing on May 26, 2022. At the hearing, Bureau of
Elections Director Jonathan Brater admitted that the Bureau recommended invalidating signatures
without checking each of them against the Qualified Voter File (QVF). Director Brater also
admitted that Bureau staff only compared about 7,000 of the 68,000 signatures it deemed invalid
for being circulated by allegedly fraudulent circulators against the signature records in the QVF.
According to Bureau Director Jonathan Brater it was “impractical” to check every signature
against the QVF. Importantly, neither the Bureau nor the Board ever indicated how many of the
1
In his affidavit, Mr. Johnson stated that he submitted approximately 22, 700 signatures. The
Bureau represents that Mr. Johnson submitted exactly 23,193 signatures. For the purposes of this
complaint, Mr. Johnson will use the Bureau’s number.
2
SHRR\5538106v1
signatures on Mr. Johnson’s petitions it had compared to the QVF, if any. And, because the Bureau
hasn’t checked them and Mr. Johnson doesn’t have access to the QVF, to this day, no one knows
how many of the disqualified signatures could actually be fraudulent.
5. The Board ultimately deadlocked 2-2 along partisan lines. As a result, the Board
failed to declare the sufficiency of Mr. Johnson’s complaint.
6. Upon information and belief, the Secretary of State has not and will not certify Mr.
Johnson’s name as a Republican candidate for the Office of Governor on the August 2, 2022
primary ballot.
7. For several reasons, Defendants’ refusal to certify Mr. Johnson’s candidacy for the
August 2, 2022 primary ballot violates their clear legal duties under the United States and Michigan
Constitutions, the Michigan Election Law, and binding judicial precedent.
8. First, despite having a clear legal duty to do so, the Board failed to review every
single allegedly invalid signature for genuineness by comparing it to the digitized signature in the
Qualified Voter File (QVF) or local election authorities’ records, as required by MCL 168.552 and

MCL 168.554c of the Michigan Election law, binding judicial precedent, and the due process
clause of the United States and Michigan Constitutions.
9. Second, despite having a clear legal duty to apply the right legal standard, the Board
applied the wrong standard for signature comparison. Michigan law requires that “signatures
appearing on petitions filed with the Secretary of State” are “presumed valid, and the burden is on
the protestant to establish their invalidity by clear, convincing and competent evidence.” Jaffee v
Allen, 87 Mich App 281, 285; 274 NW2d 38 (1978); Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Mich v Com’r
of Ins, 204 Mich App 361, 365-368; 514 NW2d 547 (1994). The Board failed to apply that standard
to Mr. Johnson’s nominating petitions. It also violated Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s
3
SHRR\5538106v1
guidance requiring that the Board “must perform their signature verification duties with the
presumption that a voter’s petition signature is his or her genuine signature” and “treat the
signature as valid” if it has “any redeeming qualities in the petition signature as compared to the
signature on file.” Exhibit 1, Secretary of State Guidance re: Circulating and Canvassing
Countywide Petition Forms Nominating and Qualifying Petitions (April 2020), pg. 12-13.
10. Third, despite having a clear legal duty not to do so, the Board invalidated entire
petition sheets based on alleged forgeries, in direction violation of MCL 168.554c(6)’s mandate
that “The invalidity of 1 or more signatures on a petition does not affect the validity of the
remainder of the signatures on the petition,” as well as binding judicial precedent.
11. There was no indication that the staff of the Secretary compared any of the
signatures on Mr. Johnson’s petitions to the QVF before or after applying some unspecified eyeball
test to make a determination – and public allegations – of “fraud.” To date, there is no indication
that the Secretary contacted any individuals who circulated these petitions, no indication that the
Secretary contacted any individuals whose information appears on the face of the petitions, or any

of the other hallmarks of a traditional government fraud investigation. And, there have been no
criminal or civil charges yet brought against any of the individuals who circulated the allegedly
fraudulent petitions.
12. Fourth, the Board violated Mr. Johnson’s right to due process guaranteed under
both the United States and Michigan Constitutions by denying him notice of the basis for its
determination that signatures on his petitions were invalid, and a meaningful opportunity to
respond to its allegations of invalidity, fraud, and forgery.
13. Although it claims that 9,393 signatures on his petitions are invalid, the Bureau has
never given Mr. Johnson an itemized list of each of those signatures. Nor has the Bureau given
4
SHRR\5538106v1
him any explanation for its invalidation other than a general disqualification of each signature
gathered by 18 circulators for various and sundry “indicators” of fraud. Instead, the Bureau has
only specifically identified 78 of his signatures that may be invalid for jurisdictional reasons or
because they are of dubious authenticity. No specific signatures on any petition sheet has yet been
identified as forged and presented to Mr. Johnson by the Secretary in compliance with Michigan
law.
14. Because the Board violated its clear legal duties by applying the wrong standard,
violating the law, acting contrary to binding judicial precedent, ignoring the Secretary of State’s
guidance, and violating Mr. Johnson’s constitutional rights, it failed to meet its burden of
establishing that he had less than 15,000 valid signatures on his nominating petitions.
15. In other words, because Defendants failed to provide specific evidence that less
than 15,000 of the signatures on Mr. Johnson’s petitions were valid and genuine, they failed to
carry their burden of establishing the invalidity of enough of Mr. Johnson’s signatures by clear,
competent, and convincing evidence. So they had a clear legal duty to take all necessary measures

to ensure he appeared as a candidate on the August 2, 2022 primary ballot.
16. Had the Board fulfilled its clear legal duties by applying the right standard,
following the law, complying with judicial precedent, following Secretary Benson’s guidance, and
respecting Mr. Johnson’s constitutional rights, it would have found that he had more 15,000 valid
signatures.
17. Because Mr. Johnson had more than 15,000 valid signatures on his petitions, the
Board has a clear legal duty to declare the sufficiency of nominating petitions, and the Secretary
of State has a clear legal duty to certify his name as a Republican candidate for the Office of
Governor of Michigan on the August 2, 2022 primary ballot.
5
SHRR\5538106v1
18. Each of Defendants’ duties listed above involves the performance of a ministerial
act without the exercise of discretion or judgment.
19. Ballots for the August 2, 2022 primary must be sent to uniformed personnel and
absentee voters on June 18, 2022. Before then, the ballots need to be printed and proofed. And the
parties need time to perfect their appellate rights. Given those extreme time constraints, an action
for mandamus is the only possible avenue for Mr. Johnson’s name to appear on the August 2, 2022
primary ballot. So he has no other adequate legal or equitable remedy aside from a writ of
mandamus.
20. It follows, then, that Mr. Johnson is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the
Board of State Canvassers to officially declare the sufficiency of his nominating petitions and the
Secretary of State to certify his name as a Republican candidate for the Office of Governor on the
August 2, 2022 primary ballot.
Parties
21. Perry Johnson is a Michigan resident who seeks to appear as a Republican candidate

for the Office of Governor on the August 2, 2022 primary ballot.
22. Defendant Board of State Canvassers is a four-member public body created by the
Michigan Constitution of 1963 and by statute. See Const 1963, Art. 2, § 7; MCL 168.22.
23. Defendant Jocelyn Benson is Michigan’s Secretary of State. The Secretary of State
is a publicly elected position created by the Michigan Constitution of 1963. See Const 1963, Art.
5, § 3, 21. The Secretary of State is “the chief election officer of the state” and has “supervisory
control over local election officials in the performance of their duties under the provisions of this
act.” MCL 168.21.
6
SHRR\5538106v1
24. Defendant Jonathan Brater is Michigan’s Director of Elections and is vested with
the authority to administer Michigan’s election laws under the supervision of the Secretary of
State. MCL 168.32(1). Director Brater is sued in his official capacity and only to the extent his
participation in this case is necessary for relief granted by the Court.
Jurisdiction and Venue
25. This Court has jurisdiction and authority to issue, hear, and determine writs of
mandamus. MCL 600.217(3); MCL 600.310.
26. This Court has jurisdiction to “entertain an action for…mandamus against a state
officer” and “any original action required by law to be filed in the Court of Appeals or Supreme
Court.” MCR 7.203, citing MCL 600.4401.
27. The Secretary of State and Board of State Canvassers are “state officers” for
mandamus purposes. Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution v Secretary of State, 280 Mich
App 273, 282, 761 NW2d 210 (2008), aff’d in part, lv den 482 Mich. 960, 755 NW2d 157 (2008)
(“The Secretary and the Board are ‘state officers’ for purposes of mandamus.”); Stand Up for

Democracy v Sec of State, 297 Mich App 45, 61; 824 NW2d 220 (2012), rev’d on other grounds
492 Mich 588; 822 NW2d 159 (2012); Citizens for Protection of Marriage v Board of State
Canvassers, 263 Mich App 487, 491; 688 NW2d 538 (2004).
28. MCL 168.552(12) provides that “[a] person who filed a nominating petition with
the secretary of state and who feels aggrieved by a determination made by the board of state
canvassers” may “have the determination reviewed by mandamus, certiorari, or other appropriate
process in the supreme court.” MCL 168.552(12).
29. But the Supreme Court has held that, “[d]espite the language of MCL 168.552(12),
a mandamus action against the Board of State Canvassers is properly filed in the Court of Appeals
7
SHRR\5538106v1
or the circuit court.” Schwarzberg v Board of State Canvassers, 649 NW2d 73 (Mich July 3, 2002)
(Table) MCR 7.203(C)(5), MCR 3.305(A); Callahan v Board of State Canvassers, 646 NW2d 470
(Mich June 20, 2002) (Table); Jane Ellen Gillis v Bd of State Canvassers, Secretary of State, 552
NW2d 170 (Mich July 23, 1996) (Table) (The complaint for mandamus is considered, and it is
DISMISSED because this mandamus action against the Board of State Canvassers and the
Secretary of State is properly filed in the Court of Appeals or in circuit court. MCR 7.203(C)(5),
MCR 3.305(A).”).
30. This Court is the proper venue for this action: “[a]n action for mandamus against a
state officer shall be commenced in the court of appeals, or in the circuit court in the county in
which venue is proper or in Ingham county, at the option of the party commencing the action.”
MCL 600.4401(1); MCR 3.305(A)(1) (“An action for mandamus against a state officer may be
brought in the Court of Appeals or the Court of Claims.”).
Factual Background
A. Mr. Johnson submitted nominating petitions with 23,193 signatures supporting his
candidacy—8,193 more than the 15,000 statutory minimum.

31. Perry Johnson is a candidate for Governor of the State of Michigan who seeks the
Republican Party’s nomination via the August 2, 2022 primary ballot. To be included on the
official primary ballot, a candidate for nomination by a political party for the office of governor
must submit nominating petitions with at least 15,000 valid signatures. MCL 168.53; MCL
168.544f. 2
32. By statute, nominating petitions for the office of governor “shall be received by the
secretary of state for filing in accordance with this act up to 4 p.m. of the fifteenth Tuesday before
2
A gubernatorial candidate must also have petitions that are “signed by at least 100 registered
resident electors in each of at least ½ of the congressional districts of the state.” MCL 168.53. It’s
undisputed that Mr. Johnson satisfies this criteria.
8
SHRR\5538106v1
the August primary.” MCL 168.53. The 2022 primary election is scheduled for August 2, 2022
and April 19, 2022 is the fifteenth Tuesday before that date. So the deadline for Mr. Johnson to
submit nominating petitions was April 19, 2022. Id.; Exhibit 2, 2022 Michigan Election Dates,
pg. 4.
33. Although only 15,000 signatures are needed to certify his name as a candidate for
the August 2, 2022 primary, Mr. Johnson filed nominating petitions containing more than 23,000
signatures. And he filed those petitions on or before April 19, 2022.
B. Carol Bray’s challenge to Mr. Johnson’s nominating petitions and Mr. Johnson’s
response.
34. Individuals seeking to challenge “the registration of or the genuineness of the
signature of the circulator or of a person signing a nominating petition filed with the secretary of
state” must file their complaint with the Board of State Canvassers “within 7 days after the deadline
for filing the nominating petitions.” MCL 168.552(8).
35. On April 26, 2022, Carol Bray filed with the Board of Canvassers a sworn
complaint challenging signatures on nominating petitions filed by Mr. Johnson. Exhibit 3, Carol

Bray’s Sworn Complaint. 3 It purported to “set[] forth the specific signatures included on the
Johnson Petitions claimed to be invalid and the specific petitions for which the complaint questions
the validity and genuineness of the signature or the registration of the circulator.” Id. at 1.
36. Ms. Bray’s sworn complaint contained the following specific challenges.
a. Ms. Bray challenged 66 signatures allegedly associated with people who are dead.
Id. at 2-4.
b. Ms. Bray challenged 1 signature because it was allegedly made by someone who
produced an affidavit stating that it wasn’t her signature. Id. at 4.
c. Ms. Bray challenged 99 signatures that had allegedly been crossed out. Id. at 5-7.
3
The Bureau never processed Ms. Bray’s challenge to Mr. Johnson’s petition.
9
SHRR\5538106v1
d. Ms. Bray challenged 98 signatures that were allegedly duplicative of other
signatures included on the Johnson petitions. Id. at 7-12.
e. Ms. Bray challenged 334 signatures that were allegedly duplicative of signatures
included on petitions submitted by other candidates for the office of governor. Id.
at 12-19.
f. Ms. Bray challenged 8 signatures because the signer was allegedly not registered
in the city or township listed. Id. at 19-20.
g. Ms. Bray challenged 163 signatures that were allegedly invalid because “the
petition signature does not match the signature on file” in the Qualified Voter File
or the records of the local election authorities. Id. at 20-23.
h. Ms. Bray challenged 47 signatures based on allegations that “the signature was
omitted” or “the signer printed his or her name and the signature on file is cursive.”
Id. at 24-25.
i. Ms. Bray challenged 339 signatures based on allegations that they contained
“address and jurisdiction errors that result in invalid signatures on a nominating
petition.” Id. at 25-32. Specifically, she challenged 208 signatures that allegedly
listed “[a]n omitted or incomplete street address” or used “a post office box number
in place of a street address,” 101 signatures that allegedly listed a city or township
that “is not located within the county listed in the heading of the petition,” and 30
signatures that allegedly listed “dual jurisdiction[s],” i.e., “the names of two or
more jurisdictions in the space for the city and township where [the signer]
registered.” Id.
j. Ms. Bray challenged 230 signatures based on allegations that they contain “several

date-related errors [that] result in invalid signatures on a nominating petition.” Id.
at 33-38. Specifically, she challenged 69 signatures that were allegedly “undated”
or listed “an incomplete date,” and 161 signatures that were allegedly “dated after
the date that the circulator dated the circulator’s petition.” Id.
k. Ms. Bray challenged 291 signatures based on allegations that the sheets they are
contained on contain errors that result in the entire sheet being invalid. Id. at 38-45.
Specifically, she challenged 36 sheets containing 187 signatures because the sheets
allegedly included “fatal defect[s] in a circulator’s certificate” such as “omission of
the circulator’s signature, an incorrect or incomplete address or date of signing, or
the failure of an out-state circulator to check the box for out-state residents”; 1 sheet
containing 1 signature because the sheet allegedly included a “fatal defect in the
elements of a petition sheet heading”; 11 sheets containing 91 signatures because
the sheets were allegedly “damaged, mutilated, or [had] mandatory elements of the
petition sheet obscured or covered”; and 6 sheets containing 12 signatures because
the sheets allegedly had a grab-bag of “other identification problems. Id.
l. Finally, without challenging any specific signature or providing any evidence of

specific instances of fraud or forgeries, Ms. Bray challenged 343 petition sheets (as
10
SHRR\5538106v1
opposed to signatures) based solely on the fact that they were signed by six
circulators 4 who also submitted petitions in support of a different candidate that
were challenged (but not yet adjudicated). Id. at 45-48. According to Ms. Bray,
again without citing any specifics, the challenged petitions “include similar
indications of similar handwriting on multiple entries and other visual indicators of
potential forgeries.” Id. at 45. Upon information and belief, the 343 petition sheets
challenged based on unspecified alleged forgeries contained 4,291 signatures.
37. In total, then, Ms. Bray raised 5,967 challenges to entries on Mr. Johnson’s
nominating petitions. But, when 325 multiple duplicative challenges to the same signature or
petition sheet are accounted for, Ms. Bray only challenged 5,642 unique petition entries on Mr.
Johnson’s petitions. And even that number is overinflated since it includes 187 challenges to
signatures lines that are entirely blank or crossed out. In other words, those lines wouldn’t have
been counted towards Mr. Johnson’s signature total in the first place.
38. On Tuesday, April 26, 2022, the Michigan Bureau of Elections informed Mr.
Johnson that his written response to Ms. Bray’s sworn complaint was due on May 6, 2022 at 5:00
p.m.
39. Mr. Johnson timely filed his response to Ms. Bray’s sworn complaint on May 6,

2022. Exhibit 4, Perry Johnson Response to Carol Bray’s Sworn Complaint.
40. In it, Mr. Johnson argued that:
a. There was no reason for the Board to go beyond its normal canvassing procedures
and enmesh itself in the weeds of Ms. Bray’s challenges. Mr. Johnson filed 7,742
signatures more than the minimum requirement of 15,000. But she only challenged
roughly 6,000 of the signatures on his petitions. So, even if the Board upheld all the
challenges, Mr. Johnson would still have enough valid signatures to qualify for the
primary ballot and the Board would still have a clear duty to certify his petition. Id.
at 2-4.
b. Even if the Board investigated Ms. Bray’s challenges, the Michigan Election Law
and constitutional due process concerns dictate that its investigation must be limited
4
The challenged circulators are named Stephen Tinnin, Yazmine Vassar, Deshawn Evans,
Nicholas Carlton, Diallo Vaughn, and William Williams.
11
SHRR\5538106v1
to only those signatures that were specifically challenged in her sworn complaint.
Id. at 4-5.
c. Every signature on Mr. Johnson’s petitions that Ms. Bray alleges is “incomplete”
because it doesn’t match the digitized signatures in the QVF—and, indeed, any
signature on Mr. Johnson’s petitions that is not obviously fraudulent—is presumed
valid under well-established Michigan law and must be counted if it has any
redeeming qualities. Id. at 5-10.
d. Many of Ms. Bray’s challenges to petition entries that include a printed signature
lacked merit because printed signatures are valid under well-established Michigan
law and, in any event, they must be still compared to the voter’s digitized signature
in the QVF. Id. 10-11.
e. Many of Ms. Bray’s challenges to entire petition sheets based on alleged forgeries
lack merit because she fails to allege or identify any specific instances of fraud and
because the Michigan Election Law does not allow the Board to invalidate entire
petition sheets because of one or more fraudulent signatures; rather, it must conduct
a signature-by-signature analysis of the sheets to identify any valid signatures. Id.
at 11-15.
f. Many of Ms. Bray’s challenges based on allegedly dead voters lack merit for
several reasons, including that many of her challenges were to blank lines (which
weren’t counted in the first place), identified a deceased person that did not match
the name on the challenged petition entry, or failed to establish that the voter was
deceased when the petition was signed. Id. at 15-20.
g. Ms. Bray’s challenged based on allegedly damaged or mutilated sheets were

entirely meritless because the challenged sheets had nothing wrong with them and,

in any event, she encouraged the Board to apply a standard that was inconsistent
with guidance from the Secretary of State. Id. at 21-26.
h. Many of Ms. Bray’s challenges based on allegedly duplicative signatures lack merit
because some of the signatures weren’t duplicative, a voter who inadvertently
signed Mr. Johnson’s petitions multiple times must still be counted once, and any
signature that was allegedly duplicative of another candidate’s signature is entitled
to be counted if that voter signed Mr. Johnson’s petition first. Id. at 27-28.
i. Many of Ms. Bray’s challenges based on incomplete omitted street addresses or

multiple listed jurisdictions lack merit because many of them listed a complete,
compliant, and valid address, or listed a correct township or city that existed within
the Michigan county listed on the petition sheet heading. Id. at 28-30.
j. Many of Ms. Bray’s remaining challenges lack merit because any signature that
was incomplete—including a circulator’s signature—was presumed valid and
subject to review under the permissive “any redeeming qualities” standard, or
because the challenged information was, in fact, correct. Id. at 30-37.
12
SHRR\5538106v1
k. Several of the allegedly crossed-out signatures weren’t crossed out. Id. at 38.
41. Mr. Johnson also argued that constitutional due process requires that he receive
copies of any evidence used to evaluate the validity or genuineness of the signatures on his
petitions (including digitized signature records from the QVF or local authorities) in order to
meaningfully contest the challenges to his petitions, and that he be allowed to be present through
counsel during any of signature-by-signature canvassing of his petitions by the Board or its staff.
Id. at 38-42.
42. On May 11, 2022—22 days after Mr. Johnson’s deadline; 15 days after the deadline
for filing challenges to his nominating petitions; and 5 days after the Bureau’s deadline for Mr.
Johnson to respond to her complaint—Ms. Bray filed an amendment to her complaint that
purported to “correct page references to 56 of the 66 challenged signatures included in Table 1 of
[her] sworn complaint” that were questioned based on allegations that “the name and address
associated with each of those signatures appear to be the name and address of a dead person.”
Exhibit 5, Carol Bray’s Untimely Supplemental Filing at 1. Notably, the document did not attempt

to cure any other deficient challenges or address the fact that it was untimely under the plain
language of MCL 168.552(8).
43. On May 18, 2022, Mr. Johnson filed his response to Ms. Bray’s untimely
submission. Exhibit 6, Perry Johnson’s Response to Carol Bray’s Untimely Supplemental Filing.
In it, he argued that because Ms. Bray filed her amended challenges long after the statutory 7-day
deadline for filing challenges to nominating petition and the Michigan Election Law does not
provide a mechanism for amending a challenge, it would be “error” for the Board to consider under
binding Michigan Supreme Court precedent. Id. at 1-5, quoting Callahan v Board of State
Canvassers, 467 Mich 864; 650 NW2d 656 (2002). Mr. Johnson also argued that, under binding
Michigan judicial precedent, the Michigan Election Law, and the Secretary of State’s guidance,
13
SHRR\5538106v1
the Board lacks authority to strike entire petition sheets (or disqualify Mr. Johnson from the ballot)
just because some sheets completed by some circulators may have contained some forged
signatures. Id. at 5-8.
C. The Bureau’s Staff Reports
44. The Secretary of State’s Bureau of Elections issued its staff reports to the candidates
and their counsel on May 23, 2022 at 7:55 p.m., at least a half-hour after it leaked the findings to
the news media. Exhibit 7, Staff Report Email; Exhibit 14, Tweets About Johnson Staff Report
(showing receipt of reports by news media before 7:30).
45. The Staff Report on Perry Johnson’s nominating petitions concluded that although
he submitted a total of 23,193 signatures, only 13,800 were facially valid. Exhibit 8, Perry Johnson
Staff Report, pg. 1. Because that’s less than the threshold requirement, the Bureau staff
recommended that the Board determine that Mr. Johnson’s petition was insufficient to qualify him
as a Republican gubernatorial candidate for the August 2, 2022 primary. Id. at 6.
46. The Staff Report identified a total 9,393 signatures on Mr. Johnson’s petitions as

invalid. Id. at 1. Specifically, it concluded that:
a. 68 signatures were invalid because the signer was no registered to vote.
b. 1,336 signatures were invalid because of “[j]urisdiction errors (no city in county
known by name given by signer, dual jurisdiction entry, jurisdiction name, given
by signer does not align with address)”
c. 269 signatures were invalid because of “[d]ate errors (no date given by signer, date
of birth entered, or date given by signer is later than circulator’s date of signing)”
d. 81 signatures were invalid because of “[a]ddress errors (no street address or rural
route given)”
e. 239 signatures were invalid because of “[c]irculator errors (circulator did not sign
or date petition)”
f. 15 signatures were invalid because of “[s]ignature errors (no signature or

incomplete signature)”
14
SHRR\5538106v1
g. 402 signatures were invalid because of “[m]iscellaneous errors (signatures of
dubious authenticity, where the petition signature does not match the signature on
file or multiple signatures appear to have been written by the same individual)”
h. 6,983 signatures were invalid because they were “on sheets submitted by
fraudulent-petition circulators.” Id.
47. Incredibly, the Staff used an unprecedented targeting “process” to strike every
single signature from any individual or entity whom it declared to be a “fraudulent-petition
circulator.” In other words, instead of reviewing each signature for authenticity with the
presumption that every signature on every sheet is valid, the Staff indiscriminately struck more
than 68,000 signatures, including 6,983 from Mr. Johnson’s nominating petition based on this error
of law.
48. The Staff described its process for identifying allegedly fraudulent signatures:
Staff reviewed each petition sheet submitted by Mr. Johnson.

During that review, staff flagged each sheet which was signed by a
fraudulent-petition circulator. For additional information on sheets
submitted by fraudulent-petition circulators, see Staff Report on
Fraudulent Nominating Petitions.
In total, staff’s review of Mr. Johnson’s petition sheets identified

9,393 invalid signatures and 13,800 facially valid signatures, which
dropped him below the 15,000 threshold and rendered him ineligible
for the ballot. [Id. at 1.]
49. In other words, although the Bureau’s staff reviewed every sheet to identify the
circulator’s identity, it didn’t look at each individual signature on the petitions.
50. The signatures from allegedly fraudulent-petition circulators were identified as
follows, Id. at 2:
15
SHRR\5538106v1
51. To support its conclusion that 6,983 signatures on Mr. Johnson’s petitions were
invalid and not genuine, the Bureau Staff claimed that during their review it identified three
categories to support its broad-based conclusions.
52. First, the Staff concluded that “[A] number of fraudulent signatures that were

purported to be from voters who had been canceled… for a variety of reasons which included
moving out of state and death” or that “listed an address where the voter has not resided from at
least one to eight years prior to signing.” Id. at 2.
53. But, despite claiming to identify an unspecified “number” of such signatures, the
Bureau Staff only specifically identified 2 such signatures. Id.
54. Next, the Staff claimed it identified signatures where “the voter’s name is
misspelled, either in the signature block or in the block for the voter’s printed name.” Id. at 2.
Without any reference to authority, the Staff propounded that “[m]isspelling of the purported
individual’s own name is an indicator of fraud” and “a large number of signatures in which the
16
SHRR\5538106v1
proffered signature appears to have a different spelling than the printed name is an indicator of
fraud.” Id.
55. But, despite purporting to identify a “large number” of such signatures, the Report
only specifically identified 8 signatures where the signer allegedly misspelled the voter’s name
and 4 signatures where “the name of the voter’s jurisdiction or street was spelled wrong, or the
jurisdiction was mischaracterized” (e.g., referring to Bloomfield Hills as Bloomfield), for a total
of 12 signatures. Id. at 3.
56. Third, the Staff claimed to have identified signatures where there was a “repeated
use of an uncommon signature abbreviation”—i.e. “the use of a first name and last initial as a
signature.” Id. at 4. Again, without reference to any authority, the Staff using a first name and last
initial is “rare.” Id. But, despite claiming that this “unusual combination was included throughout
the fraudulent petition sheets,” the Report only specifically identifies 3 such examples. Id.
57. So, despite claiming that 6,983 signatures on Mr. Johnson’s petitions were invalid
due to widespread fraud, the Bureau only specifically identified a grand total of 17 signatures as

fraudulent. Id. at 2-4.
58. The report went to identify how many signatures it determined were invalid for a
variety of jurisdictional reasons during the face review, including: (1) listing the county instead of
the township or city (521 signatures); (2) listing a city or township that was not located within the
count listed on the heading (711 signatures); and (3) listing more than one township or city (104
signatures). Id. at 4-5. But, aside from including 2 petition sheets with 20 signatures, the Report
failed to specifically identify any of the remaining 1,316 signatures that were allegedly invalid
because of jurisdiction. Id. at 4-5.
17
SHRR\5538106v1
59. The Report also claimed that 402 signatures were invalid because of “miscellaneous
errors, including signatures of dubious authenticity submitted by circulators other than those listed
in the fraudulent-circulator report.” Id. at 5. But, aside from mentioning one person who circulated
“4 petition sheets [with] 40 signatures of dubious authenticity,” the Report failed to specifically
identify any of the remaining 362 signatures that were allegedly of dubious authenticity or explain
what made them dubious.
60. Finally, the Report noted that, although Carol Bray had filed a challenge to Mr.
Johnson’s signatures, “the challenge was not processed because the signatures because the
circulators named above are the same ones the staff had already identified as fraudulent-petition
circulators in its own review. Mr. Johnson did not meet the threshold for certification to the ballot
based on the staff’s initial review.” Id. at 6.
61. In addition to preparing a Staff Report on Mr. Johnson’s petition, the Bureau also
prepared an omnibus Staff Report that focused on the allegedly fraudulent petition circulators.
Exhibit 9, Staff Report on Fraudulent Nominating Petitions (the “Omnibus Report”).

62. The Omnibus report claimed that during its review of the nominating petitions for
the August 2, 2021 primary, the Bureau staff “identified 36 petition circulators who submitted
fraudulent petition sheets consisting entirely of invalid signatures.” Id. at 1 (footnotes omitted).
According to the Bureau, “All petition sheets submitted by these circulators displayed suspicious
patterns indicative of fraud, and staff reviewing these signatures against the Qualified Voter File
(QVF) did not identify any signatures that appeared to be submitted by a registered voter.” Id.
63. The Omnibus report purports to “explain[] how and when staff identified the
fraudulent petition sheets, the process developed to address the fraudulent sheets, and an appendix
showing examples of the practices these circulators used to submit invalid signatures.” Id. at 1.
18
SHRR\5538106v1
64. The Bureau claims that because of the large number of candidates trying to qualify
for the August 2, 2022 primary ballot, “Bureau staff began to review nominating petitions at the
end of March, after several gubernatorial candidates had submitted nominating petitions.” Id. at 2.
65. “During this review, staff noticed a large number of petition sheets, submitted by
certain circulators, appeared fraudulent and consisted entirely of invalid signatures.” Id.
66. According to the Omnibus Report, these petition sheets “tended to display at least
one of the following patterns”: (1) an “unusually large number of petition sheets where every
signature line was completed, or where every line was completed but one or two lines were crossed
out”; (2) sheets with “signs of apparent attempts at ‘intentional’ signature invalidity”; (3) an
“unusually large number of petition sheets that showed no evidence of normal wear that
accompanies circulation”; (4) sheets that “appeared to be ‘round-tabled’”; (5) sheets on which
“blank and completed lines were randomly interspersed” which apparently indicates “that a sheet
had been submitted ‘mid-round-table’”; (6) sheets “where all ten lines had signatures and partial
addresses or dates, but only a random subset were fully completed”; (7) sheets on which every

instance of the handwriting of certain letters was nearly identical across lines, including signatures;
and (8) sheets “where the two or three distinct handwriting styles appeared on multiple sheets.” Id.
at 2.
67. The Omnibus Report claims that these observations led the Bureau staff to begin
comparing signatures to the QVF, which revealed more issues, including: (1) discrepancies
between the petition signatures and the QVF signatures; (2) signatures corresponding to addresses
where voter was previously registered; (3) signatures corresponding to formerly registered voters
whose registrations were cancelled due to death; (4) signatures where the name on the petition was
spelled differently than in the QVF, or “where the petition used the voter’s middle name or a
19
SHRR\5538106v1
diminutive or nickname”; and (5) signatures that listed the mailing address jurisdiction rather than
the actual jurisdiction. Id. at 3.
68. These issues led Bureau staff to identify “numerous circulators” who they believed
to be forging signatures “utilizing an outdated mailing list obtained from some source.” Id.
69. Usually, the Bureau’s approach to nominating petitions has two stages. First, staff
“face reviews” every petition sheet and signature for facial compliance with the Michigan Election
Law, which entails checking the heading and circulator certificate; ensuring that the signature is
accompanied by address, date, and name; and checking that the listed city or township is in the
county listed on the heading. Id. at 3-4. After this stage, if the candidate has enough facially valid
signatures to qualify for the ballot, the Bureau notes the difference (or “cushion”) and then
“reviews any challenges to the petition’s sufficiency.” Id. at 4. If the cushion exceeds the number
of challenges the Bureau doesn’t process the challenge. If not, the Bureau processes the challenge
to determine whether the candidate has enough signatures to meet the required threshold. Id.
70. The Omnibus Report acknowledges that “the Bureau has previously not developed

a separate review procedure for fraudulent petition sheets.” Id. Thus, “in the past,” the Bureau
“would review sheets and signatures individually if identified during face review or during a
challenge.” Id.
71. But “because of the unprecedent number of fraudulent petition sheets consistent of
invalid signatures identified during the initial review of petition sheets,” the Omnibus Report
admitted that the Bureau concluded that “it was not practical to review these sheets individually
during the course of ordinary face review and challenge processing.” Id.
72. So the Bureau came up with a new process that included “an additional step.” Id.
Specifically, “[p]rior to face review, staff reviewed each candidate’s petitions for petitions signed
20
SHRR\5538106v1
by circulators who were suspected of submitting fraudulent sheets” and “separated” them from the
remaining petition sheets for each candidate Id.
73. After separating these allegedly fraudulent sheets, the Bureau staff didn’t do a
comparison of every single signature they contained as Michigan law normally requires. Rather,
“staff conducted a targeted signature check of signatures across each circulator’s sheets for each
candidate to confirm that these circulators’ submissions in fact consisted of fraudulent sheets with
invalid signatures.” Id. at 4-5.
74. After determining “that all reviewed signatures”—but not all signatures—
“appearing on sheets signed by the fraudulent-petition circulators were invalid,” the Bureau staff
counted up the total number of signatures on the allegedly fraudulent sheets and subtracted it from
the number of signatures submitted by the candidate. Id. at 5. If the candidate still had more than
enough signatures to meet the required threshold, “the petitions were then put through the face
review and challenge process.” Id. If not, then the Bureau “recommended the Board determine the
petitions insufficient.” Id.

75. The Bureau recognized that it has no “reason to believe that any specific candidate
or campaigns were aware of the activities of fraudulent-petition circulators,” (id. at 5) nonetheless
they are the ones being punished because the Secretary’s office invented an extra-statutory process
to create a “shortcut” for staff who were unable to otherwise comply with the law.
D. The Board of Canvassers’ May 26, 2022 Hearing and Final Determination.
76. The Board held a hearing on Mr. Johnson’s nominating petition on May 26, 2022.
77. At the hearing, Bureau Director Brater claimed that it takes two weeks to proof and
print ballots and, because of the June 18, 2022 deadline, ballot printing needs to begin on June 3,
2022.
21
SHRR\5538106v1
78. Director Brater also provided additional details regarding the Bureau’s
investigation of the nominating petitions. He claimed that during the Bureau’s initial investigation
where it determined that more than 68,000 signatures were on petitions by the alleged fraudulent
circulators, it looked at every petition sheet. But he also maintained that it was not possible for the
Bureau staff to compare each and every one of those 68,000 signatures with the digitized signature
in the QVF. In fact, Director Brater admitted that Bureau staff only compared about 7,000 of the
more than 68,000 with the related QVF entries.
79. At no point did Director Brater ever state how many signatures on Mr. Johnson’s
petitions were reviewed by Bureau staff. But at one point, he maintained that Michigan law doesn’t
require Bureau staff to check every signature against the QVF.
80. So to this day, no one has ever compared each of the 6,983 signatures on Mr.
Johnson’s petitions that were disqualified by the Bureau with the QVF. Indeed, there is no evidence
that any of those 6,983 signatures has been compared with the QVF.
81. The Bureau presented no other evidence.

82. It did, however, make numerous sweeping statements about how not a single one
of the signatures on the petitions sheets circulated by the allegedly fraudulent circulators was
genuine.
83. However, counsel for Mr. Johnson presented evidence that the Bureau’s shotgun
approach had in fact invalidated genuine signatures.
84. Specifically, counsel for Mr. Johnson presented a sworn affidavit from a voter who
stated that she signed nominating petitions at the Clawson, Michigan post office on March 14,
2022, and that her handwriting appeared on a nominating petition circulated by Justin Garland of
Detroit. Exhibit 10, Affidavit; Exhibit 11, Perry Johnson Nominating Petition 1930.
22
SHRR\5538106v1
85. Justin Garland was one of the circulators that the Bureau claimed submitted 100%
fraudulent signatures (despite having failed to compare each of his signatures with QVF).
86. Counsel for Mr. Johnson also presented evidence that the nomination petition
signed by the voter had other indicia of reliability, namely that each of the signers lived within a
few miles of the post office where the voter signed the petition.
87. At the hearing, the Board deadlocked 2-2 along partisan lines on a motion to accept
the Staff Report related to Mr. Johnson’s nominating petition.
88. So the Board failed to certify Mr. Johnson’s nominating petition.
89. Upon information and belief, the Secretary of State has not and will not certify Mr.
Johnson’s name as a Republican candidate for the Office of Governor on the August 2, 2022
primary ballot.
Defendants’ Duties To Follow The Law, Generally.
90. The Secretary and Board members, as constitutional officers, must take the
constitutional oath of office, which states: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the

Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully
discharge the duties of the office of…according to the best of my ability. No other oath,
affirmation, or any religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust.”
Const 1963, art 11, § 1; see also MCL 168.22c (requiring Board members to take the oath).
91. Taking this oath obligates the Secretary and the Board to consider the lawfulness
and constitutionality of their every action. See Lucas v Bd of Road Comm’rs, 131 Mich App 642,
663; 348 NW2d 642 (1984) (noting Governor’s obligation); see also Rostker v Goldberg, 453 US
57, 64; 101 S Ct 2646; 69 L Ed 2d 478 (1981) (same for Congresspersons).
23
SHRR\5538106v1
92. Accordingly, Board members have a clear constitutional duty to ensure that their
action here comports with the Constitution and Michigan law.
93. Even aside from that constitutional duty, both the Board and Secretary of State must
follow Michigan law, and lack discretion to act contrary to Michigan statutes or binding judicial
precedent.
94. “The Board of State Canvassers comes within the definition of an ‘agency’ in the
Administrative Procedures Act.” Deleeuw v State Bd of Canvassers, 263 Mich App 496; 693
NW2d 179 (2004), citing MCL 24.203(2). An agency like the Board “has no inherent power” and
“[a]ny authority it may have is vested by the Legislature, in statutes, or by the
[C]onstitution.” Deleeuw v State Bd of Canvassers, 263 Mich App 496; 693 NW2d 179 (2004)
(citations omitted).
95. The Legislature cannot confer “arbitrary power” or “unlimited discretion” on an
administrative agency. Devereaux v Tp Bd of Genesee Tp, Genesee County, 211 Mich 38, 42-43;
177 NW 967 (1920). Thus, any so-called “discretionary” authority given to the Board must be

exercised “within definite legal limits.” Argo Oil Corporation v Atwood, 274 Mich 47, 52-54; 264
NW 285 (1935). Or, put differently, the Board “has no discretion to make a decision that is contrary
to law,” Singh v Clinton, 618 F3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir 2010) (citations omitted), and its discretion
must always be “exercised under and in pursuance of the law.” Auditor Gen v Hall, 300 Mich 215,
224; 1 NW 516 (1942) (citations omitted).
96. Because the Board must exercise its discretion within “legal limits,” it cannot
ignore the plain language of a Michigan statute. West Bloomfield Hosp v Cert of Need Bd, 208
Mich App 393; 528 NW2d 744 (1995), rev’d on other grounds 452 Mich 515 (1996) (When the
Legislature has spoken, “the agency may not ignore the Legislature’s mandate.”); Mich Charitable
24
SHRR\5538106v1
Gaming Ass’n v Mich, 310 Mich App 584, 593; 873 NW2d 827 (2015) (An agency’s decision
“cannot conflict with the intent of the Legislature as expressed in the plain language of the
statute.”).
97. Nor can the Board ignore binding judicial precedent; rather, it is “bound to follow
the law whether it be…case law or statutory law.” People v Wyngaard, 462 Mich 659, 676 n 2;
614 NW2d 143 (2000) (Cavanagh, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Stanton v Lloyd
Hammond, 400 Mich 135, 150; 253 NW2d 114 (1977) (Coleman, J., dissenting) (“[A] trial judge
(or administrative agency) is mandated to follow the law” and “[p]recedent set by this Court binds
the lower courts (and agencies).”); Koninklijke Philips Electronics NW v Cardiac Science
Operating Co, 590 F3d 1326, 1337 (Fed Cir 2010) (citations omitted) (“Judicial precedent is as
binding on administrative agencies as are statutes.”); State ex rel Ford v Schnell, 933 NW2d 393
(Minn 2019) (“Certainly an agency is not free to disregard published and binding judicial
precedent.”); 16A Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law § 252 (“[A]n administrative agency does not
have the power…to overrule or ignore a judicial precedent.”).

98. The Board’s obligation to follow the law is rooted in the separation-of-powers
doctrine embedded in the Michigan Constitution. The relevant constitutional provision provides:
“The powers of government are divided into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial”
and “[n]o person exercising powers of one branch shall exercise powers properly belonging to
another branch except as expressly provided in this constitution.” Const 1963, Art 3 § 2; In re
Complaint of Rovas Against SBC Mich., 482 Mich 90, 97-99; 754 NW2d 259 (2008).
99. “[T]he proper construction of a statute is a judicial function.” Webster v Rotary
Electric Steel Co., 321 Mich 526, 531, 33 NW2d 69 (1948) (internal citations omitted); Kelly v
Secretary of State, 293 Mich 530, 533, 292 NW 479 (1940). And, because statutory interpretation
25
SHRR\5538106v1
is an exercise of judicial power, “any statutory interpretation rendered by [an agency] is not binding
on the court,” Attorney General v BCBSM, 291 Mich App 64, 91-92; 810 NW2d 603 (2010), and
“cannot be used to overcome [a] statute’s plain meaning.” Ludington Serv Corp v Acting Com’r of
Ins, 444 Mich 481, 505; 511 NW2d 661 (1994) (citations and emphasis omitted).
100. At a minimum, the Board’s actions must be “authorized by law.” Const 1963 Art.
6, § 28; Detroit Public Schools v Conn, 308 Mich App 234, 245; 863 NW2d 373 (2014). A decision
is not authorized by law if “it is in violation of a statute or the constitution” or if it exceeds “the
statutory authority…of the agency.” Shirvell v Dep’t of Attorney Gen, 308 Mich App 702, 753;
866 NW2d 478 (2015); Oshtemo Charter Tp v Kalamazoo Co Road Com’n, 302 Mich App 574,
582-583; 841 NW2d 135 (2013).
101. A determination by the Board must be reversed if it is “contrary to law,” Dignan,
253 Mich App at 576 (citations omitted); Galien Twp Sch Dist v Dep’t of Ed, 310 Mich App 238,
246; 871 NW2d 382 (2015) (citations omitted), “if errors of law have been committed,” National-
Standard Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 384 Mich 184, 196; 180 NW2d 764 (1970), or if the Board

“failed to operate within the correct legal framework.” 1 Lawrence v Michigan Unemployment Ins
Agency, 320 Mich App 422, 436-437; 906 NW2d 482 (2017); Omian v Chrysler Group LLC, 309
Mich App 297, 306, 869 NW2d 625 (2015). Consistent with these principles, a decision by the
Board is void if it ignores judicial precedent.
102. So while the Board and the Secretary of State may have some discretion in carrying
out their duties in relation to the Michigan election law, neither Defendant has discretion to ignore
binding precedent or rewrite the plain language of statutes.
Defendants’ Duties Regarding Elections and Nominating Petitions, Specifically
26
SHRR\5538106v1
103. The Michigan Legislature has empowered the Board to enforce Michigan Election
Law’s technical requirements, MCL 168.1 et seq., relating to the circulation and form of candidate
nominating petitions. See MCL 168.544c; MCL 168.522.
104. The Board’s duties and responsibilities are established by the Michigan Election
law. MCL 168.22(2) says that the Board “has the duties prescribed in section 841. The board of
state canvassers shall perform other duties as prescribed in this act.” These responsibilities include
canvassing a nominating petition. See MCL 168.552; MCL 168.544c.
105. “The Board of State Canvassers' authority and duties with regard to qualifying
petitions are set forth at MCL 168.552(8).” Deleeuw v State Bd of Canvassers, 263 Mich App 496,
500-501; 693 NW2d 179 (2004); Berry v Garrett, 316 Mich App 37, 43; 890 NW2d 882 (2016).
106. After it receives nominating petitions from candidates, “the board of state
canvassers shall canvass the petitions to ascertain if the petitions have been signed by the requisite
number of qualified and registered electors.” MCL 168.552(8). In doing so, the Board “may cause
a doubtful signature to be checked against the qualified voter file or the registration records by the

clerk of a political subdivision in which the petitions were circulated.” Id.
107. If the Board receives a “sworn complaint…questioning the registration of or the
genuineness of the signature of the circulator or of a person signing a nominating petition filed
with the secretary of state, the board of state canvassers shall commence an investigation.” MCL
168.552(8).
108. In conducting its investigation, the Board “shall verify the registration or the
genuineness of a signature as required by subsection (13).” MCL 168.552(8). But “If the board is
unable to verify the genuineness of a signature on a petition” by comparing it to the digitized
signature in the QVF, “the board shall cause the petition to be forwarded to the proper city clerk
27
SHRR\5538106v1
or township clerk to compare the signatures on the petition with the signatures on the registration
record, or in some other manner determine whether the signatures on the petition are valid and
genuine.” MCL 168.552(8).
109. The Board “is not required to act on a complaint respecting the validity and
genuineness of signatures on a petition” unless it: (1) “sets forth the specific signatures claimed to
be invalid and the specific petition for which the complaint questions the validity and genuineness
of the signature or the registration of the circulator”; and (2) “is received by the board of state
canvassers within 7 days after the deadline for filing the nominating petitions.” MCL 168.552(8).
110. MCL 168.552(8) “provides that the board's sole duty with regard to qualifying
petitions is to determine whether the signatures on the petitions are valid, including those of the
people who circulate the petitions, whether they are the signatures of registered voters, and whether
there are sufficient valid signatures to certify the petitions.” Deleeuw v State Bd of Canvassers,
263 Mich App 496, 500-501; 693 NW2d 179 (2004). That is, “[u]nder MCL 168.552(8),
challenges to the sufficiency of the petition are limited to ‘questioning the registration or the

genuineness of the signature of the circulator or of a person signing a ... petition filed with the
secretary of state....’” and “[t]he board had no authority to consider any issues other than those
identified in MCL 168.552(8).” Id. at 501.
111. The Board may hold hearings “upon a complaint filed or for a purpose considered
necessary by the board of state canvassers to conduct an investigation of the petitions.” MCL
168.552(9). But it “shall complete the canvass not less than 9 weeks before the primary election at
which candidates are to be nominated.” Id.
112. In canvassing a candidate’s nominating petitions, the Board “may consider any
deficiency found on the face of the petition that does not require verification against data
28
SHRR\5538106v1
maintained in the qualified voter file or in the voter registration files maintained by a city or
township clerk.” MCL 168.552(9).
113. The Michigan Election Law requires the Board to provide transparency during the
investigation process, including “mak[ing] public its staff report concerning disposition of
challenges filed against the petition” two days before it “meets to make a final determination on
challenges to and sufficiency of a petition” and making “any document [received] from local
election officials under subsection (8)…available to candidates and challengers on a daily basis.”
MCL 168.552(10).
114. MCL 168.552(13) lays out the framework for evaluating both the validity and
genuineness of a signature. It provides that the QVF “may be used to determine the validity of
petition signatures by verifying the registration of signers.” Id. It also provides that the QVF “shall
be used to determine the genuineness of a signature on a petition” and that “[s]ignature
comparisons shall be made with the digitized signatures in the qualified voter file.” Id.
115. Thus, while use of the QVF to verify a voter’s registration is optional, use of the

digital signatures in the QVF to evaluate the genuineness of petition signatures is not: “[T]he board
of state canvassers shall conduct the signature comparison using digitized signatures contained in
the qualified voter file for their respective investigations.” MCL 168.552(13). And “[i]f the
qualified voter file does not contain a digitized signature of an elector, the city or the township
clerk shall compare the petition signature to the signature contained on the master card.” Id.
116. After the Board conducts its investigation and hearing, “[a]n official declaration of
the sufficiency or insufficiency of a nominating petition shall be made by the board of state
canvassers not less than 60 days before the primary election at which candidates are to be
nominated.” MCL 168.552(11).
29
SHRR\5538106v1
117. Similarly, the Secretary of State has a duty to certify to the county boards of election
commissioners the names and addresses of candidates for the primary ballot “whose petitions have
been filed with the secretary of state and meet the requirements of this act” not “less than 60 days
before the primary election at which candidates are to be nominated.” MCL 168.552(14). The
statute does not condition the Secretary of State’s determination that a candidate’s nominating
petitions “meet the requirements” of the Michigan Election Law on an official declaration of
sufficiency by the Board of State Canvassers. See id.
118. Sixty days before the August 2, 2022 primary is June 3, 2022. So the Board was
required to issue an “official declaration of the sufficiency or insufficiency of [Mr. Johnson’s]
nominating petition” and the Secretary of State was required to “certify” Mr. Johnson as a
Republican candidate for the office of Governor “to the proper boards of election commissioners
in the various counties in the state.” MCL 168.552(14).
When evaluating the validity and genuineness of signatures on a nominating petition, the
Board must: (1) evaluate each signature on a line-by-line basis; (2) presume every
signature is valid; and (3) count any signature that has “any redeeming qualities.”

119. When canvassing a nominating petition, the Board has a duty “verify…the
genuineness of a signature as required by subsection (13).” MCL 168.552(8). In turn, Subsection
13 requires that the Board “shall conduct the signature comparison using digitized signatures
contained in the qualified voter file for their respective investigations” or, “[i]f the qualified voter
file does not contain a digitized signature of an elector, the city or the township clerk shall compare
the petition signature to the signature contained on the master card.” MCL 168.552(13).
120. Based on that the statute, then, the Board must employ a two-step process to
determine whether a petition signature is valid and genuine. First, each challenged signature must
be afforded a line-by-line comparison of the signature on Mr. Johnson’s nominating petition with
30
SHRR\5538106v1
the digitized signature in the QVF. Second, if a QVF signature is not available, an additional
comparison with the hard-copy signature in the local election official’s records.
121. Signature comparison is a necessarily messy process. It is “common knowledge”
that “signatures change with age or illness” and that “[p]enmanship when first registering is often
different from a signature in later life.” Jaffee v Allen, 87 Mich App 281, 285; 274 NW2d 38
(1978). Indeed, this Court has recognized that the physical realities of signing petitions circulated
on streets and sidewalks can also affect the appearance of a person’s signature because
“[h]andwriting hastily affixed to a petition at a shopping center or while standing on a street corner
differs materially from handwriting leisurely affixed sitting at a desk.” Id.
122. Given the reality that there are plenty of legitimate reasons why signatures may
look different, “[i]t has long been recognized that handwriting similarity is so much a matter of
opinion and so indefinite that generally it may not be acted upon in canvassing petitions.” Id.;
Thompson v Vaughan, 192 Mich 512, 527; 159 NW 65 (1916) (same); People ex rel Wright v
Kelly, 294 Mich 503, 518; 293 NW 865 (1940) (same).

123. To combat the uncertainty inherent in signature comparison, this Court has held
that “signatures appearing on petitions filed with the Secretary of State” are “presumed valid, and
the burden is on the protestant to establish their invalidity by clear, convincing and competent
evidence.” Jaffee v Allen, 87 Mich App 281, 285; 274 NW2d 38 (1978); Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co
of Mich v Com’r of Ins, 204 Mich App 361, 365-368; 514 NW2d 547 (1994) (citations omitted)
(adopting Jaffe’s holding that “[S]ignatures appearing on petitions filed with the Secretary of State
for initiative and referendum are presumed valid, and the burden is on the protestant to establish
their invalidity by clear, convincing and competent evidence.”); Grosse Pointe Farms Fire
Fighters Assoc v Grosse Point Farms City Clerk, 11 Mich App 112, 118; 157 NW2d 695 (1968)
31
SHRR\5538106v1
(“[P]etitions in proper form are presumed to be valid and to have been completed in accordance
with the circulator’s affidavit” unless there is a showing of “sufficient magnitude tending to rebut
this presumption.”); 22 Mich. Civ. Jur. Statutes § 302 (“Signatures appearing on petitions filed
with Secretary of State…are presumed valid, and the burden is on the challenger to establish their
invalidity by clear, convincing and competent evidence.”); 42 Am. Jur. 2d Initiative and
Referendum § 34 (“Signatures on [a] petition may be presumed to be valid, and in such a case, the
challenger may have the burden of overcoming that presumption.”).
124. Under this standard, signatures are presumed valid unless they are obviously
fraudulent (and even if it’s “plausibl[e]” that the signatures aren’t a match). Thompson v Vaughan,
192 Mich 512, 527; 159 NW 65 (1916) (rejecting challenge to invalidate signatures even though
“[a]n examination of the petition lends some plausibility” to the claim “that the names were written
thereon fraudulently” because of the inherent subjectivity and indefiniteness of signature
comparison).
125. The presumption that a signature is valid derives from the principle “that statutes

controlling the manner in which elections are conducted be construed as far as possible in a way
which prevents the disenfranchisement of voters through the fraud or mistake of others.” Kennedy
v Board of State Canvassers, 127 Mich App 493, 496; 339 NW2d 477 (1983); Santia v Board of
State Canvassers, 152 Mich App 1, 6; 391 NW2d 504 (1986) (same); Attorney General v Board
of State Canvassers, 318 Mich App 242, 250; 896 NW2d 485 (2016) (citations omitted) (“When
interpreting law governing elections, we must construe the statutes as far as possible in a way
which prevents the disenfranchisement of voters through the fraud or mistake of others.”).
126. Consistent with these well-established principles of Michigan law, Secretary of
State Jocelyn Benson recognizes that “it is not necessary for the voter’s signature to perfectly
32
SHRR\5538106v1
match the signature on file.” Exhibit 1, Secretary of State Guidance re: Circulating and Canvassing
Countywide Petition Forms Nominating and Qualifying Petitions (April 2020), pg. 12-13. She has
similarly recognized that “there are numerous legitimate reasons that may explain an apparent
mismatch,” including that: (1) “Petition signatures are often written on a clipboard, which may
cause the signature to appear more slanted or less precise than the signature on file”; (2) “Petition
signatures (or voter registration or pin-pad signatures collected during the driver’s license/state ID
application process) could have been written in haste”; and (3) “A medical condition or advancing
age may cause the signature to be different.” Id.
127. For all these reasons, Secretary of State Benson has instructed that the Bureau staff
and members of the Board “must perform their signature verification duties with the presumption
that a voter’s petition signature is his or her genuine signature.” Id. And, in comparing signatures,
the Board “should treat the signature as valid” if “there are any redeeming qualities in the petition
signature as compared to the signature on file,” such as “similar distinctive flourishes” or “more
matching features than nonmatching features.” Id. Secretary of State Benson further counsels this

Board that “[s]light dissimilarities should be resolved in favor of the voter whenever possible.” Id.
128. These legal authorities (and the guidance provided by Secretary of State Benson)
provide the standard that the Board and its staff must apply when evaluating whether a signature
on a petition is genuine. That standard was blatantly ignored here. 5
By statute, the Board can disqualify obviously fraudulent signatures on nominating

petitions. But lacks authority to strike entire petition sheets without checking every single
signature against the QVF, even if one or more signatures appears to be forged.
5
The delta between the Secretary’s very forgiving signature review in 2020 and her apparently
strict staff review when reviewing Republican petitions in 2022 is so vast that it highlights the
stunning reversal in the Secretary’s position. This alone should raise grave doubts about the
Secretary’s impartiality in this matter.
33
SHRR\5538106v1
129. Nominating petitions for state offices circulated on a countywide form “must be on
a form prescribed by the secretary of state, which form must be substantially as provided in
section…544c.” MCL 168.544d.
130. MCL 168.544c delineates the form, content, and signature requirements for
nominating petitions for partisan candidates to be valid. MCL 168.544c(1)-(6). It also provides the
signature, content, and circulation requirements that circulators must comply with for a petition
sheet to be valid. MCL 168.544c(2)-(6).
131. However, MCL 168.544c(6) makes clear that “The invalidity of 1 or more
signatures on a petition does not affect the validity of the remainder of the signatures on the
petition.”
132. MCL 168.544c(8) makes it illegal to sign a petition with a name other than his or
her own, make a false statement in a certificate on a petition, sign a petition as a circulator if they
aren’t a circulator, or sign a name as circulator other than his or her own. MCL 168.544c(8).
133. MCL 168.544c(10) makes it illegal for a person to “sign a petition with multiple

names.”
134. “If after a canvass and a hearing on a petition under [MCL 168.552]” the Board
determines “that an individual has knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with subsection
(8) or (10)” by forging one or more signatures on a petition, the Board may either: (a) “Disqualify
obviously fraudulent signatures on a petition form on which the violation of subsection (8) or (10)
occurred, without checking the signatures against local registration records” or (b) “Disqualify
from the ballot a candidate who committed, aided or abetted, or knowingly allowed the violation
of subsection (8) or (10) on a petition to nominate that candidate.” MCL 168.544c(11).
34
SHRR\5538106v1
135. Aside from forging signatures, MCL 168.544c(12) makes it a misdemeanor to fail
to report a known forgery before the filing of the affected petition sheet.
136. “If after a canvass and a hearing on a petition under [MCL 168.552]” the Board
determines “that an individual has violated subsection (12),” it can, among other things,
“[d]isqualify obviously fraudulent signatures on a petition form on which a violation of subsection
(8) or (10) occurred without checking the signatures against local registration records” or
“[d]isqualify from the ballot a candidate who committed, aided or abetted, or knowingly allowed
a violation of subsection (8) or (10) on a petition to nominate that candidate.” MCL
168.544c(13)(a)-(e).
137. Even though MCL 168.544c allows the Board to strike obviously fraudulent
signatures, it does not give the Board authority to strike entire petition sheets. As noted above, by
statute, “[t]he invalidity of 1 or more signatures on a petition does not affect the validity of the
remainder of the signatures on the petition.” MCL 168.544c(6).
138. Similarly, this Court has recognized that the penalties for a fraudulent signature are

“narrowly drawn” and “do not include striking otherwise valid elector signatures.” Protecting
Michigan Taxpayers v Board of State Canvassers, 324 Mich App 240, 246-249; 919 NW2d 677
(2018). That is, “[e]ven in the event of knowing and intentional violations of [MCL 168.544c], the
Legislature omitted from the list of punishments an automatic disqualification of signatures” and
“only ‘obviously fraudulent signatures’ may be struck.” Id. at 248-240. Thus, while “obviously
fraudulent signatures” may be disqualified, the sanctions available to this Board “do not
encompass eliminating valid signatures on a petition circulated by someone who has violated the
law.” Id.
35
SHRR\5538106v1
139. This is especially true because “certain other election law violations do result in the
elimination of valid signatures.” Id. at 249. For example, “negation” of otherwise valid signatures
is appropriate “when a circulator collects signatures after signing and dating a petition” or “fails
to sign the sheet entirely.” Id. Similarly, when a candidate omits his or her “complete address” in
the heading of nominating petition sheets, it “render[s] them defective.” Delaney v Board of State
Canvassers, No 333410; 2016 WL 3365337 at *2 (Mich App June 16, 2016) (Exhibit 12). But, in
the absence of those specific defects, the Board lacks statutory authority to strike a signature on a
petition sheet without comparing it to the QVF on an individual basis, even if another signature on
the sheet was forged or fraudulent.
140. Consistent with the approach taken by Michigan courts, Secretary of State Jocelyn
Benson has provided guidance regarding the limited and specific defects that can “render an entire
[petition] sheet invalid.” Exhibit 1, Secretary of State Guidance re: Circulating and Canvassing
Countywide Petition Forms Nominating and Qualifying Petitions (April 2020), pg. 5-6. According
to Secretary Benson, an entire sheet is only invalid if the heading of the petition sheet omits the

county of circulation or lists two or more counties (and it’s not apparent that circulation was
confined to a single county), or if the heading omits required information about the candidate or
office sought (e.g., candidate’s name, address, party affiliation, or the office sought). Id.
141. Secretary Benson has also opined that an entire sheet is invalid if the sheet isn’t
signed by a circulator (or is signed by more than one circulator), or if the circulator omits the date
of signing or his or her address. Id. at 6.
142. Finally, Secretary Benson has stated that an entire petition sheet is invalid if it is
damaged or mutilated such that mandatory elements are illegible or omitted, or if some opaque
material covers or obscures any of the mandatory elements. Id.
36
SHRR\5538106v1
143. Notably absent from Secretary Benson’s guidance, however, is any mention of one
or more invalid elector signatures being a basis for invaliding the entire sheet. But that’s exactly
what happened here. And that’s a wrong this Court is obligated to right.
This Case Presents Constitutional Concerns
144. Mr. Johnson has a fundamental “right to seek public office” that is “basic to the
proper operation of our democratic form of government.” Wojcinski v State Bd of Canvassers, 347
Mich 573, 577-578; 81 NW2d 390 (1957).
145. The thousands of voters who signed petitions in support of his nomination as a
candidate for the office of Governor of Michigan have a First Amendment right to have their voices
heard and signatures counted. Socialist Workers Party v. Secretary of State, 412 Mich. 571, 588,
317 N.W.2d 1 (1982) (The “expression of political preference ... [is] the bedrock of self-
governance.”); Norman v Reed, 502 US 279, 288; 112 S Ct 698; 116 L Ed 2d 711 (1992)
(recognizing the “the constitutional interest of like-minded voters to gather in pursuit of common
political ends, thus enlarging the opportunities of all voters to express their own political

preferences.”); League of Women Voters of Michigan v Secretary of State, ___ Mich ___; ___
NW2d ___; 2022 WL 211736 at *15 (Mich January 24, 2022) (Exhibit 13), quoting Meyer v.
Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 421-422, 108 S.Ct. 1886, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988) (“Petition circulation is
protected by the First Amendment because it is ‘core political speech’ that ‘involves both the
expression of a desire for political change and a discussion of the merits of the proposed change.’”).
146. Mr. Johnson brings this action to protect against an unlawful denial of ballot access
which, if not remedied, would violate not only his rights, but also “the right of individuals to
associate for the advancement of political beliefs, and the right of qualified voters, regardless of
their political persuasion, to cast their votes effectively.” Williams v Rhodes, 393 US 23, 30 (1968)
37
SHRR\5538106v1
147. This Court has recognized that “[t]here is a fundamental difference between actions
taken to get a candidate's name on the ballot and actions taken to prevent it from appearing.
Associating for the purpose of getting a candidate's name or a legislative proposal on the ballot is
protected activity under the First Amendment; conspiring for the purpose of having it removed is
not.” Deleeuw v State Bd of Canvassers, 263 Mich App 496; 693 NW2d 179 (2004), citing Meyer
v. Grant, 486 US 414, 421–422 (1988).
148. Because Mr. Johnson has a right to seek public office, he cannot be deprived of that
right without due process of law under both the Michigan and Federal Constitutions. Mich Const
1963, art 1, § 17; US Const, Amend. V and XIV. Further, Michigan courts have recognized that
candidates have due process rights related to elections and elected office. See Kennedy v Board of
State Canvassers, 127 Mich App 493, 497-498; 339 NW2d 477 (1983); see also People ex rel Clay
v Stuart, 74 Mich 411; 41 NW 1091 (1889).
149. “Due process is a flexible concept” and “what process is due in a particular case
depends on the nature of the proceeding, the risks and costs involved, and the private and

governmental interests that might be affected.” By Lo Oil Co v Dept of Treasury, 267 Mich App
19, 29; 703 NW2d 822 (2005). But in civil matters like the proceedings before the Board of
Canvassers, “[a]t a minimum, due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard in a
meaningful time and manner.” Spranger v City of Warren, 308 Mich App 477, 483; 865 NW2d 52
(2014); By Lo Oil Co v Dept of Treasury, 267 Mich App 19, 29; 703 NW2d 822 (2005) (citation
omitted).
150. Here, because of the constitutional interests and rights involved, “due process
requires that a party in an action challenging a nominating petition have an opportunity to be heard
at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” 16D C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 2146. And,
38
SHRR\5538106v1
while “[t]he opportunity to be heard does not mean a full trial-like proceeding,” it does “require a
hearing to allow a party the chance to know and respond to the evidence.” Cummings v Wayne Co,
210 Mich App 249, 253; 533 NW2d 13 (1995).
151. “Public policy requires that statutes controlling the manner in which elections are
conducted be construed as far as possible in a way which prevents the disenfranchisement of voters
through the fraud or mistake of others.” Kennedy v Board of State Canvassers, 127 Mich App 493,
497-498; 339 NW2d 477 (1983).
Count I – Mandamus
152. Mr. Johnson repeats and incorporates by reference all the preceding paragraphs as
if they were fully set forth again.
153. “Mandamus is the appropriate remedy for a party seeking to compel action by
election officials.” Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution v Secretary of State, 280 Mich
App 273, 283; 761 NW2d 210 (2008), aff’d in part, lv den, 482 Mich 960 (2008); Protecting Mich
Taxpayers v Board of State Canvassers, 324 Mich App 240, 244; 919 NW2d 677 (2018)

(“Mandamus is the proper remedy for a party aggrieved by an election official’s inaction”).
154. Thus, when the Board deadlocks or otherwise refuses to certify a petition despite
the petition having sufficient signatures, the proper remedy is a writ of mandamus ordering the
Board to certify the petition. Wojcinski v State Bd of Canvassers, 347 Mich 573, 578; 81 NW2d
390 (1957) (Granting writ of mandamus directing the State Board of Canvassers to “revoke its
‘determination of insufficiency’” and instead certify a candidate by “mak[ing] an official
declaration of the sufficiency of the nominating petitions filed by the plaintiff.”).
39
SHRR\5538106v1
155. Mandamus is also appropriately used to enforce the Board of State Canvassers’
“observance” of the Michigan Election Law. Groesbeck v Board of State Canvassers, 251 Mich
286, 290-291; 232 NW 387 (1930).
156. A party seeking mandamus must show four elements: “(1) the plaintiff has a clear
legal right to the performance of the duty sought to be compelled, (2) the defendant has a clear
legal duty to perform such act, (3) the act is ministerial in nature such that it involves no discretion
or judgment, and (4) the plaintiff has no other adequate legal or equitable remedy.” Wilcoxon v
City of Detroit Election Com’n, 301 Mich App 619, 632-633; 838 NW2d 183 (2013) (citations
omitted); Deleeuw v State Bd of Canvassers, 263 Mich App 496, 500; 693 NW2d 179 (2004).
157. In determining whether to grant mandamus, this Court’s “task is to decide whether
the Board of State Canvassers has a clear legal duty to certify the petition,” a question it considers
“independently of the decisions reached by the Bureau of Elections or the Board of State
Canvassers.” Protecting Mich Taxpayers v Board of State Canvassers, 324 Mich App 240, 244;
919 NW2d 677 (2018).

A. Mr. Johnson had a clear legal right to have his petitions declared sufficient and to
certify his name as a Republican candidate for Governor on the August 2, 2022
primary ballot.
158. “A clear legal right is a right ‘clearly founded in, or granted by, law; a right which
is inferable as a matter of law from uncontroverted facts regardless of the difficulty of the legal
question to be decided.’” Attorney General v Board of State Canvassers, 318 Mich App 242, 249;
896 NW2d 485 (2016), quoting Rental Props. Owners Ass'n, 308 Mich.App. at 519, 866 N.W.2d
817 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
159. Mr. Johnson is empowered to enforce his clearly demonstrated ballot eligibility.
Martin v Secretary of State (Martin II), 482 Mich 956; 755 NW2d 153 (2008) (“[A] candidate for
40
SHRR\5538106v1
elective office suffers a cognizable injury in fact, if, due to the improper interpretation and
enforcement of election law, he or she is prevented from being placed on the ballot”).
160. This Court has recognized that a candidate like Mr. Johnson “has a clear legal right
to have the Board perform its statutory duties.” Attorney General v Board of State Canvassers,
318 Mich App 242, 249; 896 NW2d 485 (2016). Thus, Mr. Johnson had a clear legal right to have
the Board comply with the Michigan Election Law and binding judicial precedent by:
a. Conducting a line-by-line, signature by signatures investigation of each one of the

23,193 signatures on his nominating petitions.
b. Presuming that each one of his 23,193 signatures were valid.
c. Counting each of his presumably valid signatures unless the Bureau carried its
burden of establishing that a signature was invalid “by clear, convincing and
competent evidence.” Jaffee v Allen, 87 Mich App 281, 285; 274 NW2d 38 (1978);
Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Mich v Com’r of Ins, 204 Mich App 361, 365-368; 514
NW2d 547 (1994).
d. Acting “as far as possible in a way which prevents the disenfranchisement of voters
through the fraud or mistake of others.” Attorney General v Board of State
Canvassers, 318 Mich App 242, 250; 896 NW2d 485 (2016) (citations omitted).
e. Applying the statutory directive that “The invalidity of 1 or more signatures on a

petition does not affect the validity of the remainder of the signatures on the

petition.” MCL 168.544c(6).
f. Complying with the directive from this Court that , while “obviously fraudulent
signatures” may be disqualified, the sanctions available to the Board “do not
encompass eliminating valid signatures on a petition circulated by someone who
has violated the law.” Protecting Michigan Taxpayers v Board of State Canvassers,
324 Mich App 240, 246-249; 919 NW2d 677 (2018).
g. Complying with its statutory duty under MCL 168.552(8) to “verify…the

genuineness of a signature as required by subsection (13),” which in turn requires
the Board to use the QVF—and not signatures on other petitions—“to determine
the genuineness of a signature on a petition” by comparing the petition signature
with “the digitized signatures in the qualified voter file.” MCL 168.552(13).
161. Consistent with constitutional principles of due process and equal protection, Mr.
Johnson had a clear legal right to, at a minimum, “notice and an opportunity to be heard in a
41
SHRR\5538106v1
meaningful time and manner.” Spranger v City of Warren, 308 Mich App 477, 483; 865 NW2d 52
(2014). He also had a due process right to “a hearing to allow [him] the chance to know and respond
to the evidence.” Cummings v Wayne Co, 210 Mich App 249, 253; 533 NW2d 13 (1995). This
entails, among other things, that Mr. Johnson had a right to:
a. Receive copies of any evidence that the Board or Bureau used to evaluate the
validity or genuineness of the signatures on his petitions, including digitized
signature records from the QVF or local authorities, in order to meaningfully
contest the challenges to his petitions.
b. Be present through counsel during any of signature-by-signature review of his

petitions by the Board or its staff.
c. Be provided with an itemized list (including page and line reference) of the 9,383
specific signatures on his petitions that the Bureau and Board considered invalid.
d. Be provided with a specific explanation for why each one of the 9,383 allegedly
invalid signatures on his petitions was considered by the Bureau and Board to be
invalid.
e. Be provided with the evidence that the Bureau and Board used to determine the
invalidity of each one of the 9,383 allegedly invalid signatures that they deducted
from his total.
f. Be given each of the above items of information with enough time to allow him to
meaningfully respond to Defendants’ assertions of invalidity.

162. Mr. Johnson also had a clear legal right to have Defendants follow Secretary of
State Benson’s published guidance instructing that the Board “must perform their signature
verification duties with the presumption that a voter’s petition signature is his or her genuine
signature” and, in comparing signatures, the Board “should treat the signature as valid” if “there
are any redeeming qualities in the petition signature as compared to the signature on file.” Exhibit
1, Secretary of State Guidance re: Circulating and Canvassing Countywide Petition Forms
Nominating and Qualifying Petitions (April 2020), pg. 12-13.
42
SHRR\5538106v1
163. Finally, because Mr. Johnson submitted nominating petitions with more than
15,000 valid signatures, he had a clear legal right to have Defendants certify his candidacy for the
B. Defendants had a clear legal duty to declare Mr. Johnson’s nominating petitions
sufficient and to certify his name as a Republican candidate for Governor on the
164. A clear legal duty exists when the defendant has a statutory obligation to perform
a specific act. Barrow v City of Detroit Election Com’n, 301 Mich App 404, 412; 836 NW2d 498
(2013). Further, a “clear legal duty” exists where the relevant statutory language is “mandatory
and nondiscretionary.” Wayne County v State Treasurer, 105 Mich App 249, 256; 306 NW2d 468
(1981)
165. This Court has held that the “clear legal duty” element of an action for mandamus
is “plainly met” where the Michigan Election Law requires that Defendants “shall” do something.
Berry v Garrett, 316 Mich App 37, 44; 890 NW2d 882 (2016).
166. Provisions of the Michigan Election Law specifically “framed with the imperative

‘shall’… are all mandatory in the sense that the election officials are bound to obey them.”
Groesbeck v Board of State Canvassers, 251 Mich 286, 290-291; 232 NW 387 (1930). But even
provisions that “employ[] no special emphatic words, are held mandatory because they are
designed to preserve the purity of the election, the secrecy of the vote, or the official character and
integrity of the ballots both during and after the election.” Id. Either way, the Supreme Court has
recognized that the Board of State Canvassers has a duty to “observ[e]” the Michigan Election
Law that “may be enforced by mandamus” because “[t]he provisions are all mandatory in the sense
that the election officials are bound to obey them.” Id.
167. That makes sense. The Supreme Court long ago recognized that “[i]t would be a
dangerous rule to establish that the board of election inspectors could thwart the will of the voters
43
SHRR\5538106v1
by a neglect to perform the duty imposed upon them by statute.” Attorney General ex rel Scott v
Glaser, 102 Mich 396, 397; 61 NW 648 (1894).
168. Thus, Defendants have a clear legal to comply with the provisions of the Michigan
Election Law, including MCL 168.544c and MCL 168.552. They also have a clear legal duty to
follow binding judicial precedent interpreting the Michigan Election Law.
169. Thus, Defendants had a clear legal duty to:
a. Conduct a line-by-line, signature by signatures investigation of each one of the

23,193 signatures on Mr. Johnson’s nominating petitions.
b. Presume that each one of the 23,193 signatures on Mr. Johnson’s nominating
petitions were valid.
c. Count each of Mr. Johnson’s Bureau presumably valid signatures unless the
challenger or the Bureau carried its burden of establishing that a signature was
invalid “by clear, convincing and competent evidence.” Jaffee v Allen, 87 Mich
App 281, 285; 274 NW2d 38 (1978); Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Mich v Com’r of
Ins, 204 Mich App 361, 365-368; 514 NW2d 547 (1994).
d. Act “as far as possible in a way which prevents the disenfranchisement of voters
through the fraud or mistake of others.” Attorney General v Board of State
Canvassers, 318 Mich App 242, 250; 896 NW2d 485 (2016) (citations omitted).
e. Apply the statutory directive that “The invalidity of 1 or more signatures on a

petition does not affect the validity of the remainder of the signatures on the
petition.” MCL 168.544c(6).
f. Comply with the directive from this Court that , while “obviously fraudulent
signatures” may be disqualified, the sanctions available to the Board “do not
encompass eliminating valid signatures on a petition circulated by someone who
has violated the law.” Protecting Michigan Taxpayers v Board of State Canvassers,
324 Mich App 240, 246-249; 919 NW2d 677 (2018).
g. Comply with the statutory directive to “verify…the genuineness of a signature as

required by subsection (13),” which in turn requires the Board to use the QVF—
and not signatures on other petitions—“to determine the genuineness of a signature
on a petition” by comparing the petition signature with “the digitized signatures in
the qualified voter file.” MCL 168.552(8); MCL 168.552(13).
170. Defendants also have a clear legal duty to certify nominating petitions where a
challenger or the Bureau fails to establish that the candidate did not submit enough valid signatures.
44
SHRR\5538106v1
See Deleeuw v State Bd of Canvassers, 263 Mich App 496, 496; 693 NW2d 179 (2004) (“Because
the challenge to the petition failed to establish that were not at least 30,000 valid signatures filed
in support, the board breached its clear legal duty to certify the petition.”) Automobile Club of
Michigan Committee for Lower Rates Now v Austin, 440 Mich 875; 487 NW2d 410 (1992) (“There
being no dispute that sufficient valid signatures were filed, we DIRECT the Board of State
Canvassers to certify the sufficiency of the petition by 12:00 noon, on Monday August 3, 1992.”)
171. The Board also “has a clear legal duty to break its deadlock and either certify or
refuse to certify the referendum petition.” Bingo Coalition for Charity—Not Politics v Board of
State Canvassers, 215 Mich App 405, 413; 546 NW2d 637 (1996).
172. Consistent with constitutional principles of due process and equal protection,
Defendants had a clear legal duty to, at a minimum, provide Mr. Johnson with “notice and an
opportunity to be heard in a meaningful time and manner.” Spranger v City of Warren, 308 Mich
App 477, 483; 865 NW2d 52 (2014). Defendants also had a clear legal duty to provide Mr. Johnson
with “a hearing to allow [him] the chance to know and respond to the evidence.” Cummings v

Wayne Co, 210 Mich App 249, 253; 533 NW2d 13 (1995). Specifically, due process imposes a
clear legal duty upon Defendants to:
a. Provide Mr. Johnson with copies of any evidence that the Board or Bureau used to
evaluate the validity or genuineness of the signatures on his petitions, including
digitized signature records from the QVF or local authorities, in order to
meaningfully contest the challenges to his petitions
b. Allow Mr. Johnson to be present through counsel during any of signature-by-

signature review of his petitions by the Board or its staff.
c. Provide Mr. Johnson with an itemized list (including page and line reference) of
the 9,383 specific signatures on his petitions that the Bureau and Board considered
invalid.
d. Provide Mr. Johnson with a specific explanation for why each one of the 9,383
allegedly invalid signatures on his petitions was considered by the Bureau and
Board to be invalid.
45
SHRR\5538106v1
e. Give Mr. Johnson each of the above items of information with enough time to allow
him to meaningfully respond to Defendants’ assertions of invalidity.
173. Provide Mr. Johnson with the evidence that the Bureau and Board used to determine
the invalidity of each one of the 9,383 allegedly invalid signatures that they deducted from his total
174. Defendants also had a clear legal duty to follow Secretary of State Benson’s
published guidance instructing that the Board “must perform their signature verification duties
with the presumption that a voter’s petition signature is his or her genuine signature” and, in
comparing signatures, the Board “should treat the signature as valid” if “there are any redeeming
qualities in the petition signature as compared to the signature on file.” Exhibit 1, Secretary of
State Guidance re: Circulating and Canvassing Countywide Petition Forms Nominating and
Qualifying Petitions (April 2020), pg. 12-13.
175. Because Mr. Johnson’s nominating petition satisfied the signature requirements of
the Michigan Election Law, the Board has a clear legal duty to certify his candidacy for the August
2, 2022 primary ballot.
176. Defendants breached each of the clear legal duties listed in the preceding

paragraphs.
177. Further, at the May 26, 2022 Hearing, although the Bureau did not disclose how
many signatures on Perry Johnson petitions had been compared with the QVF, Director Brater
admitted that the Bureau staff has only compared about 7,000 signatures with the QVF out of the
more than 68,000 signatures disqualified for appearing on petitions associated with allegedly
fraudulent circulators.
178. Director Brater’s testimony that Bureau staff recommended disqualifying 68,000
signatures based on 7,000 comparisons with the QVF constitutes an admission that the Bureau’s
46
SHRR\5538106v1
investigation violated provisions of the Michigan Election Law, including MCL 168.552(8), MCL
168.552(13), and MCL 168.544c(6).
C. The act of declaring Mr. Johnson’s nominating petition sufficient and certifying his
name as a Republican candidate for Governor on the August 2, 2022 primary ballot,
is ministerial and involves no discretion or judgment.
179. “A ministerial act is one in which the law prescribes and defines the duty to be
performed with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or
judgment.” Berry v Garrett, 316 Mich App 37; 890 NW2d 882 (2016), quoting Hillsdale Co
Senior Servs, Inc v Hillsdale Co, 494 Mich 46, 58 n 11, 832 NW2d 728 (2013) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted); Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution v Secretary of State, 280
Mich App 273, 282, 761 NW2d 210 (2008), aff’d in part, lv den 482 Mich. 960, 755 NW2d 157
(2008).
180. “The inclusion or exclusion of a name on a ballot is ministerial in nature,” Barrow
v City of Detroit Election Com’n, 301 Mich App 404, 412; 836 NW2d 498 (2013); Wilcoxon v
City of Detroit Election Com’n, 301 Mich App 619, 632; 838 NW2d 183 (2013) (citations omitted)

(“The inclusion or exclusion of a name on a ballot is ministerial in nature.”)
181. Thus, it is a ministerial act for the Board to make “[a]n official declaration of the
sufficiency or insufficiency of a nominating petition declare the sufficiency of the nominating
petition” for an eligible candidate who submitted valid signatures in excess of the statutory
minimum. See MCL 168.552(11).
182. It is likewise a ministerial act for the Secretary of State to “certify to the proper
boards of election commissioners in the various counties in the state, the name and post office
address of each partisan or nonpartisan candidate whose petitions have been filed with the secretary
of state and meet the requirements of this act, together with the name of the political party, if any,
and the office for which he or she is a candidate.” MCL 168.552(14).
47
SHRR\5538106v1
183. Mr. Johnson submitted nominating petitions with valid signatures far in excess of
the 15,000 statutory minimum. And he is otherwise eligible for the Office of Governor. So it was
a ministerial act involving no discretion or judgment for the Board to declare the sufficiency of his
nominating petitions, and for the Secretary of State to certify his name for the August 2, 2022
primary ballot.
184. Because Defendants lack discretion to ignore, violate, or rewrite the Michigan or
United States Constitution, Michigan statutes, or binding judicial precedent, the performance of
each of the clear legal duties mentioned in paragraphs 125 through 137 was a ministerial act
involving no discretion or judgment.
D. Mr. Johnson has no adequate legal or equitable remedy aside from an action for
mandamus.
185. This Court has recognized that, aside from Mandamus, a candidate challenging the
disqualification of his candidacy for a primary ballot “has no other adequate legal remedy,
particularly given that the election is mere weeks away and the ballot printing deadline is
imminent.” Wilcoxon v City of Detroit Election Com’n, 301 Mich App 619, 632-633; 838 NW2d

183 (2013) (citations omitted); Barrow v City of Detroit Election Com’n, 301 Mich App 404, 412;
836 NW2d 498 (2013) (same); Berry v Garrett, 316 Mich App 37, 45; 890 NW2d 882 (2016)
(“Given the time constraints and procedural limitations, we cannot conclude that quo warranto was
an adequate remedy to achieve the same result that plaintiff could achieve by utilizing
mandamus.”).
186. Here, an action for mandamus is the only possible avenue for Mr. Johnson’s name
to appear on the August 2, 2022 primary ballot. So he has no other adequate legal or equitable
remedy.
E. Mandamus is warranted.
48
SHRR\5538106v1
187. As alleged in the proceeding paragraphs, Mr. Johnson had a clear legal right to have
Defendants comply with the Michigan Constitution, the Michigan Election Law, and binding
judicial precedent by: (1) applying the presumption of validity to Mr. Johnson’s signature; (2)
conducting a signature-by-signature investigation of Mr. Johnson’s petition using the “any
redeeming qualities” standard dictated by Secretary of State Benson; (3) complying with MCL
168.544c(6) by not striking entire petition sheets based on the alleged invalidity of one or more
signatures on the sheet; (4) providing Mr. Johnson due process in the form of notice regarding the
specific signatures on his petitions that Defendants concluded were invalid and the reasons why
for each of those determinations, a meaningful hearing, and a meaningful opportunity to respond
Defendants’ assertion of invalidity.
188. Mr. Johnson also had a clear legal right to have Defendants certify his candidacy
for the August 2, 2022 primary ballot.
189. Defendants had a clear legal duty to do each of those things.
190. Defendants breached each of those clear legal duties with respect to Mr. Johnson.

191. The performance of each of the duties listed above was a ministerial act that does
not require the exercise of discretion or judgment.
192. If Defendants hadn’t breached their clear legal duties to Mr. Johnson, and had
instead complied with the constitution, the Michigan Election Law, and binding judicial precedent,
the canvassing of Mr. Johnson’s petitions would have resulted in a determination that he had more
than 15,000 valid signatures.
193. Where a defendant breaches a clear legal duty to certify a nominating petition,
mandamus is warranted. Protecting Mich Taxpayers v Board of State Canvassers, 324 Mich App
49
SHRR\5538106v1
240, 250; 919 NW2d 677 (2018) (“Because the Board of State Canvassers had a clear legal duty
to certify Taxpayers’ petition, we grant relief on the complaint for mandamus.”).
194. Mandamus is therefore the appropriate remedy for compelling Defendants to
officially declare the sufficiency of Mr. Johnson’s nominating petitions and certify his name as a
Republican candidate for the office of Governor on the August 2, 2022 primary ballot.
195. And, “[b]ecause equity regards as done that which, in good conscience, ought to
have been done,” this Court should order the Board and Secretary of State “to take all necessary
measures” to place Mr. Johnson’s name on the ballot as a Republican candidate for Governor of
Michigan in the August 2, 2022 primary election. See Deleeuw v State Bd of Canvassers, 263 Mich
App 496, 496; 693 NW2d 179 (2004).
Ex Parte Motion for Order to Show Cause and for Other Relief
196. Mr. Johnson repeats and incorporates by reference all the preceding paragraphs as
if they were fully set forth again.
197. MCR 3.305(C) provides that, in a mandamus action, “[o]n ex parte motion and a

showing of the necessity for immediate action, the court may issue an order to show cause.”
198. Importantly, this “motion may be made in the complaint.” MCR 3.305(C). And
“[t]he facts on which the court shall determine the existence of a necessity for immediate action
are those stated in the ex parte motion.” Gogebic County Clerk v Gogebic County Bd of Com’rs,
102 Mich App 251; 301 NW2d 491 (1980).
199. “An order to show cause will be granted” where “the public interests require the
immediate disposition of the case, and forbid the delay of awaiting an opportunity to apply to the
circuit court.” Loranger v Navarre, 97 Mich 615, 616; 58 NW 47 (1893).
50
SHRR\5538106v1
200. The Michigan Supreme Court has recognized the importance of considering
election-related cases on an expedited basis because of the “extreme time constraints” they can
involve. See Scott v Director of Elections, 490 Mich 888, 889; 804 NW2d 119 (2011). Similarly,
in recognition of the reality that “[c]onstraints of time…are characteristic of election cases,” this
Court has held that “[g]iven the necessity that ballots be printed in time…it is traditional in these
election cases for the courts to rule peremptorily.” Gracey v Grosse Point Farms Clerk, 182 Mich
App 193, 196-197; 452 NW2d 471 (1989).
201. The Court rules recognize this too. MCR 7.213(C)(4) requires “case involving
election issues, including, but not limited to, recall elections and petition disputes” to be expedited
and given priority on the Court’s calendar.
202. At the May 26, 2022 hearing, Bureau Director Brater stated that it takes two weeks
to proof and print the primary ballots.
203. The statutory deadline for delivering absentee ballots to local clerks and to mail
ballots to military or overseas voters is June 18, 2022. MCL 168.759a; MCL 168.714. To meet

that deadline for mailing the ballots, the relevant government bodies must be able to print, proof,
and approve of ballots with the proper list of candidates well before then.
204. Because of the June 18, 2022 deadline, Director Brater stated that ballot printing
must begin on June 3, 2022 in order to get the ballots sent out on time.
205. If this Court disagrees with the allegations in this complaint and declines to grant
mandamus relief, due process requires that Mr. Johnson be given sufficient time to exercise and
perfect his right of appellate review of this Court’s decision by filing an application for leave to
appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court on an emergency basis. This takes time as well.
51
SHRR\5538106v1
206. Given Director Brater’s representation, Mr. Johnson believes that June 3, 2022
represents a hard deadline for perfection of his appellate remedies from both this Court and the
Michigan Supreme Court. If that that isn’t true, Mr. Johnson needs to know what the Bureau’s
hard deadline is for getting ballots out on time in compliance with state and federal law.
207. The extreme time constraints imposed by the relevant statutory deadlines—to say
nothing of the practical realities of producing completed ballots in a few short weeks—demonstrate
“the necessity for immediate action” necessary for this Court to issue an order to show cause in
the immediate future and to impose an abbreviated briefing schedule. See MCR 3.305(C).
208. Without such immediate action, Mr. Johnson will suffer irreparable injury because
his name will not be placed on the August 2, 2022 primary ballot.
209. Accordingly, pursuant to MCR 3.305(C), Mr. Johnson asks this Court to issue an
Order for the Defendants to Show Cause why a writ of mandamus shall not issue. He further asks
that the Court’s order:
a. Mandate briefing be completed with enough time for this the Court to issue its
ruling by Wednesday, June 1, 2022, so that Mr. Johnson (or any other party) has

time to perfect his appellate rights in time for Defendants to comply with their
statutory obligations regarding ballot distribution.
b. Direct Defendants to articulate as soon as possible the latest possible date on which
they can initiate the ballot proofing and printing process while still complying with
their obligations under state and federal law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Perry Johnson respectfully requests that by June 1, 2022 this Court
issue an order or judgment:
A. Granting his ex parte Motion for Order to Show Cause and for Other Relief, given
the necessity for immediate action occasioned by the extreme time constraints imposed by the
election and ballot-printing process.
52
SHRR\5538106v1
B. Issuing a writ of mandamus directing Defendants to immediately take all necessary
measures to place Perry Johnson’s name on the ballot as a Republican candidate for Governor of
Michigan in the August 2, 2022 primary election.
C. Remanding this matter for immediate entry of an official declaration by the
Defendant Board of State Canvassers that Mr. Johnson’s nominating petition is sufficient and for
certification of Mr. Johnson’s nominating petition by the Defendant Michigan Secretary of State.
D. Declaring that the Defendant Michigan Board of State Canvassers is under a duty
to immediately determine the sufficiency of Mr. Johnson’s nominating petition for the office of
Governor of Michigan.
E. Declaring that the Defendant Michigan Secretary of State is under a duty to
immediately take any and all necessary action to certify Mr. Johnson’s name as a Republican
candidate for the office of Governor of Michigan in the August 2, 2022 primary election
F. Granting any other relief this Court deems is equitable and just.
Date: May 27, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jonathan B. Koch
Jonathan B. Koch (P80408)
D. Adam Tountas (P68579)
Rachael M. Roseman (P78
SMITH HAUGHEY RICE & ROEGGE
Attorneys for Perry Johnson
100 Monroe Center NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
(616) 774-8000
jkoch@shrr.com
dtountas@shrr.com
/s/ Jason B. Torchinsky
Jason B. Torchinsky*
Chris Winkelman**
HOLTZMAN VOGEL BARAN
TORCHINSKY & JOSEFIAK PLLC
53
SHRR\5538106v1
15405 John Marshall Highway
Haymarket, Virginia 20169
(540) 341-8808 (phone)
(540) 341-8809 (fax)
*Licensed to practice in Virginia and the District of Columbia; application for pro hac vice
admission forthcoming
**Licensed to practice in Florida; application for pro hac vice admission forthcoming.
54
SHRR\5538106v1
Date: May 27, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

Rachael M. Roseman (P78
(616) 774-8000
jkoch@shrr.com
dtountas@shrr.com
Chris Winkelman**
(540) 341-8808 (phone)
(540) 341-8809 (fax)

*Licensed to practice in Virginia and the District of Columbia; application for pro hac vice
admission forthcoming
**Licensed to practice in Florida; application for pro hac vice admission forthcoming.
55
SHRR\5538106v1
EXHIBIT 1
CIRCULATING AND CANVASSING
COUNTYWIDE PETITION FORMS
NOMINATING AND QUALIFYING PETITIONS

Michigan Department of State
Bureau of Elections
April 2020
Michigan.gov/Elections
ED-105 04/2020
CIRCULATING AND CANVASSING COUNTYWIDE PETITION FORMS
NOMINATING AND QUALIFYING PETITIONS
This publication summarizes the laws, court rulings and Attorney General Opinions governing
the validity of signatures on the following types of countywide petition forms:
Nominating Petition (Countywide Partisan)

Nominating Petition (Countywide Nonpartisan)
Qualifying Petition Candidate Without Party Affiliation (Countywide)
*NEW* for the 2019-2020 Election Cycle: The Bureau of Elections is pleased to announce
changes to the countywide petition forms listed above, which are intended to result in fewer
signature errors.
The most significant change is the elimination of the city/township checkbox from petition
forms circulated on a countywide basis, where petition signers formerly were required to
“check the box” that aligned with the type of jurisdiction. This change was recently
implemented for statewide ballot proposal petitions.
Column headings have also been reordered to make the signer’s entry more intuitive. Rather
than leading with the signer’s local jurisdiction as the first data point (where some signers
mistakenly wrote their county name or entered their signature), the new petition form utilizes
the more familiar order beginning with the person’s signature followed by his or her printed
name, street address, city or township, zip code and date of signing.

Old format, all petition forms circulated countywide:
(Revision date: 2015)
INDICATE CITY OR
STREET ADDRESS ZIP
TOWNSHIP IN WHICH SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME DATE OF SIGNING
OR RURAL ROUTE CODE
REGISTERED TO VOTE
CITY OF □ MO DAY YEAR
1.
TOWNSHIP OF □
CITY OF □
2.
TOWNSHIP OF □
Optional NEW format, all petition forms circulated countywide:

(Revision date: 2019)
STREET ADDRESS ZIP

SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME NAME OF CITY OR TOWNSHIP DATE OF SIGNING
OR RURAL ROUTE CODE
1. MO DAY YEAR
2.
2
Important Note: Use of countywide forms bearing a 2019 revision date is optional for the
2019-2020 election cycle. While the Bureau of Elections encourages clerks and candidates to
use the new petition forms, please note that the adoption of the new format does not require
clerks or candidates to discard old forms.
Candidates may file countywide petition forms using the 2015 format, 2019 format or a
combination of both.
For the 2019-2020 election cycle, candidates may, but are not required to, use the new
format of the Nominating Petition (Countywide Partisan), Nominating Petition (Countywide
Non-Partisan), or Qualifying Petition (Countywide) forms. If the form was prepared by an
election forms print vendor or obtained from a clerk’s office, a revision date will appear at or
near the bottom of the petition form. Examples include but are not limited to “Rev. __/15,”
“Rev. __/19,” and similar. Candidates may also prepare their own petition forms as long as
they comply with the 2015 or 2019 format.
If a petition signer makes an error in the city/township checkbox on the 2015 version of
a countywide petition, his or her signature will not be rejected for that reason. Errors that
will not invalidate signatures include checking the wrong city or township box, marking both
checkboxes, and leaving both checkboxes blank.
INDICATE CITY OR TOWNSHIP IN WHICH

REGISTERED TO VOTE
RESULT
CITY OF
TOWNSHIP OF 
□ 1. Garden City VALID
CITY OF  Redford Twp.

2. VALID
TOWNSHIP OF □

CITY OF □
TOWNSHIP OF □
3. Detroit VALID
CITY OF  Wayne
4. VALID
TOWNSHIP OF 
In the examples shown above, the candidate filed a 2015 petition form and signers checked (1)
the wrong box, as Garden City is not a township; (2) the wrong box, as Redford Township is
not a city; (3) neither box; and (4) both boxes. Eliminating the requirement for signers to check
the correct box to indicate the jurisdiction type ensures that none of the errors shown above
results in an invalid signature.
As a reminder, on both 2015 and optional 2019 countywide petition forms, the signer must
include either the name of the city or township in which he or she was registered to vote on the
date of signing, or the postal address or unincorporated place where registered, if the post
office or unincorporated place aligns with the signer’s address for mail purposes.1
1 Note: For further information regarding the signer’s entry of the name of a local post office or unincorporated
place, see MCL 168.552a.
3
WHICH PETITION FORM SHOULD BE USED?
There are several different types of petitions provided for candidates depending on the office
sought, which are described below. Candidates must use the proper petition form; failure to do
so will result in the candidate’s disqualification.
This publication describes the requirements governing countywide petition forms only. If the
candidate uses a city/township petition form or a petition form designed for use when seeking
village, school, or metropolitan district offices, refer to the publication, “Circulating and
Canvassing City/Township Petition Forms.”
This publication explains the laws governing the circulation of countywide petitions used by
candidates, including the following:
Countywide Partisan Nominating Petition: May be used by any major party candidate who
seeks a partisan office, except for candidates seeking the office of County Commissioner.
Countywide Non-Partisan Nominating Petition: May be used by any candidate who seeks a
nonpartisan office, except for candidates seeking the offices of school board member,
intermediate school board member, community college trustee, library or district library board
member.
Countywide Qualifying Petition: May be used by any candidate without political party
affiliation who seeks a partisan office, except for candidates seeking the office of County
Commissioner.
Other types of candidate petitions not covered by this publication include:

City/Township Partisan Nominating Petition: Must be used by a major party candidate
seeking the office of County Commissioner. May be used by any major party candidate who
seeks a partisan office.
City/Township Qualifying Petition: Must be used by a candidate without party affiliation

seeking the office of County Commissioner. May be used by any candidate without political
party affiliation who seeks a partisan office.
City/Township Non-Partisan Nominating Petition: May be used by any candidate seeking a

nonpartisan office, except for candidates seeking school board, intermediate school board, or
community college trustee positions.
School Nominating Petition: Use restricted to candidates seeking a school board position.
Specially designed versions of the petition form are available for candidates seeking a position
on an intermediate school board or a community college board of trustees.
Village Non-Partisan Nominating Petition: Use restricted to candidates seeking a village

office.
4
Metropolitan District Nominating Petition: Use restricted to candidates seeking a
metropolitan district office.
GENERAL INFORMATION
• A petition sheet is valid if it includes the circulator’s signature; the date on which the
circulator signed the petition; the circulator’s complete residence address (street address or
rural route number, city or township and state); and for a circulator who is not a Michigan
resident, the name of the county where the circulator is registered to vote (if applicable) and
the circulator’s mark (cross or check mark) in the nonresident box in the Certificate of
Circulator.
• A petition sheet is invalid and none of the signatures affixed to the sheet will be counted as
valid if the circulator is not a resident of Michigan and fails to mark the nonresident box in
the Certificate of Circulator.
• A petition sheet must include the name of the county where it was circulated; each sheet
must list only a single county.
• An individual signature entry is valid if it includes the signer’s signature; the street address
or rural route number; the name of the city or township where the signer is registered to
vote; and the date on which the signature was affixed to the petition.
• An individual signature entry is invalid if the QVF indicates that on the date of signing, the
signer was:

1. Not registered to vote in Michigan, or
2. Registered to vote in this state but not in the city or township indicated, or
3. Registered to vote in the city or township indicated but that jurisdiction is not
within the county listed in the heading of the petition sheet.
• Certain variations or errors are acceptable and will not cause a signature or entire
petition sheet to be rejected. For further information, see “Acceptable Sheet Variations”
and “Acceptable Signature Variations” below.
PETITION SHEET VALIDITY
Imperfections in the petition sheet heading, certificate of circulator, or body of the petition sheet
may jeopardize the validity of signatures appearing on the sheet.
Defects in the petition heading which render an entire sheet invalid. A petition sheet is
invalid if it contains one or more of the following defects in the heading:
5
• The county of circulation is omitted, and it is not apparent that circulation was confined to a
single county.
• Two or more counties are listed, and it is not apparent that circulation was confined to a
single county.
• Required information concerning candidate or office sought omitted, including the

candidate’s name, residence address, party affiliation (if applicable), the office sought, and
the district served by the office (if any).
Note: In addition, candidates seeking judicial offices must follow the instructions
for completing the heading that are printed on the reverse side of the Nominating
Petition (Countywide Nonpartisan) form.
Defects in the certificate of circulator which render an entire sheet invalid. A petition
sheet is invalid if it contains one or more of the following defects in the circulator’s certificate:
• The petition sheet is not signed by the circulator or is signed by more than one circulator.
• The circulator’s date of signing is omitted, incomplete or earlier than the date entered by
every petition signer.
• The circulator’s residence address is omitted, incomplete or includes a P.O. Box in place of
a street address or rural route.
Note: The circulator’s failure to include the correct zip code, by itself, is not a fatal

defect.
• Attention nonresident petition circulators: A petition sheet is invalid if the circulator is not a
Michigan resident and fails to mark the nonresident box in the certificate of circulator.
Other fatal defects that render an entire petition sheet invalid.
• Damaged, mutilated or torn petition sheets where any of the mandatory elements (heading,
warning statements, circulator certificate, signer entries) are illegible or omitted.
• Sheets where any of the mandatory elements (heading, warning statements, circulator
certificate, signer entries) are obscured or covered by white-out, permanent marker,
stickers or other opaque material.
Acceptable sheet variations. The following variations will not cause an entire petition sheet
to be rejected:
• The name of the county where the petition sheet was circulated is omitted or more than one
county of circulation listed, and it is apparent from cities and townships listed by signers
6
that circulation was within a single county.
• For all offices except certain judicial offices, the failure to include the “Term Expiration
Date” does not render a petition sheet invalid if the filing official can ascertain which
position the candidate is seeking. For example, if a candidate is seeking nomination or
election to the office of County Clerk, the candidate is not required to include the “Term
Expiration Date” because there is only one position to be elected. If there are multiple
positions available with different term ending dates, the candidate should include the “Term
Expiration Date.”
Note: Judicial candidates seeking office in a district in which a combination of full

terms and partial terms will appear on the ballot must follow the instructions
printed on the reverse side of the nominating petition with respect to the “Term
Expiration Date.”
• All of the following variations are acceptable: The circulator’s signature is illegible; circulator
prints his or her name in space provided for the signature and signs in the space for printed
name; circulator omits his or her printed name; circulator enters his or her cursive signature
in space provided for printed name.
Note: The petition sheet is invalid if the circulator merely prints his or her name
and fails to sign the petition.
• The circulator omits his or her zip code or enters an incorrect zip code.
• The circulator prints the name of a village or unincorporated place instead of the township
in which he or she resides, as long as the village or unincorporated place is wholly
contained within a single township.

• The circulator omits the county of registration.
• The circulator is a resident of Michigan and inadvertently checks the out-of-state circulator
checkbox and/or writes the name of the Michigan county where he or she is registered to
vote.
VALIDITY OF INDIVIDUAL SIGNATURES
A signature entry is valid if the voter signs the petition and prints his or her street address or
rural route, city or township where registered to vote, and date of signing. (The signer’s
omission of his or her printed name or zip code is an acceptable variation.) Filing officials use
the code “R” (registered) for valid entries.
A signature is invalid if it contains one or more of the defects or omissions listed below. The
codes used to mark defects and omissions on petition sheets are shown to the left of the
descriptions.
7
INVALID
ENTRY EXPLANATION
CODE
SIGNATURE ERRORS
CO Signature was crossed out prior to filing.
Signer signed petition multiple times, or signed nominating petitions for more
candidates than there are persons to be elected to the office.
DUP Note: Duplicate signatures are invalid only if both entries would have been
coded R, but for the fact that the signer signed the petition multiple times or for
multiple candidates seeking the same office.
On the date of signing, the signer was not registered to vote anywhere in the
city or township indicated or was not registered within the electoral district.
Note: If a signer is registered to vote at a different address within the same city
or township as is written on the petition, the signature is valid. See examples
NR
below:
Petition Address Registration Address Result
123 Main St., Mason 987 Maple St., Mason Valid entry
456 Maple St., Flint 456 Maple St., Mt. Morris Invalid entry
Incomplete signature, meaning the petition signature given as follows and does
IN
not match the signature on file: “Ms. Smith,” “Mr. Jones,” “Jane,” “JD.”
NS No signature, meaning the signature was omitted or signer printed his or her
name and the signature on file is cursive.
ADDRESS AND JURISDICTION ERRORS
Street address or rural route is omitted or incomplete, or signer wrote a P.O.
NA
Box in place of a street address.
OC The address given is located outside of the city or township listed.
The address given is located within the city or township listed, but outside of
OD

the electoral district for the office sought.
There is no city or township by that name located within the county listed in the
NC
heading of the petition.
Dual jurisdiction entry, meaning the signer wrote the names of two or more
DUAL
jurisdictions in the space for the city or township where registered.
A village or unincorporated place was listed instead of the township where the
IC signer is registered, but only if the village or unincorporated place lies within
two or more townships.
DATE ERRORS
Voter’s signature is dated before the first date of the current term of the office
sought. For example, a Nominating Petition (Countywide Partisan) filed by a
candidate seeking the office of State Representative in 2020 may be circulated
ED
as early as January 1, 2019.
Note: For qualifying petitions only, any signature that is dated more than 180
days prior to the date of filing is invalid.
ND The signature is undated, or an incomplete date is given.
SDC The signature is dated after the circulator dated his or her signature.
8
MISCELLANEOUS ERRORS
A fatal defect in the circulator’s certificate renders the entire petition sheet
invalid. Examples include but are not limited to the omission of the circulator’s
CIRC
signature; an incorrect or incomplete address or date of -signing; an out-of-
state circulator’s failure to check the box; etc.
A fatal defect in the petition heading renders the entire sheet invalid. Examples
HEAD include but are not limited to omission of the candidate’s name, residence
address, party affiliation (if applicable), the office sought, etc.
A petition sheet that is damaged, mutilated or torn such that any mandatory
element (heading, warning statements, circulator certificate, signer entries) is
DMG illegible or omitted; or petition sheets where any of the mandatory elements are
obscured or covered by white-out, permanent marker, stickers or other opaque
material.
MC Miscellaneous identification problem.
Acceptable signature variations. The following variations are acceptable and will not result
in the rejection of an individual signature:
• The signature includes one or more of the signer’s initials plus his or her last name.
Acceptable entries include but are not limited to: J. Smith; J.B. Smith; Mrs. J. Jones; A.
John Doe.
• The signature is illegible.2
• All of the following variations are acceptable: The signer prints his or her name in space
provided for the signature and signs in the space for printed name; signer omits his or her
printed name; signer enters his or her cursive signature in space provided for printed name.

Note: A signature is invalid if the signer merely prints his or her name in the
space provided for printed name yet fails to sign the petition, and the signature
on file is a cursive signature.
• The signer is unable to sign his or her name and uses a signature stamp (instead of a pen-
and-ink signature).
• The signer enters ditto marks in the space(s) provided for address, city or township, zip
code or date of signing.
• On the date of signing, the signer was registered to vote in the city or township indicated
but at a different street address within the same city or township.
• The signer writes the community name appearing in his or her “postal address”3 in the
2 Note, however, that if all of the personally identifiable information in the petition entry is illegible and cannot be
validated (signature, printed name, address, city or township), the signature may be coded as invalid.
3 The term “postal address” refers to the name of the local post office. In some instances, the post office name will
correspond to the name of the person’s city or township, but in other cases, the post office name differs. As a
9
space for city or township of registration.
Example 1: Individuals who are registered to vote in Genesee Township, Richfield

Township and Vienna Township have a Mt. Morris postal address. When signing a
countywide petition, these voters may write the name of the township where they are
registered to vote or Mt. Morris in the “City or Township” column of the petition
sheet, and either entry is valid.
Example 2: Parts of Texas Township are served by the Kalamazoo post office (zip
code 49001) while other parts of the township are served by the Mattawan post
office (zip code 49071). If a Texas Township registrant writes “Kalamazoo” in the city
or township column but his or her postal address is Mattawan, the entry is invalid.
• The signer writes the name of a village or unincorporated place in the space for city or
township of registration, and the village or unincorporated place is located within a single
township.
Example 1: A signature is valid if the signer provides the name of an unincorporated

place in the place for city or township of registration, and the unincorporated place is
located within a single township, and the signer is registered to vote in that township.
Examples of unincorporated places include but are not limited to: Hemlock
(Saginaw County), Kincheloe (Chippewa County), Lambertville (Monroe County),
Okemos (Ingham County), Union Lake (Oakland County), and Walloon Lake
(Charlevoix County).
Example 2: A signature is valid if the signer writes the name of a village, the village
is wholly contained within a single township, and the signer is registered to vote in
that township. A signature is invalid if the signer writes the name of a village instead

of his or her township of registration and the village boundaries cross multiple
townships.
• The signer omits his or her zip code or enters an incorrect zip code.
• *NEW FOR 2019-2020* With respect to signatures appearing on 2015 petition forms, any
marking in the space where a signer indicates whether the place of registration is a “city” or
“township” must be treated as a valid entry. In other words, a signature must not be
rejected solely because the signer checked the wrong box, checked both boxes, and
checked neither box. Examples of valid entries that may appear on 2015 petition forms
include the following:
result, the jurisdiction written on the petition may not always correspond to the name of the city or township where
the signer is registered to vote. See Usps.com for a list of local post offices by state.
10
INDICATE CITY OR TOWNSHIP IN WHICH
RESULT
REGISTERED TO VOTE
CITY OF
TOWNSHIP OF 
□ 1. Garden City VALID
CITY OF  2. Redford Twp. VALID

TOWNSHIP OF □
CITY OF □
TOWNSHIP OF □
3. Detroit VALID
CITY OF  4. Wayne VALID

TOWNSHIP OF 
• *NEW FOR 2019-2020* Abbreviations for jurisdiction names are acceptable if the
abbreviation reasonably corresponds to the name of the appropriate city, township, local
post office, unincorporated place, or village. Examples of commonly used abbreviations
include but are not limited to the following:
Abbreviation Corresponds to … County

AA, A2 Ann Arbor city, Ann Arbor Township Washtenaw
BC Battle Creek Calhoun
BH Benton Harbor Berrien
BH, Blfd Hlls Bloomfield Hills Oakland
D’born Dearborn Wayne
D’born Hts Dearborn Heights Wayne
Det Detroit Wayne
EL, E Lan East Lansing Ingham
Farm Farmington Oakland

FH, Farm Hlls Farmington Hills Oakland
Fnt Flint city, Flint Township Genesee
GR Grand Rapids Kent
GP Grosse Pointe Wayne
GPF Grosse Pointe Farms Wayne
GPP Grosse Pointe Park Wayne
GPS Grosse Pointe Shores Wayne
GPW Grosse Pointe Woods Wayne
HP Highland Park Wayne
Kal, K’zoo Kalamazoo Kalamazoo
Lan Lansing Ingham
Musk Muskegon Muskegon
Sag Saginaw city, Saginaw Township Saginaw
SSM Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa
SH Shelby Township Macomb
SH, Ster Hgts Sterling Heights Macomb
S’fld Southfield Oakland
SCS St. Clair Shores Macomb
St. Joe St. Joseph Berrien
TC Traverse City Grand Traverse
11
Abbreviation Corresponds to … County
WB West Bloomfield Oakland
Ypsi Ypsilanti Washtenaw
SIGNATURE VERIFICATION
Circulators should encourage voters to sign petitions in a way that reasonably resembles the
signature given for driver’s license/state ID or voter registration purposes, but it is not
necessary for the voter’s signature to perfectly match the signature on file. Filing officials must
perform their signature verification duties with the presumption that a voter’s petition signature
is his or her genuine signature, as there are numerous legitimate reasons that may explain an
apparent mismatch:
• Petition signatures are often written on a clipboard, which may cause the signature to
appear more slanted or less precise than the signature on file, or cause breaks or
pauses in a cursive signature.
• Petition signatures (or voter registration or pin-pad signatures collected during the
driver’s license/state ID application process) could have been written in haste.
• A medical condition or advancing age may cause the signature to be different.
• The electronic signature on file may be smaller or larger than the signature given on a
petition sheet.
• The signature may have been written using a pen with a finer tip or one with fading ink
as compared to the signature on file.

None of these differences will result in the invalidation of the petition signature. If there are any
redeeming qualities in the petition signature as compared to the signature on file, the filing
official should treat the signature as valid. Redeeming qualities may include but are not limited
to similar distinctive flourishes, more matching features than nonmatching features, and
Examples 1-5 below.
A voter’s signature should be considered questionable only if it differs in multiple, significant

and obvious respects from the signature on file; see Examples 6-7 below. Slight dissimilarities
should be resolved in favor of the voter whenever possible.
Recommended
# Petition Signature Verification Examples
Result
Signature appears as if voter’s hand is trembling or shaking, possibly due to a
health condition or advancing age:
1. Valid signature
Catherine Metzger versus
12
Recommended
# Petition Signature Verification Examples
Result
Only part of the signature matches the signature on file such as only the first letters
of the first and last name match, but rest of signature does not match:
2. J--- D--- versus Jane Doe Valid signature
J. Doe versus Jane Doe

Signature is partially printed but at the same time, partially matches the signature
on file:
3. Valid signature
A lice Robinson versus Alice Robinson
Signature is a recognized diminutive of the voter’s full legal name:
4.
Bill Smith versus William Smith Valid signature
Signature style has changed slightly over time:
Lucinda Jones Lucinda Jones

5. Valid signature
versus
Signature is entirely printed but signature on file is entirely written in cursive:
JAMES DAVIS versus James Davis Questionable

6.
signature
Signature differs in multiple, significant and obvious respects:

Questionable
7.
signature
PETITION CANVASS PROCESS

Nominating and qualifying petitions must be timely filed with the filing official designated by law
to accept filings for the elective office sought. Petitions are canvassed by the designated filing
official or, in the case of many federal, state and judicial offices, under the authority of the
Board of State Canvassers.
A sworn complaint (challenge) alleging that the nominating or qualifying petition contains an
insufficient number of valid signatures or is otherwise defective may be submitted to the
appropriate filing official within 7 days of the filing deadline. Challenges are resolved by the
filing official or in the case of many federal, state and judicial offices, are decided by the Board
of State Canvassers.
BEST PRACTICES
Train your petition circulators. Informing petition circulators of the requirements described in
this publication can minimize the likelihood that whole petition sheets and individual signatures
are rejected. Errors may be averted if circulators take the following actions:
13
• Write the name of the county of circulation in the heading of the petition.
• Ask potential signers whether they are registered to vote.
• Instruct signers to provide their street address or rural route where indicated; a P.O. Box is
invalid.
• Remind signers to write the date of signing, not their date of birth.
• Review each signer’s entry for completeness. If information is omitted, ask the signer to fill
in the blank(s).
• Encourage signers to sign in a way that reasonably resembles the signature given for
driver’s license or voter registration purposes. It is not necessary for the signer’s petition
signature to be a perfect match with the signature on file. See “Signature Verification”
above.
• Once circulation of a petition sheet is complete, ensure that the circulator signs and dates
the certificate of circulator and provides the required information. If the circulator is not a
Michigan resident, he or she must also check the nonresident box in the bottom left corner
of the petition sheet and write the name of the county where registered to vote, if any.
Exercise care when circulating in or near cities and villages that cross county lines.
Several cities and villages in Michigan overlap county boundary lines. When obtaining a
signature from a voter who is registered in a city or village that crosses county boundaries,
make sure the voter signs the petition sheet that aligns with the signer’s county of registration.

Implement a quality control process before filing the petition. Candidates are strongly
encouraged to obtain a copy of the Qualified Voter File (QVF) for pre-filing verification
purposes. Any petition signatures found to be invalid during the quality control process (i.e.,
because the street address or date is omitted) can be crossed out prior to filing; crossed out
signatures are excluded when determining the maximum number of signatures filed.
Review all petition sheets prior to filing for completeness, especially the name of the county
of circulation and the certificate of circulator.
File enough signatures. Candidates are strongly encouraged to gather and file substantially
more signatures than the minimum number required. The number of excess signatures needed
will vary depending on the vigorousness of the candidate’s quality control process. Even if the
petition has been verified by a professional signature gathering firm prior to filing, note that (1)
A challenge may be filed against the sufficiency of the nominating or qualifying petition, and (2)
There is a likelihood that some signatures or whole petition sheets may be found to be invalid
during the canvass process. However, note that there is an upper limit on the maximum
14
number of signatures that may be filed; see MCL 168.544f for further information.
IMPORTANT
The information in this brochure is offered as a summary of the provisions governing the
validity of petition signatures; it is not a complete description or interpretation of all pertinent
laws. Questions may be addressed to:

Bureau of Elections
P.O. Box 20126
Lansing, Michigan 48901-0726
Telephone: (517) 335-3234
Email: Elections@Michigan.gov
Web: Michigan.gov/Elections
Authority granted under PA 116 of 1954

ED-105
15
EXHIBIT 2
2022
MICHIGAN ELECTION
DATES
Includes list of filing

requirements for federal and
state elective offices

Jocelyn Benson
Secretary of State
Michigan.gov/Elections
INFORMATION
ELECTIONS: For information on matters relating to elections, contact your county, city or township
clerk. Information can also be obtained from the Michigan Department of State, Bureau of Elections,
P.O. Box 20126, Lansing, MI 48901-0726. Phone: (517) 335-3234. Fax: (517) 335-3235. Email:
Elections@Michigan.gov. Web site: Michigan.gov/Elections.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: State candidates, local candidates and political groups have financial
disclosure obligations under Michigan’s Campaign Finance Act. For information, contact your county
clerk or the Michigan Department of State, Bureau of Elections.
Candidates running for federal office should contact the Federal Election Commission, 1050 First Street
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. Toll free line: (800) 424-9530. Web site: fec.gov.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary Calendar for Candidate and Proposal Deadlines Page 3
Detailed Calendar for Election Administrators Page 6
Recount Filing Dates Page 13
Offices to be Elected in 2022 Page 14
2022 Filing Requirements Page 15
2
SUMMARY CALENDAR FOR CANDIDATE AND PROPOSAL DEADLINES
August 2, 2022 Primary and November 8, 2022 General Election
Important Dates and Filing Deadlines
Refer to Michigan compiled law for cited provisions (Legislature.Mi.Gov.) Dates are subject to
change through legislative action. If any errors are found, it is the law, itself, which must be
followed.
Election Dates
August 2, 2022 State Primary

November 8, 2022 State General Election
Registration Deadlines
July 18, 2022 Last day to register in any manner other than in-person with the local clerk
for the August primary. (168.497)
July 19 through 8:00 p.m. In-person registration with local clerk with proof of residency. (168.497)
August 2, 2022
October 24, 2022 Last day to register in any manner other than in-person with the local clerk
for the November general election. (168.497)
October 25 through 8:00 In-person registration with local clerk with proof of residency. (168.497)
p.m. November 8, 2022

Filing Deadlines: Candidates
By 5:00 p.m., Incumbent Appeals Court, Circuit Court, District Court and Probate Court judges file
March 21, 2022 Affidavit of Candidacy and Affidavit of Identity for the August primary.
Withdrawal deadline elapses at 5:00 p.m. on March 24. (168.409b, 409c, 413a, 414,
433a, 434, 467c and 467d)
By 4:00 p.m., Candidates seeking Appeals Court, Circuit Court, District Court or Probate Court
April 19, 2022 judgeships file nonpartisan nominating petitions, Affidavit of Identity and Affidavit of
Constitutional Qualification for the August primary. Withdrawal deadline elapses at
5:00 p.m. on April 22. (168.409b, 409c, 413, 414, 433, 434, 467b and 467d)
By 4:00 p.m., Candidates seeking a Wayne County Community College Trustee position file an
April 19, 2022 Affidavit of Identity and a nonpartisan nominating petition. Withdrawal deadline
elapses at 4:00 p.m. on April 22. (389.83, 168.303)
3
By 4:00 p.m., Candidates for partisan and nonpartisan offices (other than judicial candidates) file
April 19, 2022 nominating petitions (or fees if applicable) and Affidavit of Identity for the August
primary. Withdrawal deadline elapses at 4:00 p.m. on April 22. (168.133 and 163 for
federal and state-level offices; assorted other statutes for local offices)
By 4:00 p.m., Candidates for county convention delegate (precinct delegate) file an Affidavit of
May 3, 2022 Identity for the August primary. Filing submitted to the clerk of the county in which
candidate resides. Withdrawal deadline elapses at 4:00 p.m. on May 6. (168.624, 624a)
By 5:00 p.m., Incumbent Supreme Court Justices file Affidavit of Identity and Affidavit of
July 5, 2022 Candidacy forms for the November general election. (168.392a and 558)
By 4:00 p.m., District Library Board candidates for districts that do not include a school district file
July 21, 2022 an Affidavit of Identity and a nonpartisan nominating petition. (A $100.00
nonrefundable fee may be filed in lieu of a petition.) (Special note: If district library
includes a school district, District Library Board candidates file by 4:00 p.m. on
August 16, 2022) (397.181)
By 4:00 p.m., Candidates without political party affiliation seeking partisan offices file qualifying
July 21, 2022 petitions and Affidavit of Identity for the November general election. Withdrawal
deadline elapses at 4:00 p.m. on July 25. (168.590c)
By 4:00 p.m., Write-in candidates other than write-in candidates who seek precinct delegate
July 22, 2022 positions file Declaration of Intent forms for the August primary. (168.737a)
By 4:00 p.m., Candidates for Local School Board and Community College Trustee file an Affidavit
July 26, 2022 of Identity and a nonpartisan nominating petition. (A $100.00 nonrefundable fee may
be filed in lieu of a petition.) Withdrawal deadline elapses at 4:00 p.m. on July 29.
(168.303; 389.152)

By 4:00 p.m., Candidates for village offices file an Affidavit of Identity and a nonpartisan
July 26, 2022 nominating petition. Withdrawal deadline elapses at 4:00 p.m. on July 29. (168.381)
By 4:00 p.m., Write-in candidates who seek precinct delegate positions file Declaration of Intent
July 29, 2022 forms with the county clerk for the August primary. (As an alternative, candidates for
precinct delegate may file the Declaration of Intent form with appropriate precinct
board on election day before the close of the polls.) (168.737a)
August 2, 2022 STATE PRIMARY ELECTION
4
By 4:00 p.m., District Library Board candidates for districts that include a school district file an
August 16, 2022 Affidavit of Identity and a nominating petition. (A $100.00 nonrefundable fee may be
filed in lieu of a petition.) (Special note: If district library does not include a school
district, District Library Board candidates file by 4:00 p.m. on July 21, 2022).
(397.181)
By 4:00 p.m., Write-in candidates file Declaration of Intent forms for the November general
Oct. 28, 2022 election. (168.737a)
November 8, 2022 STATE GENERAL ELECTION
Filing Deadlines: New Parties and State Ballot Proposals
By 5:00 p.m., Petitions to place a legislative initiative proposal on the November general election
June 1, 2022 ballot filed with the Secretary of State (340,047 valid signatures required). (168.471)
By 5:00 p.m., Petitions to place a proposed constitutional amendment on the November general
July 11, 2022 election ballot filed with the Secretary of State (425,059 valid signatures required).
(168.471)
By 4:00 p.m., New political parties file petitions to qualify for November general election ballot
July 21, 2022 (42,506 valid signatures required). (168.685)
Filing Deadlines: County and Local Proposals
By 5:00 p.m., Petitions to place county and local questions on the August primary ballot filed with

April 26, 2022 county and local clerks. (168.646a)
By 4:00 p.m.,
May 10, 2022 Ballot wording of county and local proposals to be presented at the August primary
certified to county and local clerks; local clerks receiving ballot wording forward to
county clerk within two days. (168.646a)
By 5:00 p.m., Petitions to place county and local questions on the November general election
August 2, 2022 ballot filed with county and local clerks. (168.646a)
By 4:00 p.m., Ballot wording of county and local proposals to be presented at the November
August 16, 2022 general election certified to county and local clerks; local clerks receiving ballot
wording forward to county clerk within two days. (168.646a)
5
DETAILED CALENDAR FOR ELECTION ADMINISTRATORS
-- 2022 ELECTION DATES --

AUGUST 2 PRIMARY
NOVEMBER 8 GENERAL ELECTION
All listed dates are in 2022 unless otherwise specified. Refer to Michigan compiled law for cited
provisions (Legislature.Mi.Gov.) Dates are subject to change through legislative action. If any
errors are found, it is the law, itself, which must be followed.
By March 1 Democratic and Republican state party chairpersons notify county and district
committee chairs of county convention delegate (precinct delegate) allocation
requirements. (168.623a)
By 5:00 p.m., Incumbent Appeals Court, Circuit Court, District Court and Probate Court
March 21 judges file Affidavit of Candidacy and Affidavit of Identity for the August
primary. Withdrawal deadline elapses at 5:00 p.m. on March 24. (168.409b,
413a, 414, 433a, 434, 467c, 467d)
By April 1 County political party chairpersons certify number of delegates per precinct
to county election commissions. (168.623a)
By April 4 City and township election commissions finalize precinct boundaries for 2022
election cycle. (168.661)
By 4:00 p.m., Candidates seeking Appeals Court, Circuit Court, and District Court or
April 19 Probate Court judgeships file nonpartisan nominating petitions, Affidavit of
Identity and Affidavit of Constitutional Qualification for the August primary.
Withdrawal deadline elapses at 5:00 p.m. on April 22. (168.409b, 409c, 413,
414, 433, 434, 467b, 467d)

By 4:00 p.m., Candidates for partisan and nonpartisan offices (other than judicial
April 19 candidates) file nominating petitions (or fees if applicable) and Affidavit of
Identity for the August primary. Withdrawal deadline elapses at 4:00
p.m. on April 22. (168.93, 133, 163 for federal and state-level offices;
assorted other statutes for local offices)
By 4:00 p.m., Candidates seeking a Wayne County Community College Trustee position
April 19 file an Affidavit of Identity and a nonpartisan nominating petition.
Withdrawal deadline elapses at 4:00 p.m. on April 22. (389.83, 2018 PA
628; 168.303)
By April 25 City and township clerks forward names and addresses of partisan and
nonpartisan candidates to county clerk. (168.321, 349)
By 5:00 p.m., Challenges against nominating petitions filed by partisan and nonpartisan
April 26 candidates submitted to filing official. (168.552)
6
By 5:00 p.m., Petitions to place county and local questions on the August primary ballot
April 26 filed with county and local clerks. (168.646a)
April 29 Last date a recall petition can be filed for recall question to appear on
August primary ballot. (168.963)
By 4:00 p.m., Candidates for county convention delegate (precinct delegate) file an
May 3 Affidavit of Identity for the August primary. Filing submitted to the clerk of
the county in which candidate resides. Withdrawal deadline elapses at 4:00
p.m. on May 6. (168.624, 624a)
By May 4 Last date precinct boundary alterations made for 2022 election cycle can go
into effect. (168.661)
By 4:00 p.m., Ballot wording of county and local proposals to be presented at the August
May 10 primary certified to county and local clerks; local clerks receiving ballot
wording forward to county clerk within two days. (168.646a)
By May 31 Board of State Canvassers complete canvass of nominating petitions filed by
candidates for the August primary; Secretary of State certifies candidates
eligible to appear on August primary ballot to county election commissions
by June 3. (168.552)
By 5:00 p.m., Petitions to place a legislative initiative proposal on the November general
June 1 election ballot filed with the Secretary of State (340,047 valid signatures
required). (168.471)
June 3 Final date cities and townships can establish, move or abolish a polling
place for the August primary. (168.662)
By June 3 Democratic and Republican Parties call fall state conventions. (168.591)
By June 3 Ballot wording for constitutional amendments and legislative referendums,
which the legislature wishes to place on the August primary ballot,

presented to Secretary of State. (Art. 12, Sec. 1)
By June 18 Clerks shall electronically transmit or mail (as requested) an absent voter
ballot to each absent UOCAVA (uniformed services or overseas) voter who
applied for an absent voter ballot 45 days or more before the election.
(168.759a). All requests received since November 2, 2021, from a military
or overseas voter must be honored for all 2022 elections. (168.759a)
By June 18 County clerks deliver absent voter ballots for the August primary to local
clerks. (168.714)
By June 18 County committees of Democratic and Republican Parties call county
conventions. (168.592)
By June 23 Absent voter ballots must be available for issuance to voters. (Mich. Const.
Art 2, Sec 4)
June 23 through Precinct inspectors for August primary appointed by city and township
July 12 election commissions. (168.674)
7
By July 5 Notice of voter registration for August primary published. One notice
required. (168.498)
By 5:00 p.m., Incumbent Supreme Court Justices file Affidavit of Identity and Affidavit of
July 5 Candidacy forms for the November general election. (168.392a, 558)
By July 5 Clerk shall post and enter into Qualified Voter File (QVF) the hours the
clerk’s office will be open on the Saturday or Sunday or both immediately
before the election to issue and receive absent voter ballots. (168.761b)
By July 5 Clerk shall post and enter into the QVF any additional locations and hours
the clerk will be available to issue and receive absent voter ballots, if
applicable. (168.761b)
By 5:00 p.m., Petitions to place a proposed constitutional amendment on the November
July 11 general election ballot filed with the Secretary of State. (168.471)
July 18 Last day to register in any manner other than in-person with the local clerk
for the August primary. (168.497)
July 19 through
8:00 p.m., In-person registration with local clerk with proof of residency. (168.497)
August 2
By 4:00 p.m., District Library Board candidates for districts that do not include a school
July 21 district file an Affidavit of Identity and a nonpartisan nominating petition.
(A $100.00 nonrefundable fee may be filed in lieu of a petition.) (Special
note: If district library includes a school district, District Library Board
candidates file by 4:00 p.m. on August 16, 2022) (397.181)
By 4:00 p.m., Candidates without political party affiliation seeking partisan offices file
July 21 qualifying petitions and Affidavit of Identity for the November general
election. Withdrawal deadline elapses at 4:00 p.m. on July 25. (168.590c)
By 4:00 p.m., New political parties file petitions to qualify for November general election

July 21 ballot. (168.685)
By 4:00 p.m., Write-in candidates other than write-in candidates who seek precinct
July 22 delegate positions file Declaration of Intent forms for the August primary.
(168.737a)
By July 23 County clerks deliver remainder of ballots and election supplies for August
primary to local clerks. (168.714)
By 4:00 p.m., Candidates for Local School Board and Community College Trustee file an
July 26 Affidavit of Identity and a nonpartisan nominating petition. (A $100.00
nonrefundable fee may be filed in lieu of a petition.) Withdrawal deadline
elapses at 4:00 p.m. on July 29. (168.303; 389.152)
By 4:00 p.m., Candidates for village offices file an Affidavit of Identity and a nonpartisan
July 26 nominating petition. Withdrawal deadline elapses at 4:00 p.m. on July 29.
(168.381)
By July 26 Notice of August primary published. One notice required. (168.653a)
8
By July 27 City and township clerks forward names and addresses of candidates
without political party affiliation to county clerk. (168.321, 349)
By 5:00 p.m., Challenges against qualifying petitions filed by candidates without political
July 28 party affiliation submitted to filing official. (168.552)
By July 28 Public accuracy test must be conducted. (R 168.778) Notice of test must be
published at least 48 hours before test. (168.798)
By 4:00 p.m., Write-in candidates who seek precinct delegate positions file Declaration of
July 29 Intent forms with the county clerk for the August primary. (As an
alternative, candidates for precinct delegate may file form with appropriate
precinct board on election day before the close of the polls.) (168.737a)
By 5:00 p.m., Electors may obtain an absent voter ballot via First Class mail. (168.759)
July 29
By 5:00 p.m., Electors may submit written request to spoil their absent voter ballot and
July 29 receive new ballot via First Class mail. (168.765b)
By 10:00 a.m., Electors who have returned their absent voter ballot may submit written
August 1 request in person to spoil their absent voter ballot and receive new ballot in
the clerk’s office. (168.765b)
Up to 4:00 p.m., Electors may obtain an absent voter ballot in person in the clerk’s office.
August 1 (168.761)
Up to 4:00 p.m., Electors who have lost their absent voter ballot or not yet received their
August 1 ballot in the mail may submit a written request in person to spoil their absent
voter ballot and receive a new ballot in the clerk’s office. (168.765b)
Up to 4:00 p.m., Emergency absentee voting for August primary. (168.759b)
August 2
By 5:00 p.m., Petitions to place county and local questions on the November general
August 2 election

ballot filed with county and local clerks. (If governing law sets an earlier
petition filing deadline, earlier deadline must be observed.) (168.646a)
Up to 8:00 p.m., Election Day registrants may obtain and vote an absent voter ballot in
August 2 person in the local clerk’s office with proof of residency or vote in person in
the proper precinct. (168.761)
By August 2 Minor parties hold county caucuses; notify county clerk of nominated
candidates within one business day after caucus. (168.686a)
By August 2 Minor parties hold state conventions; notify Secretary of State of nominated
candidates within one business day after convention. (168.686a)
August 2 STATE PRIMARY ELECTION
By 9:00 a.m., Boards of county canvassers meet to canvass August primary. (168.821)
August 4
August 5 Last date a recall petition can be filed for recall question to appear on
November general election ballot. (168.963)
9
By August 9 County clerks notify precinct delegates elected at August primary; certify
delegate names and addresses to chairpersons of county committees.
(168.608)
August 10 Democratic and Republican Parties hold fall county conventions. (168.592)
through August
27
By 4:00 p.m., District Library Board candidates (for library districts that include a school
August 16 district) file an Affidavit of Identity and a nominating petition. (A $100.00
nonrefundable fee may be filed in lieu of a petition.) Withdrawal deadline
elapses at 4:00 p.m. on August 19. (Special note: If district library does not
include a school district, District Library Board candidates file by 4:00 p.m.
on July 26.) (397.181)
By 4:00 p.m., Ballot wording of county and local proposals to be presented at the
August 16 November general election certified to county and local clerks; local clerks
receiving ballot wording forward to county clerk within two days.
(168.646a)
By August 16 Boards of county canvassers complete canvass of August primary; county
clerks forward results to Secretary of State within 24 hours. (168.581, 822,
828)
By August 22 Board of State Canvassers meet to canvass August primary. (168.581)
By Sept. 9 Democratic and Republican Parties hold fall state conventions. (168.591)
By Sept. 9 Cities and townships can establish, move or abolish a polling place for the
November general election. (168.662)
By Sept. 9 Ballot wording for constitutional amendments and legislative referendums,
which the legislature wishes to place on the November general election
ballot, presented to Secretary of State. (Art. 12, Sec. 1)

Clerks shall electronically transmit or mail (as requested) an absent voter
By Sept. 24 ballot to each absent UOCAVA (uniformed services or overseas) voter who
applied for an absent voter ballot 45 days or more before the election.
(168.759a). All requests received since November 2, 2021, from a military
or overseas voter must be honored for all 2022 elections. (168.759a)
By Sept. 24 County clerks deliver absent voter ballots for November general election to
local clerks. (168.714)
By Sept. 29 Absent voter ballots must be available for issuance to voters. (1963 Mich.
Const. Art 2, Sec 4)
Sept. 29 through Precinct inspectors for November general election appointed by city and
Oct. 18 township election commissions. (168.674)
By Oct. 11 Notice of voter registration for November general election published. One
notice required. (168.498)
10
By Oct. 11 Clerk shall post and enter into QVF the hours the clerk’s office will be open
on the Saturday or Sunday or both immediately before the election to issue
and receive absent voter ballots. (168.761b)
By Oct. 11 Clerk shall post and enter into the QVF any additional locations and hours
the clerk will be available to issue and receive absent voter ballots, if
applicable. (168.761b)
Oct. 24 Last day to register in any manner other than in-person with the local clerk
for the November general election. (168.497)
Oct. 25 through
8:00 p.m., Nov. 8 In-person registration with local clerk with proof of residency. (168.497)
By 4:00 p.m., Write-in candidates file Declaration of Intent forms for the November
Oct. 28 general election. (168.737a)
By Oct. 29 County clerks deliver remainder of ballots and election supplies for
November general election to local clerks. (168.714)
By Nov. 1 Notice of November general election published. One notice required.
(168.653a)
By Nov. 3 Public accuracy test must be conducted. (R 168.778) Notice of test must be
published at least 48 hours before test. (168.798)
By 5:00 p.m.,
Nov. 4 Electors may obtain an absent voter ballot via First Class mail. (168.759)
By 5:00 p.m., Voters may submit written request to spoil their absent voter ballot and
Nov. 4 receive new ballot by mail. (168.765b)
Up to 4:00 p.m., Electors may obtain an absent voter ballot in person in the clerk’s office.
Nov. 7 (168.761)
By 10:00 a.m., Electors who have returned their absent voter ballot may submit a written

Nov. 7 request in person to spoil their absent voter ballot and receive new ballot in
the clerk’s office. (168.765b)
Up to 4:00 p.m., Electors who have lost their absent voter ballot or not yet received their
Nov. 7 ballot in the mail may submit a written request in person to spoil their absent
voter ballot and receive a new ballot in the clerk’s office. (168.765b)
Up to 4:00 p.m., Emergency absentee voting for November general election. (168.759b)
Nov. 8
Up to 8:00 p.m., Election Day registrants may obtain and vote an absent voter ballot in
Nov. 8 person in the local clerk’s office with proof of residency or vote in person in
the proper precinct. (168.761)
Nov. 8 STATE GENERAL ELECTION
By 9:00 a.m., Boards of county canvassers meet to canvass November general election.
Nov. 10 (168.821)
11
By Nov. 22 Boards of county canvassers complete canvass of November general
election; county clerks forward results to Secretary of State within 24 hours.
(168.822, 828)
By Nov. 28 Board of State Canvassers meet to canvass November general election.
(168.842)
12
RECOUNT FILING DATES
All US House, State Senate and State House Seats
• Districts that lie wholly contained within one (1) county
* Recount petitions must be filed with the Secretary of State within 48 hours after the
adjournment of the meeting of the Board of State Canvassers at which the certificate for
determination for that office was recorded. (168.879)
* Counter petitions must be filed with the Secretary of State at or before 4:00 p.m. on the
seventh day after the filing of the recount petition. (168.882)
• Districts located in more than one (1) county
* Recount petitions must be filed with the Secretary of State within 48 hours after the
Board of State Canvassers completes the canvass. (168.879)
Any Other Office Canvassed by the Board of State Canvassers
* Recount petitions must be filed with the Secretary of State within 48 hours after the Board of
State Canvassers completes the canvass. (168.879)
Any Other Office Canvassed by County Boards of Canvassers

* Recount petitions must be filed with the County Clerk within six days after the board of
County canvassers completes the canvass. A copy of the recount petition shall also be filed
with the Secretary of State within 2 days of the filing of the recount petition. (168.866)
* Counter petitions must be filed with the County Clerk within 48 hours after the filing of the
recount petition. (168.868)
13
OFFICES TO BE ELECTED IN 2022
Governor/Lt. Governor
Secretary of State
Attorney General
US Representative in Congress (all districts)
State Senate (all districts)
State Representative (all districts)
State Board of Education (2 seats)
University of Michigan Regents (2 seats) Michigan State

University Trustees (2 seats) Wayne State University Governors
(2 seats) Justice of the Supreme Court
Judge of the Court of Appeals
Judge of the Circuit Court
Judge of the District Court
Judge of Probate
Specified County and Township Offices
Specified City and Village Offices
Specified School District Positions
14
2022 FILING REQUIREMENTS
Federal and State Elective Partisan Offices
Supreme Court Justice
Petition Filing Information: Democratic and Republican Candidates
• Democratic and Republican candidates can file nominating petitions for the following federal
and state elective offices: Governor, US Representative in Congress, State Senate and State
Representative (see below for additional elective offices whose Democratic and Republican
nominees are determined by caucus or convention.)
• Democratic and Republican candidates must file a partisan nominating petition no later than
4:00 p.m., April 19, 2022. Democratic and Republican candidates who seek the office of
State Senator or State Representative may file a $100.00 filing fee in lieu of a petition.
• Democratic and Republican candidates who submit a valid filing for office will be placed on
the August primary ballot.
Petition Filing Information: Candidates Without Political Party Affiliation
• Candidates without political party affiliation can file for the following federal and state
elective offices: Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, US Representative in
Congress, State Senate, State Representative, State Board of Education, University of
Michigan Regent, Michigan State University Trustee, Wayne State University Governor
and Supreme Court Justice.
• Candidates without political party affiliation who seek a partisan office or the office of
Supreme Court Justice must file a qualifying petition no later than 4:00 p.m., July 21,
2022.

• All signatures submitted on a qualifying petition must have been collected within the
preceding 180-day period; signatures which are dated more than 180 days prior to the date
the petition is filed are invalid.
• Candidates without political party affiliation who submit a valid filing will be placed on
the November general election ballot.
Affidavit of Identity Required of All Candidates
All candidates must submit an Affidavit of Identity in duplicate when filing for office.
Affidavit of Identity forms can be obtained from any filing official or from the Department of
State’s Bureau of Elections in Lansing (Michigan.gov/Elections.) A candidate who fails to
comply with this requirement is ineligible to appear on the ballot.
Except for candidates seeking federal elective office or the office of precinct delegate, Michigan
election law requires any candidate filing an Affidavit of Identity to state on the form that on the
date the affidavit was executed, all statements, reports, late filing fees and fines required of the
candidate or any Candidate Committee organized to support the candidate’s election under
15
Michigan’s Campaign Finance Act have been filed or paid. Candidates who to comply with
this requirement or execute an Affidavit of Identity containing a false statement will be
disqualified.
Post-Election Campaign Finance Compliance Statement
Except as noted below, Michigan election law requires any candidate elected to office on the
state, county or local level to file an affidavit prior to assuming office which states that on the
date the affidavit was executed all statements, reports, late filing fees and fines required of the
candidate or any Candidate Committee organized to support the candidate’s election under
Michigan’s Campaign Finance Act have been filed or paid. The affidavit is not required of an
elected candidate who did not receive or expend more than $1,000.00 during the election cycle.
In addition, the form does not have to be filed by an individual elected to a federal office or a
precinct delegate position.
A form developed for distribution to candidates who must comply with the filing requirement
(“Post-Election Campaign Finance Compliance Statement”) is available through any filing
official. An elected candidate who is required to file the statement but who fails to submit the
form is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Signature Requirements; Filing Location
The following lists the petition signature requirements for the offices to be filled in 2022.
NOTE: Minor party candidates are nominated by caucus or convention and appear on the
November General election ballot.
GOVERNOR
All candidates who seek the office of Governor file with the Department of State’s Bureau of

Elections in Lansing.
NO POLITICAL PARTY
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN
AFFILIATION
MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX
15,000 30,000 15,000 30,000 12,000 24,000
A qualifying petition circulated for the office of Governor must be signed by at least 100
registered voters in each of at least ½ of the congressional districts in the state.
A candidate without political party affiliation who files for the office of Governor is also
required to submit the name of his or her running mate. For complete information, contact
the Michigan Department of State’s Bureau of Elections.
16
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
Multi-County Districts: A candidate who seeks the office of U.S. Representative in Congress in
a multi-county district files with the Department of State’s Bureau of Elections in Lansing.
Single-County Districts: A candidate who seeks the office of U.S. Representative in Congress
in a single-county district files with the County Clerk’s office.
NO POLITICAL PARTY
AFFILIATION
1,000 2,000 1,000 2,000 3,000 6,000
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN REGENT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY TRUSTEE
WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY GOVERNOR
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
All candidates who seek the above offices file with the Department of State’s Bureau of
Elections in Lansing (Note: Incumbent Supreme Court Justice files by affidavit).
NO POLITICAL PARTY
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN AFFILIATION

MIN MAX
Nominated at State Nominated at State 12,000 24,000
Convention Convention
A petition for one of the above offices must be signed by at least 100 registered electors in each
of at least ½ of the congressional districts in the state.
17
STATE SENATE
Multi-County Districts: A candidate who seeks the office of State Senate in a multi- county
district files with the Department of State’s Bureau of Elections in Lansing.
Single-County Districts: A candidate who seeks the office of State Senate in a single-county
district files with the county clerk.
NO POLITICAL PARTY
AFFILIATION
500 1,000 500 1,000 1,500 3,000
Democratic and Republican candidates who seek the office of State Senate may file a
$100.00 filing fee in lieu of a petition.
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
Multi-County Districts: A candidate who seeks the office of State Representative in a multi-
county district files with the Department of State’s Bureau of Elections in Lansing.
Single-County Districts: A candidate who seeks the office of State Representative in a single-
county district files with the county clerk.
NO POLITICAL PARTY
AFFILIATION

200 400 200 400 600 1,200
Democratic and Republican candidates who seek the office of State Representative may file a
$100.00 filing fee in lieu of a petition.
18
EXHIBIT 3
Dykema Gossett PLLC
Capitol View
201 Townsend Street, Suite 900
Lansing, MI 48933
WWW.DYKEMA.COM
Tel: (517) 374-9100
Fax: (517) 374-9191
Steven C. Liedel
Direct Dial: (517) 374-9184
Direct Fax: (855) 259-3571
Email: SLiedel@dykema.com
April 26, 2022 Via Hand Delivery
Board of State Canvassers

430 West Allegan Street
Lansing, Michigan 48918
Re: Sworn Complaint Questioning the Validity and Genuineness of Signatures Included on
Nominating Petitions Filed by Perry Johnson Seeking to Qualify as a Candidate for the
Office of Governor
Dear Board Members:
On behalf of Carol Bray of 5838 Bayonne Avenue in Haslett, Michigan, this complaint is submitted
pursuant to MCL 168.552(8) and questions the validity and genuineness of signatures included
on nominating petitions filed by Perry Johnson of Bloomfield Township on or about April 19, 2022
seeking to qualify as a candidate for the office of governor (the “Johnson Petitions”). A sworn
statement from Ms. Bray is attached as exhibit A.

To qualify for the placement as a candidate at the August 2, 2022 primary elections, the Johnson
Petitions must include valid signatures from at least 15,000 registered voters and be signed by at
least 100 registered voters in at least half of the congressional districts within Michigan.1 Under
MCL 168.552(8), upon receipt of the Johnson Petitions, the Board of State Canvassers (the
“Board”) was required to “canvass the petitions to ascertain if the petitions have been signed by
the requisite number of qualified and registered electors.”2
This complaint sets forth the specific signatures included on the Johnson Petitions claimed to be
invalid and the specific petitions for which the complaint questions the validity and genuineness
of the signature or the registration of the circulator. Based upon the information included in this
complaint, Ms. Bray requests that the Board commence an investigation of the Johnson Petitions
as required by MCL 168.552(8).
A thorough canvass and investigation by the Board are warranted because of extensive
irregularities, including signatures from dead people, apparent forgeries, extensive signature
errors, a high number of duplicate signatures, numerous address and jurisdictional issues, and
1
MCL 168.53 and 168.544f.
2
MCL 168.522(8).
California | Illinois | Michigan | Minnesota | Texas | Washington, D.C. | Wisconsin
122618.000001 4874-7805-1357.2
April 26, 2022
Page 2
the use of many of the same petition circulators in apparent illicit petition activities as documented
in a separate complaint filed today regarding the nominating petitions submitted by James Craig.
Signatures from the Dead
Demonstrating both an apparent dearth of quality control and a strong indication of fraudulent
activity in violation of the Michigan Election Law, the Johnson Petitions include at least 66
signatures from persons apparently incapable of signing a petition—persons who are dead. Table
1 indicates the Bureau-assigned page stamp number and petition line number for each apparent
deceased person based upon the name and address appearing on the Johnson Petitions and a
public records database search using LexisNexis SmartLinx Comprehensive Person Report. In
addition, if the qualified voter file indicated that an individual appearing on one of the Johnson
Petitions was dead as of April 1, 2022, the third column of Table 1 indicates “Yes”. Obituaries also
have been located for a number of individuals whose names appear on the Johnson Petitions,
with links to those obituaries included in the fourth column of Table 1.
Dead persons are not eligible to vote in Michigan or capable of signing nominating petitions. Each
of the signatures identified in Table 1 should be voided as part of the Board’s canvass of the
Johnson Petitions. The Board also should investigate whether the inclusion of these dead
individuals is an indication of more comprehensive fraud or violation of the Michigan Election Law
by circulators of the Johnson Petitions or others. Each signature included on the Johnson
Petitions collected by a circulator who certified that the signature of a dead person referenced in
Table 1 was signed in his or her presence is hereby challenged.
Table 1
Signatures from Dead Persons

Page Stamp Line Number Dead in QVF Link to Obituary
Number (as of 4/1/2022)
34 5 obituaries.neptunesociety.com/obituaries/southfield-
mi/kathleen-hocevar-10085239
98 3 Yes
98 7
330 8 Yes
631 10
632 2 www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/name/james-white-
obituary?id=32332906
632 5 www.martenson.com/obituaries/Linda-Minnie-
Robinson?obId=21026199
643 1 www.funeralfinder.com/obituaries/Willis-Sharon/11-19-
2014/2437/
808 5
813 5 Yes
817 1 Yes
868 2 www.tributearchive.com/obituaries/23921539/conrad-
wayne-nowels
868 7 www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/white-lake-mi/robert-
finnigan-10035199
898 9
900 8 Yes

April 26, 2022
Page 3

1325 9 Yes
1330 8
1455 3 hosting-7303.tributes.com/obituary/show/Robert-Bob-
Dewey--108511102
1636 5
1638 6
1639 8 www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/name/dennis-green-
obituary?id=5969362
1640 5
1682 9 www.schrader-howell.com/obituaries/Maryann-
Ruehr?obId=3284769
1842 4
2256 9 www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/hometownlife/name/nancy
-roberts-obituary?pid=199577873
2296 9 Yes
2296 10
2304 7
2318 7
2328 2 molnarfuneralhome.com/tribute/details/20514/Stella-
Ader/obituary.html
2388 1 www.clorafuneralhome.com/obituaries/Lois-Shaw-4/
2406 8 www.weisefuneralhome.com/obituary/rose-mare-deagle
2419 6
2423 9 Yes
2431 7
2473 10 molnarfuneralhome.com/tribute/details/20513/Yvonne-
Frazee/obituary.html
2477 4 www.echovita.com/us/obituaries/mi/garden-city/john-c-

stebbins-13142569
2529 7
2570 9 www.tributes.com/obituary/show/Frances-Dahlke-
96328131
2611 3 www.tributearchive.com/obituaries/23254879/sarah-
gregory
2766 10 www.legacy.com/funeral-homes/obituaries/name/janet-
wilson-
obituary?pid=187733653&v=batesville&view=guestbook
2894 3 Yes
2966 7
2985 2 Yes
3003 7
3031 8
3035 10
3038 9
3171 6 Yes
3227 9 www.lynchandsonsclawson.com/obituaries/Patrick-J-
Hefferan?obId=21718380
3512 4 www.echovita.com/us/obituaries/mi/highland-park/eava-
elnora-riley-12562071
3632 1 www.echovita.com/us/obituaries/mi/novi/richard-aron-
11696641
3874 3

April 26, 2022
Page 4

4031 2
4036 7 QVF
4037 8
4133 10 QVF
4146 1 www.martenson.com/obituaries/Dorothy-
Bogan?obId=21604336
4146 6
4147 6
4230 9 www.clorafuneralhome.com/obituaries/Roger-Bryant-4/
4232 7 QVF
4363 8 www.bcfh.com/obituaries/obitpage.php?obitkey=Romuald
o-Tiseo
4385 1 www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/hillsdale/name/sharon-
davis-obituary?id=15879195
4392 9 www.dignitymemorial.com/en-ca/obituaries/warren-
mi/thomas-brown-10352421
4469 2 www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/freep/name/christopher-
lole-obituary?id=8407447
Apparent Forgery
On line 6 of the Johnson Petition with the Bureau-assigned stamp number of 2114, the name and
address of Betsy Hage of Royal Oak, Michigan appears. While the line also includes a signature,
the signature appearing on line 6 is not Ms Hage’s signature. She did not sign the petition. In fact,
she has not signed any nominating petition for Perry Johnson. This fact is documented by a sworn
declaration of Betsy Hage, which is attached as exhibit B. Obviously, the forged signature of Ms.

Hage appearing on the Johnson Petitions must be voided as part of the Board’s canvass.
Additionally, because the Florida-based circulator of this petition sheet, Brianna Heron, asserted
that this forged signature was “signed in his or her presence” and that to the best of her knowledge
and belief each signature on the petition sheet “is a genuine signature of the person purporting to
sign the petition” the complainant hereby challenges the nine other signatures on sheet 2114 and
any other signature on a sheet circulated by Ms. Heron. As part of its canvass of these signatures,
given the documented false signature, the Board is urged to confirm the information relating to
each signature on petition sheet 2114 and any other petition sheet circulated by Ms. Heron using
the qualified voter file and digital signatures included in that file or available from local election
clerks.
Additional Petition and Signature Deficiencies
Consistent with the guidance published by the Michigan Bureau of Elections (the “Bureau”) in
Circulating and Canvassing Countywide Petition Forms: Nominating and Qualifying Petitions3 (the
3
Michigan Department of State, Bureau of Elections, Circulating and Canvassing Countywide
Petition Forms: Nominating and Qualifying Petitions (April 2020)
<https://www.michigan.gov/documents/SOS_ED105_County_Pet_Form_77019_7.pdf>
(accessed April 25, 2022).

April 26, 2022
Page 5
“Manual”), defects or omissions on petition sheets among the Johnson Petitions appear to render
numerous signatures invalid. Those defects and omissions are summarized and challenged
below.
Signature Errors
The Manual indicates that a signature is invalid if the signature was crossed out prior to filing
(invalid entry code “CO”). At least 99 signatures have been crossed out on the Johnson Petitions
and may not be counted. The petition page number assigned by the Bureau and line number for
each crossed-out signature is detailed in Table 2.
Table 2
Crossed-Out Signatures
Page Stamp Number Line Number

42 2
132 2
578 2
578 3
604 8
608 2
608 4
608 5
608 10
612 3
773 10
778 3

856 2
930 5
965 9
1809 5
2157 1
2157 4
2157 6
2157 9
2160 3
2160 8
2160 10
2162 3
2162 5
2162 7
2171 3
2174 4
2177 3
2180 7
2183 2
2183 3
2205 6
2289 1

April 26, 2022
Page 6

2289 2
2289 5
2289 6
2289 7
2289 8
2289 9
2289 10
2391 1
2391 3
2391 4
2391 6
2391 8
2391 10
2404 8
2427 1
2427 5
2427 6
2427 8
2427 9
2708 8
2711 2
2978 2
2990 2
3035 4
3036 2
3036 5
3036 7

3039 1
3039 3
3039 6
3039 9
3042 4
3042 8
3044 1
3044 4
3044 7
3047 2
3047 5
3047 8
3090 1
3090 3
3090 7
3090 9
3219 2
3227 6
3241 2
3273 3
3273 5
3273 7

April 26, 2022
Page 7

3273 9
3281 10
3284 2
3284 4
3284 6
3284 9
3376 6
3565 1
3565 4
3565 6
3565 10
3589 9
3746 5
3759 10
3760 6
3780 4
The Manual indicates that a signature is invalid if a signer signs a petition multiple times or signs
nominating petitions for more candidates than there are persons to be elected to the office (invalid
entry code “DUP”). MCL 168.544c provides that “[a]n individual shall not sign more nominating
petitions for the same office than there are persons to be elected to the office.” A violation is a
misdemeanor. Under applicable precedent, all duplicate signatures should be rejected and not
counted.4
At least 98 signatures included on the Johnson Petitions are duplicate signatures. The petition

page number assigned by the Bureau and line number for each duplicate signature is indicated
in Table 3.
Table 3
Duplicate Signatures
Page Stamp Number Line Number Duplicate Duplicate

Page Stamp No(s). Line Nos.
9 1 2495 6
89 2 3659 1
208 1 461 5
215 1 2511 3
224 3 413 2
267 3 491 2
268 1 2809 10
294 1 4326 2
4
See, for example, Michigan State Dental Soc v Secretary of State, 294 Mich 503, 514; 293
NW2d 865 (1940); Recall McCollough Comm v Secretary of State (MI Ct App, unpublished
opinion, April 10, 1984); and Taxpayers United for Assessments Cuts v Austin, 994 F2d 291,
299 (6th Cir, 1993).

April 26, 2022
Page 8

309 1 636 1
326 1 3589 6
359 2 4338 2
359 5 4338 3
413 2 224 3
419 8 3241 3
441 2 2018 3
461 5 208 1
491 2 267 3
510 1 3579 4
539 7 544 7
544 7 539 7
558 3 2221 9
562 10 1633 1
573 7 591 4
591 1 591 6
591 4 573 7
591 6 591 1
610 4 3446 5
610 6 3446 10
623 2 4109 8
623 4 2996 4
636 1 309 1
680 7 4036 9
719 6 807 2

752 3 4060 8
763 6 1834 2
763 7 1834 1
776 1 4449 1
783 4 1702 5
784 9 2780 5
796 1 4043 9
807 2 719 6
812 6 3619 7
1056 1 3205 1
1112 2 4428 1
1239 5 1562 1
1288 8 3035 2
1298 1 2842 2
1418 1 3101 1
1452 1 3163 1
1466 8 4145 9
1510 1 1518 10
1518 10 1510 1
1519 9 2238 1
1520 7 1523 1

April 26, 2022
Page 9

1523 1 1520 7
1562 1 1239 5
1624 2 1628 9
1628 5 3080 10
1628 9 1624 2
1633 1 562 10
1702 5 783 4
1710 5 3167 7
1712 1 2138 10
1712 9 2138 2
1715 8 2136 1
1715 10 2136 2
1766 3 3770 9
1799 1 1802 1
1802 1 1799 1
1810 10 4328 2
1834 1 763 6
1840 9 1842 9
1842 9 1840 9
1922 2 2128 2
1938 5 2055 4
1958 5 4076 9
1964 7 2102 6
1965 10 3333 5
1975 9 2460 4

2018 3 441 2
2055 4 1938 5
2102 6 1964 7
2106 1 3231 4
2109 3 3079 8
2115 5 2433 2
2124 2 4057 4
2128 2 1922 2
2136 1 1715 8
2136 2 1715 10
2137 3 3335 3
2138 2 1712 9
2138 10 1712 1
2175 7 2197 6
2197 5 2221 2
2197 6 2175 7
2200 9 2277 6
2221 2 558 3
2221 9 2945 9
2226 2 4115 6
2238 1 1519 9

April 26, 2022
Page 10

2238 9 3333 4
2277 6 2200 9
2280 2 2200 9
2302 1 2936 7
2433 2 2115 5
2460 4 1975 9
2473 1 2617 3
2495 6 9 1
2497 1 2996 4
2511 3 215 1
2549 1 2552 1
2552 1 2549 1
2561 1 2824 2
2568 4 3259 7
2617 3 2473 1
2655 1 3734; 4187 8; 1
2771 5 3174 2
2780 5 784 9
2792 2 3807 1
2809 10 268 1
2824 2 2561 1
2842 2 1298 1
2848 5 3670 4
2936 7 2302 1
2945 9 2221 9

2996 4 2497 1
3028 9 2277 6
3035 2 1288 8
3079 8 2109 3
3080 10 1628 5
3101 1 1418 1
3163 1 1452 1
3163 2 3163 7
3163 7 3163 2
3167 7 1710 5
3174 2 2771 5
3184 9 4322 1
3205 1 1056 1
3215 2 4109 2
3231 4 2106 1
3241 3 419 8
3259 7 2568 4
3333 4 2238 9
3333 5 1965 10
3335 3 2137 3
3415 10 3664 4

April 26, 2022
Page 11

3442 9 3448 2
3446 5 610 4
3446 10 610 6
3448 2 3442 9
3457 1 3458 1
3458 1 3457 1
3485 1 4592 4
3579 4 510 1
3589 6 326 1
3619 7 812 6
3659 1 89 2
3664 4 3415 10
3670 4 2848 5
3682 2 4365 1
3734 8 2655; 4187 1; 1
3759 6 3762 9
3761 1 4047 8
3762 9 3759 6
3770 9 1766 3
3781 10 2945 9
3807 1 2792 2
4036 9 680 7
4043 9 796 1
4047 8 3761 1
4051 10 4052 1

4052 1 4051 10
4057 4 2124 2
4060 8 752 3
4076 9 1958 5
4109 2 3215 2
4109 8 623 2
4115 6 2226 2
4145 9 1466 8
4187 1 2655; 3734 8; 1
4322 1 3184 9
4326 2 294 1
4328 2 1810 10
4328 8 4569 4
4338 2 359 2
4338 3 359 5
4365 1 3682 2
4428 1 1112 2
4449 1 776 1
4499 7 4589 3
4569 4 4328 8
4589 3 4499 7

April 26, 2022
Page 12

4592 4 3485 1
In addition to duplicates included within the Johnson Petitions, 334 signatures of persons included
on the Johnson Petitions are duplicated on petitions circulated by other persons seeking
nomination as a candidate for governor. Table 4 includes the page and line number of a person
signing a Johnson Petition, as well as the name of other candidates with page and line number
references to duplicate signatures from the same signer appearing on other gubernatorial
candidate petitions in violation of the Michigan Election Law.
Table 4
Duplicate Signatures on Petitions of Other Candidates
Johnson Page Johnson Other Candidate Last Duplicate Duplicate

Stamp Number Line Number Name Page Stamp No(s). Line Nos.
11 5 Kelley 3203 8
24 2 Rebandt 741 4
24 4 Soldano 3249 10
52 4 Brown 2399 8
69 3 Rebandt 48 4
77 9 Rebandt 157 7
79 1 Kelley 306 5
92 1 Craig 2707 2
145 1 Brown 471 4
160 1 Kelley 2532 1

172 8 Kelley 2488 7
198 4 Craig 2964 8
288 2 Craig 677 10
299 5 Soldano 339 2
384 1 Markey 2309 6
384 6 Craig 2396 4
384 7 Craig 2339 7
389 8 Craig 662 5
392 2 Rebandt 115 1
393 1 Kelley 1699 1
414 1 Rebandt 714 8
416 1 Rebandt 1860 8
420 2 Kelley 2849 10
494 10 Markey 1 9
534 2 Craig 2073 3
538 3 Kelley 2895 4
539 4 Brown 1463 5
542 4 Markey 1787 4
543 7 Markey 668 2
544 8 Markey 2075 6
556 9 Markey 782 2

April 26, 2022
Page 13

557 3 Kelley 1087 1
558 7 Rebandt 1021 7
564 8 Markey 443 4
566 1 Kelley 1719 1
579 2 Soldano 896 8
580 4 Markey 558 1
584 2 Kelley 2192 10
591 5 Markey 1157 10
591 9 Markey 1157 9
591 10 Markey 1157 1
594 9 Markey 519 4
605 2 Kelley 2812 8
616 5 Brown 1238 2
624 8 Markey 337 6
653 9 Brown 1477 8
658 9 Rebandt 1438 3
720 6 Soldano 1705 1
722 1 Kelley 2357 9
724 2 Markey 2170 7
732 9 Soldano 1838 4
733 8 Markey 1485 8
736 7 Markey 2143 2
754 1 Kelley 201 3
762 7 Rebandt 1442 1
764 3 Markey 338 2

766 3 Kelley 69 4
767 1 Craig 422 4
779 4 Markey 723 1
790 1 Kelley 1714 1
792 8 Markey 220 3
808 2 Markey 448 4
810 9 Markey 2193 9
817 10 Markey 370 5
900 4 Brown 159 2
900 5 Craig 1554 2
905 6 Craig 441 2
905 10 Kelley 2970 10
933 2 Soldano 1363 2
933 8 Brown 1672 7
943 5 Brown 218 4
992 1 Craig 3031 2
1000 8 Rebandt 1641 10
1024 5 Rebandt 1252 9
1024 7 Rebandt 1063 6
1026 5 Craig 2855 5
1062 2 Craig 1485 1

April 26, 2022
Page 14

1096 1 Rebandt 1186 8
1230 1 Kelley 2806 1
1231 8 Kelley 2302 9
1236 7 Kelley 2848 8
1260 7 Kelley 2914 3
1273 5 Rebandt 1499 10
1307 1 Kelley 2266 3
1322 4 Soldano 1751 1
1326 1 Kelley 3222 6
1345 2 Kelley 2400 9
1351 4 Rebandt 1142 4
1353 1 Markey 1950 9
1397 7 Brown 2206 3
1411 7 Kelley 2516 6
1411 9 Markey 1275 1
1416 1 Craig 306 1
1460 2 Markey 1029 9
1547 4 Craig 2000 5
1553 1 Kelley 2751 6
1556 1 Craig 1142 2
1619 5 Brown 1524 9
1622 6 Markey 357 8
1623 5 Markey 420 1
1624 5 Markey 379 1
1625 4 Markey 391 8

1625 8 Markey 115 2
1642 1 Kelley 1066 2
1654 9 Markey 68 8
1670 3 Craig 687 7
1679 10 Craig 834 1
1680 2 Brown 159 10
1695 3 Soldano 3376 8
1700 1 Craig 689 2
1700 2 Craig 689 3
1714 2 Markey 22 1
1722 10 Kelley 2771 1
1749 1 Kelley 3228 2
1753 4 Craig 2450 10
1758 7 Markey 357 1
1760 1 Craig 2254 1
1762 3 Markey 379 9
1762 8 Markey 420 4
1764 3 Craig 603 9
1770 3 Craig 1963 9
1771 2 Craig 2605 9
1793 1 Soldano 1143 5

April 26, 2022
Page 15

1801 6 Kelley 2849 5
1830 1 Craig 819 1
1838 10 Markey 1523 4
1871 1 Brown 1516 6
1876 1 Kelley 1667 2
1877 9 Brown 646 2
1882 2 Brown 649 2
1883 8 Markey 931 10
1897 7 Markey 941 1
1904 1 Craig 2588 9
1906 9 Brown 1525 2
1907 8 Craig 2081 7
1929 3 Kelley 3427 4
1934 9 Kelley 85 6
1935 8 Brown 405 5
1943 1 Kelley 260 6
1958 9 Markey 1140 2
1963 4 Brown 2139 8
1967 3 Soldano 839 5
1970 1 Kelley 1807 1
1979 6 Markey 1182 10
1979 7 Markey 1138 6
2032 8 Brown 163 8
2034 5 Brown 165 9
2034 9 Brown 165 1

2035 2 Brown 172 6
2037 4 Brown 179 10
2044 6 Brown 179 3
2044 10 Brown 174 2
2046 3 Brown 167 10
2046 10 Brown 175 8
2057 10 Markey 930 4
2072 6 Markey 938 2
2076 2 Markey 937 10
2079 9 Markey 936 1
2082 3 Markey 932 10
2082 9 Markey 932 3
2083 3 Markey 927 10
2099 7 Markey 821 6
2111 10 Craig 2597 7
2119 3 Craig 853 9
2120 2 Markey 1387 3
2135 10 Markey 1814 10
2156 2 Markey 1357 9
2166 10 Markey 2121 5
2172 1 Markey 846 7

April 26, 2022
Page 16

2178 8 Brown 653 10
2178 10 Brown 1252 1
2181 5 Markey 713 2
2196 8 Brown 66 2
2219 8 Markey 1590 3
2223 9 Kelley 987 2
2224 4 Markey 1159 9
2224 6 Markey 1159 3
2224 9 Markey 1159 7
2225 2 Craig 2534 1
2226 5 Markey 805 10
2237 1 Craig 2469 3
2237 4 Markey 565 6
2242 1 Markey 356 4
2243 9 Craig 2073 1
2251 9 Markey 1159 5
2258 8 Rebandt 1158 6
2260 2 Craig 822 5
2260 6 Markey 1158 4
2260 8 Markey 1158 3
2267 7 Brown 346 7
2279 7 Brown 1163 10
2292 2 Markey 1161 2
2292 3 Markey 1160 5
2292 8 Markey 1161 8

2292 9 Markey 1160 9
2294 6 Craig 602 7
2298 1 Markey 1158 1
2298 6 Markey 1158 6
2298 9 Markey 1158 9
2303 2 Markey 91 8
2303 5 Markey 2337 9
2306 1 Craig 888 2
2341 6 Markey 2055 2
2352 3 Markey 1311 4
2381 2 Markey 1160 10
2381 3 Markey 1160 1
2381 5 Markey 1160 3
2381 6 Markey 1160 6
2381 7 Markey 1160 7
2381 9 Markey 1161 9
2381 10 Markey 1161 10
2387 6 Craig 816 2
2392 3 Craig 370 3
2413 7 Brown 170 10
2415 10 Brown 168 9

April 26, 2022
Page 17

2416 4 Brown 162 1
2416 10 Brown 183 8
2419 4 Rebandt 2316 1
2425 2 Soldano 3003 4
2425 8 Rebandt 604 1
2434 2 Brown 1834 4
2438 5 Markey 687 2
2441 3 Markey 913 10
2441 9 Markey 913 5
2444 10 Markey 935 8
2462 2 Brown 729 5
2462 5 Markey 928 8
2462 8 Markey 928 4
2465 3 Markey 933 1
2469 2 Craig 1494 1
2481 1 Kelley 2468 7
2553 6 Craig 1013 7
2567 4 Craig 2230 5
2567 7 Brown 2130 7
2567 10 Brown 910 4
2568 5 Rebandt 1096 8
2568 9 Markey 808 5
2570 5 Brown 1288 7
2571 4 Brown 1826 1
2576 1 Kelley 2263 7

2576 8 Craig 685 5
2603 3 Soldano 231 9
2632 4 Markey 368 3
2632 5 Markey 384 3
2632 8 Markey 384 9
2633 1 Soldano 342 5
2751 3 Rebandt 257 9
2833 1 Craig 2484 4
2846 5 Rebandt 1866 4
2859 8 Kelley 3234 4
2955 8 Craig 135 6
3013 8 Craig 2310 2
3030 7 Craig 2582 1
3033 9 Craig 1988 9
3035 10 Rebandt 1283 4
3043 7 Markey 164 9
3055 6 Markey 1397 3
3055 10 Markey 1489 2
3177 1 Kelley 2731 1
3184 1 Kelley 2187 6
3204 1 Craig 826 7

April 26, 2022
Page 18

3224 3 Craig 685 6
3224 4 Kelley 2503 9
3249 1 Craig 2700 1
3275 2 Markey 203 7
3275 8 Markey 202 8
3276 5 Markey 380 2
3276 8 Markey 306 1
3278 6 Markey 127 3
3278 9 Markey 152 4
3279 5 Markey 151 9
3280 5 Markey 146 7
3281 3 Markey 119 1
3287 2 Markey 129 1
3287 6 Markey 130 9
3287 6 Markey 2171 2
3287 8 Markey 419 5
3306 6 Craig 2516 10
3322 5 Markey 2317 5
3340 5 Markey 611 4
3341 9 Markey 2069 1
3342 3 Brown 1752 1
3373 4 Craig 637 9
3373 5 Rebandt 1645 6
3400 9 Kelley 2722 9
3415 9 Brown 1642 6

3440 1 Craig 474 9
3443 8 Markey 1020 4
3459 1 Markey 1096 3
3470 1 Markey 1096 6
3472 1 Kelley 214 2
3492 6 Kelley 2841 7
3493 3 Rebandt 120 7
3495 2 Soldano 2404 1
3537 5 Markey 750 1
3574 2 Kelley 408 2
3584 6 Rebandt 106 9
3595 5 Markey 194 1
3668 5 Craig 2459 4
3699 5 Craig 188 1
3757 6 Kelley 3139 10
3758 10 Markey 84 2
3763 2 Brown 399 4
3764 4 Brown 1439 8
3765 6 Markey 845 7
3765 7 Brown 369 2
3765 9 Brown 229 1

April 26, 2022
Page 19

3766 5 Brown 349 2
3767 9 Brown 1788 9
3772 1 Craig 2924 2
3784 1 Kelley 2558 7
3905 1 Rebandt 36 4
3905 2 Rebandt 36 3
3970 5 Brown 1371 10
3987 1 Craig 1939 6
3995 6 Soldano 326 2
4049 7 Markey 1959 2
4049 10 Markey 662 2
4050 10 Kelley 2407 5
4051 6 Markey 164 4
4054 2 Markey 163 1
4059 10 Craig 2065 7
4064 5 Brown 1286 3
4064 8 Craig 2715 5
4119 2 Kelley 316 5
4146 2 Markey 1091 3
4212 3 Soldano 1551 2
4253 2 Rebandt 27 2
4309 1 Rebandt 740 7
4340 9 Craig 2302 2
4418 8 Craig 2097 5
4501 4 Craig 2365 2

4521 4 Craig 2372 5
4530 1 Markey 738 5
4557 3 Brown 1353 9
4569 1 Markey 723 7
In addition to duplicates, the Manual also indicates that a signature is invalid if on the date of
signing the signer was not registered to vote anywhere in the city or township indicated. (invalid
entry code “NR”). At least 8 signatures included on the Johnson Petitions appear to be from voters
that are not so registered. Given the ability to access the qualified voter file and records from local
clerks under the Michigan Election Law, the required canvassing of the Johnson Petitions by the
Board and an investigation by the Board pursuant to MCL 168.552(8) are likely to reveal
substantially more signatures from non-registered voters. The petition page number assigned by
the Bureau and line number for each signature of a non-registered voter is indicated in Table 5.

April 26, 2022
Page 20
Table 5
Non-Registered Voters

115 5
115 8
602 1
611 2
611 5
611 10
944 3
973 9
The Manual indicates that a signature is invalid if the signature is incomplete, meaning the petition
signature given does not match the signature on file (invalid entry code “IN”). At least 163
signatures included on the Johnson Petitions are incomplete. The petition page number assigned
by the Bureau and line number for each incomplete signature is indicated in Table 6.
Table 6
Incomplete Signatures

5 5
7 3
7 5
8 2

11 4
11 7
18 7
20 3
22 1
22 2
22 3
22 9
24 6
31 5
37 7
46 8
47 8
115 2
115 3
115 5
137 1
139 6
139 8
146 6
148 6

April 26, 2022
Page 21

150 4
163 1
575 2
577 2
578 1
579 8
580 2
589 2
589 3
589 4
591 2
593 2
593 8
595 10
600 1
600 10
602 6
603 1
603 4
603 9
607 3
607 6
608 9
610 4
611 9
612 1

613 2
614 5
772 2
773 2
853 1
913 3
917 8
917 10
926 7
928 3
937 1
944 2
944 3
952 2
954 1
954 2
954 4
954 6
954 7
955 4
957 3

April 26, 2022
Page 22

963 1
966 4
973 2
973 9
973 10
975 4
1404 7
1404 10
1434 2
1434 8
1498 8
1773 2
1774 2
1777 4
1777 5
1801 3
1809 3
1809 7
1809 8
1809 9
1809 10
1813 5
1817 1
1818 1
1818 3
1822 3

2070 2
2070 6
2070 8
2158 6
2160 1
2162 8
2167 6
2169 3
2173 4
2173 6
2175 1
2176 3
2176 4
2177 10
2180 8
2181 6
2181 10
2183 1
2183 4
2183 6
2184 1

April 26, 2022
Page 23

2185 5
2186 1
2187 2
2191 3
2191 7
2191 8
2192 1
2192 6
2192 8
2192 9
2194 1
2195 7
2195 9
2196 10
2197 1
2197 3
2197 7
2200 5
2200 9
2200 10
2201 1
2201 10
2203 1
2203 6
2203 9
2204 4

2205 8
2391 7
2404 1
2404 7
2420 4
2420 5
2420 7
2420 10
2427 7
2444 6
2736 8
3360 1
3376 10
3391 8
3558 1
3559 1
3573 8
3822 1

April 26, 2022
Page 24
The Manual indicates that an entry on a petition sheet is invalid if no signature is included,
meaning that the signature was omitted or that the signer printed his or her name and the
signature on file is cursive (invalid entry code “NS). At least 47 petition entries on the Johnson
Petitions appear to not include a signature. The petition page number assigned by the Bureau
and line number for each non-signature is indicated in Table 7.
Table 7
No Signature

18 8
31 1
31 7
31 9
120 1
132 5
132 6
133 2
133 4
133 6
140 2
573 5
579 1
579 4
579 5
610 3
917 6

925 1
926 4
926 5
936 5
945 8
945 9
958 2
959 3
1404 4
1775 2
1822 6
2159 3
2159 4
2165 4
2165 5
2165 6
2165 7
2165 8
2165 9
2165 10
2181 1

April 26, 2022
Page 25

2181 9
2187 1
2187 5
2187 7
2199 7
2199 9
2199 10
2404 2
2404 5
Address and Jurisdictions Errors
The Manual provides that several address and jurisdiction errors will result in invalid signatures
on a nominating petition. An omitted or incomplete street address or use of a post office box
number in place of a street address results in an invalid signature (invalid entry code “NA”). If an
address given is located outside of the city or township listed, the signature associated with the
address is invalid (invalid entry code “OC”). If a city or township included in an entry on a petition
sheet is not located within the county listed in the heading of the petition, the signature associated
with the entry is invalid (invalid entry code “NC”). Including a dual jurisdiction—the names of two
or more jurisdictions in the space for the city and township where registered (invalid entry code
“DUAL”)—results in an invalid entry on a nominating petition according to the Manual. At least
239 petition entries on the Johnson Petitions include address or jurisdiction issues. The invalid
entry code, yhr petition page number assigned by the Bureau, and the line number for each
apparent address or jurisdiction error is indicated in Table 8.

Table 8
Address and Jurisdiction Errors
Invalid Entry Code Page Stamp Number Line Number

NC 5 3
NC 7 10
DUAL 13 1
NC 19 1
NA 19 2
NC 21 1
NC 21 2
NC 37 6
NC 38 2
NA 38 3
NA 38 4
DUAL 47 6
DUAL 47 9
DUAL 50 8
DUAL 52 2
DUAL 52 3

April 26, 2022
Page 26

DUAL 52 10
NA 132 5
NA 132 6
NA 132 7
NA 133 2
NA 133 4
NA 133 6
NC 134 1
NC 134 2
NA 135 1
NA 138 7
NA 140 6
DUAL 142 4
NC 144 8
NC 144 9
NC 144 10
NA 146 2
NC 155 1
NA 579 5
NC 587 3
NC 588 4
NC 588 5
NC 590 2
NC 594 1
NC 594 3
NC 594 5

NC 594 6
NC 594 7
NC 594 8
NC 594 9
NC 594 10
NC 602 1
NC 607 3
NC 611 2
NC 611 5
NC 611 10
NC 614 9
NC 614 10
NC 763 6
NC 763 7
DUAL 774 1
DUAL 775 1
DUAL 778 5
NC 779 4
NC 779 9
NC 779 10
NC 852 1

April 26, 2022
Page 27

NC 865 1
NA 918 1
NC 928 5
NC 933 1
NC 933 3
NC 933 5
NC 933 7
NC 933 9
NC 933 10
NC 945 7
NC 945 9
DUAL 947 2
DUAL 949 4
DUAL 952 4
DUAL 956 3
NC 957 3
DUAL 958 2
DUAL 958 5
DUAL 959 1
DUAL 959 2
DUAL; NA 959 3
DUAL 959 4
DUAL 959 5
NC 967 1
DUAL 967 6
NC 968 4

NC 968 5
NA 968 6
NC 968 7
DUAL 1212 1
DUAL 1333 1
NC 1404 6
NC 1434 5
NC 1434 7
NC 1434 8
NC 1434 10
NC 1775 2
NC 1776 5
DUAL 1779 1
DUAL 1792 1
NC 1813 3
NC 1813 5
NC 1978 1
NC 1978 2
NC 1978 3
NC 1978 4
NC 1978 5

April 26, 2022
Page 28

NC 1978 6
NC 1978 7
NC 1978 8
NC 1978 9
NC 1978 10
NC 1979 1
NC 1979 2
NC 1979 3
NC 1979 4
NC 1979 5
NC 1979 6
NC 1979 7
NC 1979 8
NC 1979 9
NC 1979 10
NA 2162 9
NA 2165 4
NA 2165 5
NA 2165 6
NA 2165 7
NA 2165 8
NA 2165 9
NA 2165 10
DUAL 2180 9
NC 2181 1
DUAL 2201 10

DUAL 2404 3
NC 2583 9
NC 2583 10
NC 2592 7
NC 2601 1
NA 2711 1
NA 2711 3
NA 2711 4
NA 2711 5
NA 2737 5
NC 2774 1
NC 2948 1
NA 2953 1
NA 2953 2
NA 2953 3
NA 2953 4
NA 2953 5
NA 2953 6
NA 2973 1
NA 2991 1
NA 2991 1

April 26, 2022
Page 29

NA 2991 2
NA 2991 2
NA 2991 3
NA 2991 3
NA 2991 4
NA 2991 4
NA 2991 6
NA 2991 6
NA 2991 7
NA 2991 7
NA 2991 8
NA 2991 8
NA 2991 9
NA 2991 9
NA 2991 10
NA 2991 10
NA 2994 1
NA 2995 1
NA 2995 2
NA 2995 3
NA 2995 4
NA 2995 6
NA 2995 7
NA 2995 9
NA 2995 10
NA 2996 1

NC 2997 2
NA 3015 1
NA 3015 2
NA 3015 3
NA 3015 4
NA 3015 5
NA 3015 6
NA 3015 7
NA 3015 8
NA 3015 9
NC 3029 1
NC 3040 1
NC 3061 1
NA 3110 1
NA 3154 8
NC 3159 1
NC 3159 2
NC 3159 3
NC 3159 4
NC 3159 6
NC 3159 7

April 26, 2022
Page 30

NC 3159 8
NC 3159 9
NC 3159 10
NC 3163 1
NA 3163 5
NC 3167 3
NC 3167 4
NC 3184 2
NC 3184 4
NC 3184 5
NC 3184 6
NA 3210 1
NA 3210 2
NC 3210 3
NA 3210 4
NA 3210 5
NC 3210 6
NA 3210 7
NA 3210 8
NA 3210 9
NA 3210 10
NC 3214 2
NC 3215 2
NC 3215 3
NC 3216 2
NC 3216 3

NC 3216 5
NA 3217 1
NC 3236 4
NC 3236 6
NC 3236 7
NC 3236 9
NC 3261 3
NC 3262 1
NA 3296 1
NA 3296 2
NA 3296 3
NA 3308 1
NA 3308 2
NA 3330 4
NC 3336 6
NC 3336 10
NC 3337 1
NC 3337 2
NC 3337 3
NC 3337 9
NC 3337 10

April 26, 2022
Page 31

NC 3349 1
NC 3349 2
NC 3349 3
NC 3349 4
NC 3349 5
NC 3349 6
NC 3349 7
NC 3349 8
NC 3349 9
NC 3349 10
NC 3376 2
NC 3376 8
NA 3397 1
NA 3397 2
NC 3411 7
NA 3414 3
NC 3421 9
NC 3422 3
NC 3429 1
NC 3432 1
NA 3434 1
NA 3434 2
NC 3435 2
NC 3450 1
NC 3450 2
NC 3450 3

NC 3450 4
NC 3450 5
NC 3450 6
NC 3450 7
NC 3450 8
NC 3450 9
NC 3450 10
NC 3482 1
NC 3482 2
NC 3483 1
NC 3490 4
NC 3492 10
NC 3493 5
NC 3493 6
NC 3493 9
NC 3493 10
NC 3495 3
NC 3495 4
NC 3547 4
NC 3557 9
NC 3569 1

April 26, 2022
Page 32

NC 3569 2
NC 3569 3
NC 3569 4
NC 3569 5
NC 3569 6
NC 3569 7
NC 3569 8
NC 3569 9
NC 3569 10
NC 3582 2
NC 3591 7
NC 3591 9
NC 3592 2
NA 3606 2
NC 3695 1
NC 3701 9
NC 3701 10
NC 3702 5
NC 3722 6
NC 3722 7
NC 3725 1
NC 3736 3
NC 3758 1
NC 3762 4
NC 3772 1
NC 3786 10

NC 3791 1
NC 3822 3
NC 3843 1
NC 3849 1
NC 3919 1
NC 4199 1
NA 4498 1
NA 4498 2
NA 4498 3
NA 4498 4
NC 4519 1
NC 4519 2
NC 4519 3
NC 4519 4
NC 4598 1

April 26, 2022
Page 33
Date Errors
The Manual provides that several date-related errors will result in invalid signatures on a
nominating petition. If a signature is undated or an incomplete date is given, the signature is
invalid (invalid entry code “ND”). If a signature is dated after the date that the circulator dated the
circulator’s signature, the Manual indicates that the signature is invalid (invalid entry code “SDC”).
At least 230 petition entries on the Johnson Petitions include a date error. The invalid entry code
relating to the date error, petition page number assigned by the Bureau, and the line number for
each apparent date error is indicated in Table 9.
Table 9
Date Errors

ND 38 3
ND 38 4
ND 46 5
ND 132 5
ND 132 6
ND 135 1
ND 139 9
ND 140 1
ND 140 4
ND 140 6
ND 140 9
ND 140 10
ND 146 2

SDC 252 1
SDC 415 1
SDC 449 2
SDC 449 3
ND 579 5
ND 580 8
ND 590 1
ND 598 7
ND 610 3
SDC 611 6
ND 614 10
ND 925 1
ND 943 2
ND 943 7
SDC 958 4
ND 968 3
ND 968 5
ND 968 6
SDC 973 1
SDC 975 8

April 26, 2022
Page 34

SDC 1307 3
SDC 1475 1
SDC 1475 2
SDC 1475 3
SDC 1475 4
SDC 1475 5
SDC 1475 7
SDC 1475 8
SDC 1475 9
SDC 1475 10
SDC 1479 1
SDC 1479 2
SDC 1479 3
SDC 1479 4
SDC 1479 5
SDC 1479 6
SDC 1479 7
SDC 1479 8
SDC 1570 1
SDC 1590 2
SDC 1773 4
SDC 1776 1
SDC 1777 8
SDC 1792 1
ND 1801 5
SDC 2158 7

SDC 2158 8
ND 2162 9
SDC 2164 2
SDC 2164 3
SDC 2170 3
ND 2181 1
SDC 2197 3
ND 2490 1
SDC 2578 4
SDC 2584 1
SDC 2584 2
SDC 2584 4
SDC 2584 5
SDC 2584 6
SDC 2584 7
SDC 2584 8
SDC 2584 9
SDC 2584 10
ND 2610 1
ND 2619 2
SDC 2687 1

April 26, 2022
Page 35

SDC 2687 2
SDC 2687 3
SDC 2687 4
SDC 2687 5
SDC 2687 6
SDC 2687 7
SDC 2687 8
ND 2736 3
SDC 2736 7
SDC 2773 1
SDC 2775 1
SDC 2775 2
SDC 2819 1
SDC 2819 2
ND 2960 1
SDC 2960 2
ND 2977 2
ND 2987 1
ND 2999 3
ND 2999 3
ND 3000 2
ND 3000 5
ND 3000 5
SDC 3015 1
SDC 3015 2
SDC 3015 3

SDC 3015 4
SDC 3015 5
SDC 3015 6
SDC 3015 7
SDC 3015 8
SDC 3015 9
SDC 3027 1
SDC 3027 2
SDC 3049 1
SDC 3049 2
SDC 3049 3
SDC 3049 4
SDC 3049 5
SDC 3049 6
SDC 3049 7
SDC 3049 8
SDC 3049 9
SDC 3049 10
ND 3051 1
ND 3051 2
ND 3051 3

April 26, 2022
Page 36

ND 3051 4
ND 3051 5
ND 3051 6
ND 3051 7
ND 3051 8
ND 3051 9
ND 3051 10
SDC 3059 3
SDC 3060 1
SDC 3070 1
SDC 3070 3
SDC 3070 6
SDC 3070 10
ND 3077 1
SDC 3089 1
SDC 3105 9
SDC 3105 10
SDC 3106 1
SDC 3108 8
ND 3129 1
ND 3129 2
SDC 3148 1
SDC 3186 2
ND 3234 3
ND 3235 4
ND 3251 1

SDC 3265 1
SDC 3265 2
SDC 3265 3
SDC 3301 3
SDC 3301 9
SDC 3301 10
ND 3306 3
SDC 3330 4
ND 3331 4
SDC 3333 1
SDC 3333 2
SDC 3333 3
SDC 3333 4
SDC 3333 5
SDC 3333 6
SDC 3333 7
SDC 3333 8
SDC 3333 9
SDC 3333 10
SDC 3334 1
SDC 3334 2

April 26, 2022
Page 37

SDC 3334 3
SDC 3334 4
SDC 3334 5
SDC 3334 6
SDC 3334 7
SDC 3334 8
SDC 3334 9
SDC 3334 10
SDC 3335 1
SDC 3335 2
SDC 3335 3
SDC 3335 4
SDC 3335 5
SDC 3335 6
SDC 3335 7
SDC 3335 8
SDC 3335 9
SDC 3335 10
SDC 3389 1
ND 3390 1
ND 3390 2
SDC 3410 1
SDC 3410 2
SDC 3410 3
SDC 3410 4
SDC 3410 5

SDC 3410 6
SDC 3410 7
SDC 3410 8
SDC 3410 9
SDC 3410 10
SDC 3415 1
ND 3415 2
SDC 3415 8
ND 3432 1
ND 3435 8
ND 3437 1
ND 3438 1
SDC 3458 8
ND 3491 3
SDC 3494 1
SDC 3494 2
SDC 3571 8
SDC 3571 9
ND 3583 1
ND 3583 2
SDC 3594 1

April 26, 2022
Page 38

SDC 3594 1
SDC 3608 1
SDC 3612 1
SDC 3612 2
SDC 3612 3
SDC 3612 4
ND 3639 1
SDC 4180 1
SDC 4375 1
Other Errors
The Manual provides that several other errors on a petition sheet will result in invalid signatures
on a nominating petition. A fatal defect in a circulator’s certificate invalidates all signatures on the
petition sheet, including omission of the circulator’s signature, an incorrect or incomplete address
or date of signing, or the failure of an out-state circulator to check the box for out-state residents
(invalid entry code “CIRC”). A fatal defect in the elements of a petition sheet heading (invalid entry
code “HEAD”) also renders all signatures on a petition sheet invalid. The Manual indicates that a
petition sheet that is damaged, mutilated, or that has mandatory elements of the petition sheet
obscured or covered is invalid (invalid entry code “DMG”). Finally, other identification problems
are coded with the entry code “MC”. At least 293 petition entries on the Johnson Petitions include
other errors. The invalid entry code relating to the miscellaneous error, petition page number
assigned by the Bureau, the line number for each miscellaneous error, and some related
descriptions are each included in Table 10.

Table 10
Miscellaneous Identification Problems
Invalid Entry Code Page Stamp Number Line Number Description

DMG 22 1
DMG 22 2
DMG 22 3
DMG 22 4
DMG 22 5
DMG 22 6
DMG 22 7
DMG 22 8
DMG 22 9
DMG 22 10
DMG 24 1
DMG 24 2
DMG 24 3
DMG 24 4
DMG 24 5
DMG 24 6

April 26, 2022
Page 39

DMG 24 7
DMG 24 8
DMG 24 9
DMG 24 10
CIRC 25 1 No such county in Connecticut.
DMG 34 1
DMG 37 1
DMG 37 2
DMG 37 3
DMG 37 4
DMG 37 5
DMG 37 6
DMG 37 7
CIRC 46 1 No state or county for circulator.
CIRC 49 1 No state or zip code for circulator.

MC 128 1 City or Township is county name; street
address not in Macomb Twp.
DMG 133 1

April 26, 2022
Page 40

DMG 133 2
DMG 133 3
DMG 133 4
DMG 133 5
DMG 133 6
DMG 133 7
DMG 133 8
DMG 133 9
DMG 133 10
CIRC 137 1 No circulator signature.
MC 141 2 Date error.
MC 141 3 Date error.

DMG 150 1
DMG 150 2
DMG 150 3
DMG 150 4
DMG 150 5
DMG 150 6
DMG 150 7

April 26, 2022
Page 41

DMG 150 8
DMG 150 9
CIRC 155 1 Checkmark outside box.
CIRC 155 2 Checkmark outside box.

CIRC 610 1 No street address for circulator.
CIRC 866 1 Incomplete date.
CIRC 869 1 No circulator date or state.
CIRC 872 1 Circulator date after filing deadline.
CIRC 913 1 Circulator signature incomplete.

April 26, 2022
Page 42

CIRC 920 1 Invalid circulator county.
CIRC 920 2 Lorain, OH not located in Summit
County.
County.
County.
County.
County.
County.
County.
County.
County.

MC 924 5 Incomplete name.
DMG 933 1
DMG 933 2
DMG 933 3
DMG 933 4
DMG 933 5
DMG 933 6
DMG 933 7
DMG 933 8
DMG 933 9
DMG 933 10
CIRC 937 1 Incorrect circulator county.
DMG 943 1
DMG 943 2
DMG 943 3
DMG 943 4
DMG 943 5
DMG 943 6
DMG 943 7
DMG 943 8
DMG 943 9

April 26, 2022
Page 43

DMG 943 10
CIRC 944 1 Incomplete circulator signature.
DMG 956 1
DMG 956 2
DMG 956 3
DMG 956 4
DMG 956 5

DMG 956 6
DMG 956 7
DMG 956 8
DMG 956 9
DMG 956 10
DMG 957 1
DMG 957 2
DMG 957 3
DMG 957 4
CIRC; DMG 965 1
CIRC; DMG 965 2
CIRC; DMG 965 3

April 26, 2022
Page 44

CIRC; DMG 965 4
CIRC; DMG 965 5
CIRC; DMG 965 6
CIRC; DMG 965 7
CIRC; DMG 965 8
CIRC; DMG 965 9
CIRC; DMG 965 10
DMG 974 1
HEAD 1072 1
CIRC 1498 1 Incomplete circulator name.
CIRC 1795 1 Incorrect circulator county.
CIRC 1813 1 No such county or parish in Louisiana.

MC 2180 1 Incomplete name; Signature
inconsistent with name.
CIRC 2200 1 Incomplete address in wrong location

April 26, 2022
Page 45

MC 2204 3 Incomplete printed name.
MC 2427 3 Incomplete name.
The Forgers and the Johnson Petitions
In a sworn complaint relating to nominating petitions filed by another candidate for governor,
James Craig, the complainant alleges that at least eight of the circulators for Craig forged or
permitted the forgery of 6,933 signatures on 710 petition sheets. All signatures on petitions
circulated by those circulator were challenged. Six of those eight circulators5 also circulated
petitions for Perry Johnson, and a canvass of those petitions include similar indications of similar
handwriting on multiple entries and other visual indicators of potential forgeries. Given the
questionable nature of the activities of the circulators and the signatures collected, all of the
following signatures appearing on the following sheets circulated by the following circulators
detailed in Table 11 are challenged.
Table 11
Problematic Circulators and Associated Challenged Petition Sheets

Stephen Yazmine Deshawn Nicolas Diallo William
Tinnin Vassar Evans Carlton Vaughn Williams
94 sheets 55 sheets 36 sheets 34 sheets 32 sheets 92 sheets
317 723 198 546 556 72
318 724 569 548 559 241
319 729 581 550 1867 384
320 731 738 552 1887 403
606 735 746 555 1894 515
687 736 750 568 1895 534
719 796 791 792 2209 536
720 799 1712 1765 2212 543
721 800 1713 1766 2213 547
725 801 1714 1770 2218 551
5
Including Stephen Tinnin of Wixom, Yazmine Vasser of Troy, Deshawn Evans of Harper
Woods, Nicholas Carlton of Detroit, Diallo Vaughn of Oak Park, and William Williams of Detroit.

April 26, 2022
Page 46
727 807 1715 1771 2222 554

728 809 1716 1772 2228 562
732 810 1717 1881 2229 671
733 1890 1885 1931 2231 705
739 1898 1904 1954 2258 712
740 1937 1907 1971 2261 808
742 1969 1919 1974 2267 817
743 2087 1923 2091 2271 909
744 2268 1965 2092 2273 1582
747 2294 1972 2093 2274 1631
748 2297 1976 2094 2279 1632
751 2321 2121 2095 2282 1633
752 2322 2123 2096 2283 1634
787 2324 2126 2097 3004 1635
789 2327 2215 2098 3032 1636
793 2332 2306 2099 3302 1637
797 2333 2311 2100 3306 1638
803 2337 2350 2101 3307 1639
804 2341 2364 2102 3309 1640
805 2345 3053 2250 3311 1641
812 2353 3056 2252 3313 1750

813 2356 3090 2280 3325 1751
1763 2358 3333 2387 1752
1764 2359 3334 3979 1849
1938 2363 3335 1857
1941 2365 3346 1859
1950 2367 1874
1952 2368 1878
2055 2369 2108
2060 2372 2109
2216 2376 2110
2248 2377 2111
2262 2380 2129
2270 2384 2150
2276 2438 2151
2313 2448 2152
2325 3070 2225

April 26, 2022
Page 47
2328 3072 2232

2329 3274 2237
2331 3285 2238
2335 3310 2405
2340 3314 2407
2397 3317 2450
2403 3318 2454
2435 3319 2464
2449 2502
2626 2571
2627 2689
2628 3012
2629 3028
2630 3030
3038 3033
3043 3039
3155 3047
3273 3071
3284 3074
3301 3075
3304 3076

3305 3080
3315 3084
3323 3087
3326 3228
3338 3249
4043 3253
4044 3254
4045 3255
4046 3256
4047 3257
4048 3258
4049 3260
4050 3331
4051 3332
4052 3339
4053 3340

April 26, 2022
Page 48
4054 3341
4055 3342
4056 3343
4057 3500
4058 4107
4059 4108
4060 4115
4062 4145
4063
4064
For the reasons stated in this complaint, we ask the Board to carefully canvass these petitions,
eliminate those signatures challenged in this complaint, and investigate violations of the Michigan
Election Law as necessitated by MCL 168.552, removing any illegal or otherwise invalid
signatures from the Johnson Petitions before making a final determination.
Thank you for your consideration of this information.
Sincerely,
Dykema Gossett PLLC

Steven C. Liedel
Attachment(s)

EXHIBIT 4
STATE OF MICHIGAN
BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS
__________________________________________
In re Nominating Petitions for the Office of Governor filed by Perry Johnson

______________________________________________________________________________
Perry Johnson’s Response in Opposition to Carol Bray’s Sworn Complaint

Questioning the Validity and Genuineness of Signatures Included on
Nominating Petitions Filed by Perry Johnson Seeking to Qualify as a
Candidate for the Office of Governor
______________________________________________________________________________
Steven C. Liedel (P58852) Jonathan B. Koch (P80408)

DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC D. Adam Tountas (P68579)
Attorney for Carol Bray SMITH HAUGHEY RICE & ROEGGE
201 Townsend St Ste 900 Attorneys for Perry Johnson
Lansing, MI 48933 100 Monroe Center NW
(517) 374-9100 Grand Rapids, MI 49503
sliedel@dykema.com (616) 774-8000
jkoch@shrr.com
dtountas@shrr.com

Chris Winkelman**
HOLTZMAN VOGEL BARAN TORCHINSKY
& JOSEFIAK PLLC
15405 John Marshall Hwy
Haymarket, VA 20169
(540) 341-8808
*Licensed to practice in Virginia and the District of Columbia

**Licensed to practice in Florida
______________________________________________________________________________
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
Introduction
The complaint Carol Bray presented to the Board of Canvassers alleging Perry Johnson
should be removed from the ballot for lack of signatures should be dismissed. If this matter were
to proceed in any federal or state court, it would be readily dismissed under Rule 12 or MCR
2.116(C)(8) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Mr. Johnson would still
have enough signatures to qualify for ballot access for the Republican Primary even if every
signature alleged to be invalid was determined by this Board to be invalid. If the Board determines
that it must still look at the issues presented in the complaint, the complaint itself is littered with
false allegations and bad data. These material defects further demonstrate without question that
the complainant has not challenged enough of Mr. Perry’s petition signatures to disqualify him
from the ballot and disenfranchise the tens of thousands of Michigan voters who signed his
petitions.
This body and the people of Michigan should understand that this complaint is a political

attack without legal merit, and it should be dismissed.
Argument
A. Even if every single one of the challenged signatures on Mr. Johnson’s petitions is
invalid (they are not), he would still have more than enough signatures to qualify for
the primary ballot. This Board should decline to waste its time investigating Ms.
Bray’s challenges.
To be included on the official primary ballot, a candidate for nomination by a political
party for the office of governor needs to submit nominating petitions with at least 15,000 valid
signatures.1 Here, Mr. Johnson submitted petitions with a total of 22,742 signatures—more than
1
MCL 168.53; MCL 168.544f. A gubernatorial candidate must also have petitions that are “signed
by at least 100 registered resident electors in each of at least ½ of the congressional districts of the
2
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
7,700 more than the minimum required. Ms. Bray only raises 6,065 challenges (many of which
are duplicative of each other – and of course any “bad” signature can only be disqualified once)
and the Board isn’t required to investigate any signatures or petition sheets that aren’t specifically
challenged.2 So even if every single one of the signatures challenged by Ms. Bray turns out to be
invalid (as shown below, they will not), Mr. Johnson would still have enough valid signatures to
qualify for the primary ballot.
This Board’s “sole duty with regard to qualifying petitions is to determine whether the
signatures on the petition are valid, including that of the person who circulates the petition, whether
they are the signatures of registered voters, and whether they are sufficient valid signatures to
certify the petition.”3 And where a “challenge to the petition failed to establish” that there were
less than the minimum number of “valid signatures filed in support,” this Board has the “clear
legal duty to certify the petition.”4
Mr. Johnson has enough signatures to be certified for the primary ballot even if every single
one of the specifically challenged signatures was invalidated, this Board has a “clear legal duty to

state.” MCL 168.53. Ms. Bray doesn’t challenge this aspect of Mr. Johnson’s petitions. In any
event, it’s undisputed that Mr. Johnson satisfies this criteria.
2
See MCL 168.552(8). There are also due process concerns raised if this body looks beyond the
complaint without notice to Mr. Perry and an opportunity to be heard.
3
Deleeuw v State Board of Canvassers, 263 Mich App 496, 496; 688 NW2d 847 (2004).
4
Deleeuw v State Board of Canvassers, 263 Mich App 496, 496; 688 NW2d 847 (2004); People
ex rel Wright v Kelly, 294 Mich 503, 519-520; 293 NW 865 (1940) (petition was properly certified
where “there are signatures in excess of the minimum requirement of more than 8,600 according
to the determination of the secretary of state” and exclusion of any obviously fraudulent signatures
“would not result in a deficiency of the requisite number of signatures”); Unlock Michigan v Bd
of State Canvassers, 507 Mich 1015; 961 NW2d 211 (2021) (the Board had “a clear legal duty to
certify the petition” where the petition sponsor submitted more than the minimum number of valid
signatures); Richey v Bd of Ed of Monroe Cty, 346 Mich 156, 158-159, 168; 77 NW2d 361 (1956)
(holding that there was no merit to the challenge to a petition because “[a]ssuming that [the
challenged] signatures were illegal there still remain sufficient valid signatures on the petition.”).
3
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
certify [his] petition.”5 As a result, there is no reason for the Board to go beyond its normal
canvassing procedures and enmesh itself in the complainant’s partisan maneuvering. Michigan law
does not compel or dictate that this Board waste its time and resources conducting a line-by-line
investigation of the signatures challenged in Ms. Bray’s insufficient complaint when the result is
already certain: Mr. Johnson will be on the primary ballot.
B. If the Board investigates Ms. Bray’s challenges, that investigation should be limited
to only signatures that were specifically challenged in her sworn complaint.
Even if the Board is inclined to indulge Ms. Bray’s request for an investigation, that
investigation should be limited to the 6,065 signatures that are specifically challenged in her sworn
complaint.
By statute, this Board “is not required to act on a complaint respecting the validity and
genuineness of signatures on a petition unless the complaint sets forth the specific signatures
claimed to be invalid and the specific petition for which the complaint questions the validity and
genuineness of the signature or the registration of the circulator.”6 The plain import of that
language is that the Board should limit its investigation to the specific signatures that are

challenged in a sworn complaint. It should do so here. This is especially true because, by statute,
“[t]he invalidity of 1 or more signatures on a petition does not affect the validity of the remainder
of the signatures on the petition.”7
Furthermore, Ms. Bray is limited to the specific challenges raised in her sworn complaint
and cannot amend her complaint to include new challenges. By statute, a person who challenges
the sufficiency of a nominating petition must file a complaint “within 7 days after the deadline for
5
Deleeuw v State Board of Canvassers, 263 Mich App 496, 496; 688 NW2d 847 (2004)
6
MCL 168.552(8).
7
MCL 168.544c(6).
4
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
filing the nominating petitions.”8 That limitation isn’t optional.9 The Board can extend that
deadline, but only if “the challenger did not receive a copy of each petition sheet that the challenger
requested from the secretary of state”—which is not alleged and didn’t happen here.10 And there’s
no statutory basis for Ms. Bray to amend her sworn complaint.11
As a result, even if the Board chooses to expend time and resources investigating her
challenges, that investigation should be limited to the specific signatures and specific petition
sheets challenged in Ms. Bray’s complaint as it was filed on the statutory deadline, April 26, 2022.
C. The signatures on Mr. Johnson’s petitions that Ms. Bray challenges as “incomplete”
because they allegedly aren’t identical to the digitized signatures in the QVF must be
presumed valid and considered valid if they have “any redeeming qualities.”
In her sworn complaint, Ms. Bray alleges that many signatures from voters supporting Mr.
Johnson’s right to appear on the primary ballot are invalid and should be disregarded because they
are “incomplete,” meaning that, in her view, “the petition signature given does not match the
signature on file.”12 Further, Ms. Bray “urge[s]” the Board to validate the allegedly ungenuine

8
MCL 168.552(8).
9
Callahan v Board of State Canvassers, 467 Mich 864; 650 NW2d 656 (2002) (Mem) (“Because
the second complaint was filed after the deadline for its consideration, it was error for the Board
of Canvassers to consider the complaint challenging the validity of the nominating signatures.”)
10
MCL 168.552(8).
11
See Stumbo v Roe, 332 Mich App 479; 957 NW2d 830 (2020) (participants in the electoral
process “must strictly comply with the preelection form and content requirements identified in the
Michigan Election Law in the absence of any statutory language expressly indicating that
substantial compliance with the statute’s requirements suffices.”); see also Moore v Genesee
County, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___; No. 355291; 2021 WL 2600829 at *4 (Mich App
June 24, 2021) (“There is simply no statutory provision for amending an AOI after the deadline
has passed. Rather, if a candidacy applicant has failed to comply with the statutory requirements,
defendants were immediately under a clear legal duty not to certify the applicant….The trial court
abused its discretion by ignoring the plain statutory requirements and ordering defendants to accept
an amended or corrected AOI after the expiration of the filing deadline.”)
12
Carol Bray Complaint at 20-23.
5
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
signatures “using the qualified voter file and digital signatures included in that file or available
from local election clerks.”13
To begin with, Ms. Bray’s allegations are nothing but baseless speculation. She provided
no evidence that could establish that any signature on Mr. Johnson’s petition doesn’t match that
voter’s signature in the QVF or local records. Most importantly, she submitted no evidence of any
signature records that she relied on as the basis for her allegation. And, without the recorded
signature, how can she possibly allege in good faith that the petition signatures don’t match? The
answer: she can’t.14 It follows that her allegations of non-matching signatures are based on nothing
but speculation and conjecture. But even she could prove that there are some differences between
the signatures on Mr. Johnson’s petitions and the signatures in the voting records, that doesn’t
mean the petition signatures are invalid.
MCL 168.552 governs the process for canvassing and challenging Mr. Johnson’s
nominating petitions. Subsection (8) provides that the Board “may cause a doubtful signature to
be checked against the qualified voter file or the registration records by the clerk of a political

subdivision in which the petitions were circulated.” It also states that the Board “shall verify…the
genuineness of a signature as required by subsection (13).” In turn, Subsection (13) provides that
“Signature comparisons shall be made with the digitized signatures in the qualified voter file.”
Thus, the Board “shall conduct the signature comparison using digitized signatures contained in
the qualified voter file for their respective investigations” or, “[i]f the qualified voter file does not
contain a digitized signature of an elector, the city or the township clerk shall compare the petition
signature to the signature contained on the master card.” MCL 168.552(13). In short, evaluating
13
Carol Bray Complaint at 4.
14
If the Secretary’s staff made signatures available to the complainant while denying access to
those signatures to Mr. Perry this too would constitute a violation of due process.
6
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
Ms. Bray’s challenges to the allegedly incomplete or non-matching signatures will require
implementing a two-step process including city or township clerks. Each challenged signature
must be afforded a line-by-line comparison of the signature on Mr. Johnson’s nominating petition
with the digitized signature in the QVF, and if not available, an additional comparison with the
hard-copy signature in the local election official’s records.
This is a necessarily messy process. It is “common knowledge” that “signatures change
with age or illness” and that “[p]enmanship when first registering is often different from a signature
in later life.”15 Furthermore, the Court of Appeals has recognized that the physical realities of
signing petitions circulated on streets and sidewalks can also affect the appearance of a person’s
signature because “[h]andwriting hastily affixed to a petition at a shopping center or while standing
on a street corner differs materially from handwriting leisurely affixed sitting at a desk.” 16 Given
the reality that there are plenty of legitimate reasons why signatures may look different, “[i]t has
long been recognized that handwriting similarity is so much a matter of opinion and so indefinite
that generally it may not be acted upon in canvassing petitions.”17

To combat this inherent uncertainty, the Michigan Court of Appeals has held that
“signatures appearing on petitions filed with the Secretary of State” are “presumed valid, and the
burden is on the protestant to establish their invalidity by clear, convincing and competent
evidence.”18 Under this standard, signatures are presumed valid unless they are obviously
15
Jaffee v Allen, 87 Mich App 281, 285; 274 NW2d 38 (1978)
16
Jaffee v Allen, 87 Mich App 281, 285; 274 NW2d 38 (1978).
17
Id.; Thompson v Vaughan, 192 Mich 512, 527; 159 NW 65 (1916) (same); People ex rel Wright
v Kelly, 294 Mich 503, 518; 293 NW 865 (1940) (same).
18
Jaffee v Allen, 87 Mich App 281, 285; 274 NW2d 38 (1978); Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Mich
v Com’r of Ins, 204 Mich App 361, 365-368; 514 NW2d 547 (1994) (citations omitted) (adopting
Jaffe’s holding that “[S]ignatures appearing on petitions filed with the Secretary of State for
initiative and referendum are presumed valid, and the burden is on the protestant to establish their
7
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
fraudulent (and even if it’s “plausibl[e]” that the signatures aren’t a match).19 The presumption
derives from the principle “that statutes controlling the manner in which elections are conducted
be construed as far as possible in a way which prevents the disenfranchisement of voters through
the fraud or mistake of others.”20
Consistent with these well-established principles of Michigan law, Secretary of State
Jocelyn Benson recognizes that “it is not necessary for the voter’s signature to perfectly match the
signature on file.”21 She has also recognized that “there are numerous legitimate reasons that may
explain an apparent mismatch,” including that: (1) “Petition signatures are often written on a
clipboard, which may cause the signature to appear more slanted or less precise than the signature
on file”; (2) “Petition signatures (or voter registration or pin-pad signatures collected during the
driver’s license/state ID application process) could have been written in haste”; and (3) “A medical
invalidity by clear, convincing and competent evidence.”); Grosse Pointe Farms Fire Fighters
Assoc v Grosse Point Farms City Clerk, 11 Mich App 112, 118; 157 NW2d 695 (1968)

(“[P]etitions in proper form are presumed to be valid and to have been completed in accordance
with the circulator’s affidavit” unless there is a showing of “sufficient magnitude tending to rebut
this presumption.”); 22 Mich. Civ. Jur. Statutes § 302 (“Signatures appearing on petitions filed
with Secretary of State…are presumed valid, and the burden is on the challenger to establish their
invalidity by clear, convincing and competent evidence.”); 42 Am. Jur. 2d Initiative and
Referendum § 34 (“Signatures on [a] petition may be presumed to be valid, and in such a case, the
challenger may have the burden of overcoming that presumption.”).
19
Thompson v Vaughan, 192 Mich 512, 527; 159 NW 65 (1916) (rejecting challenge to invalidate
signatures even though “[a]n examination of the petition lends some plausibility” to the claim “that
the names were written thereon fraudulently” because of the inherent subjectivity and
indefiniteness of signature comparison).
20
Kennedy v Board of State Canvassers, 127 Mich App 493, 496; 339 NW2d 477 (1983); Santia
v Board of State Canvassers, 152 Mich App 1, 6; 391 NW2d 504 (1986) (same); Attorney General
v Board of State Canvassers, 318 Mich App 242, 250; 896 NW2d 485 (2016) (citations omitted)
(“When interpreting law governing elections, we must construe the statutes as far as possible in a
way which prevents the disenfranchisement of voters through the fraud or mistake of others.”)
21
Appendix 1, Secretary of State Guidance re: Circulating and Canvassing Countywide Petition
Forms Nominating and Qualifying Petitions (April 2020), pg. 12-13.
8
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
condition or advancing age may cause the signature to be different.”22 As a result, Secretary of
State Benson has published guidance to the members of this Board clarifying that they “must
perform their signature verification duties with the presumption that a voter’s petition signature is
his or her genuine signature.”23 And, in comparing signatures, the Board “should treat the signature
as valid” if “there are any redeeming qualities in the petition signature as compared to the signature
on file,” such as “similar distinctive flourishes” or “more matching features than nonmatching
features.”24 Secretary of State Benson further counsels this Board that “[s]light dissimilarities
should be resolved in favor of the voter whenever possible.”25
The case law cited above and the guidance provided by Secretary of State Benson provide
the standard that the Board and its staff must apply when evaluating whether a signature on Mr.
Johnson’s petition is genuine. But even if this permissive standard weren’t binding, it would still
make sense to apply because engaging in the sort of second-guessing of signatures advocated by
Ms. Bray may, according to experts in quoted in news stories and certain advocacy organization
studies, disproportionately result in rejection of authentic signatures from “elderly voters, young

voters, and voters of color,”26 as well as “people with disabilities, trans and gender-nonconforming
people, women, people for whom English is a second language, and military personnel.”27
22
23
Id.
24
Id.
25
Id.
26
David A. Graham, Signed, Sealed, Delivered—Then Discarded, The Atlantic (2020), available
at: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/signature-matching-is-the-phrenology-of-
elections/616790/.
27
Lila Carpenter, Signature Match Laws Disproportionately Impact Voters Already on the
Margins, ACLU Voting Rights Project (November 2, 2018), available at
https://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/signature-match-laws-disproportionately-impact-voters-
already-margins.
9
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
Either way, the Board must begin the “presumption” that every single one of the signatures
is valid and must treat as valid any signature that has “any redeeming qualities.”28 If this standard
is applied, many signatures challenged by Ms. Bray as incomplete will be valid.
D. Printed “signatures” are valid, especially if they match the voter’s digitized signature
in the QVF.
Ms. Bray also challenges “47 petition entries on the Johnson Petitions” that “appear to not
include a signature.”29 According to Ms. Bray, an entry on the petition sheet is invalid if “no
signature is included, meaning…that the signer printed his or her name and the signature on file is
cursive.”30 A review of the specifically challenged signatures confirms that Ms. Bray is
challenging these 47 petition entries because the signature somewhat resembles the voter’s printed
name on the same line. These challenges lack merit for three reasons.
First, Ms. Bray provides no evidence that, for any of the signatures challenged because
they resemble the printed name, the voter’s signature on file is in cursive. So there’s no evidence
to verify her claims.
Second, as noted above, Michigan law requires that the printed signatures are “presumed

valid, and the burden is on the protestant to establish their invalidity by clear, convincing and
competent evidence.”31 Similarly, Secretary of State Benson has established that the Board “must
perform their signature verification duties with the presumption that a voter’s petition signature is
his or her genuine signature,” and signatures must be treated “as valid” if they have “any redeeming
qualities,” including “similar distinctive flourishes” or “more matching features than nonmatching
28
29
30
31
Jaffee v Allen, 87 Mich App 281, 285; 274 NW2d 38 (1978).
10
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
features.”32 Given this permissive standard, the Broad should reject Ms. Bray’s attempt to
transform the fuzzy distinction between a printed and cursive signature into a bright-line rule that
could invalidate authentic voter signatures that happen to be informal. This is especially true
because, as noted above, the type of signature comparison that Ms. Bray advocates for
disproportionately disenfranchises minorities and other marginalized individuals.33
Third, even if the voter’s signature on file is in cursive, that’s not a sufficient reason to
invalidate the signature under longstanding Michigan law. The Michigan Supreme Court has held
that “[t]he word signature is comprehensive enough to include the printed name.”34 Thus,
signatures on a petition “appearing in printed handwriting of the signer should be accepted.”35 The
Board must follow the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
For these reasons, Ms. Bray’s challenges to the 47 “no signature” signatures lack merit and
should be rejected. Those signatures are valid.
E. Ms. Bray fails to establish that any of the signatures on Mr. Johnson’s petitions were
forged or fraudulent.
The largest category of Ms. Bray’s challenges is also the broadest, albeit without any

specific allegations. Without challenging any specific signature or providing any evidence of
specific instances of fraud or forgeries, Ms. Bray asks the Board to invalidate 343 petition sheets
based solely on the fact that they were signed by six circulators who also submitted petitions in
32
Forms Nominating and Qualifying Petitions (April 2020), pg. 12;
33
David A. Graham, Signed, Sealed, Delivered—Then Discarded, The Atlantic (2020), available
at: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/signature-matching-is-the-phrenology-of-
elections/616790/; Lila Carpenter, Signature Match Laws Disproportionately Impact Voters
Already on the Margins, ACLU Voting Rights Project (November 2, 2018), available at
https://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/signature-match-laws-disproportionately-impact-voters-
already-margins.
34
People ex rel Wright v Kelly, 294 Mich 503, 513-514; 293 NW 865 (1940)
35
Id.
11
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
support of a different candidate that were challenged (but not yet adjudicated).36 Without
explanation or evidence, Ms. Bray invokes “the questionable nature of the activities of the
circulators,” and claims that the signatures on petitions signed by these six circulators are apparent
forgeries because the sheets feature allegedly “similar handwriting on multiple entries and other
visual indicators of potential forgeries.”37 Even so, the challenges based on Ms. Bray’s wild yet
baseless accusations of forgery may well lack merit for many reasons.38
To begin with, Ms. Bray’s claims that the petition sheets filed by the six circulators are
filled with forgeries (or even contain a single forgery) isn’t based on any concrete allegation. She
provides no evidence. She fails to point to a single fraudulent signature filed by the six circulators.
Instead, she simply speculates that, because someone else challenged signatures for a different
candidate collected by the six circulators (which has not yet been adjudicated) every single
signature collected by some of those circulators for Mr. Johnson is somehow an invalid forgery.39
Speculation isn’t enough to invalidate signatures and deprive voters of their right to support a
candidate for access to the ballot. Given the lack of evidence to support Ms. Bray’s unsupported

allegations of forgery, the Board should decline to consider them.40
36
Carol Bray Complaint at pg. 45.
37
Carol Bray Complaint at pg. 45.
38
This statement in no way fails to acknowledge that certain individuals involved in gathering
petition signatures in Michigan and elsewhere have engaged in bad acts. The ‘evidence’ presented
in this complaint is simply that because others have accused certain petition gatherers of fraud in
petitions submitted by another candidate, and that should be enough to have this board disqualify
all of the petitions gathered for Mr. Perry by a subset of those same people.
39
If Mr. Perry was the victim of fraud by certain circulators, his campaign would of course fully
cooperate with law enforcement in its investigation of those circulators.
40
See Jaffee v Allen, 87 Mich App 281, 285; 274 NW2d 38 (1978) (“[S]ignatures appearing on
petitions filed with the Secretary of State” are “presumed valid, and the burden is on the protestant
to establish their invalidity by clear, convincing and competent evidence.”).
12
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
In any event, Ms. Bray’s unexplained, nonspecific allegations of fraud and forgery cannot
invalidate signatures. A claim of fraud must be specific; it can’t be based on imprecise or general
allegations.41 Further, when a candidate files enough petition signatures to have a right to appear
on the ballot—like Mr. Johnson has—that right should not be denied based on “indefinite or
vague” evidence.42
The statute governing nominating petitions embodies this principle. MCL 168.544c
outlaws election law forgery—it provides that an individual cannot “[s]ign a petition with a name
other than his or her own” or “sign a petition with multiple names.”43 It also prohibits the failure
to report the filing of a forged petition by someone who knew of the forgery. 44 If a person
“knowingly and intentionally” forged a signature on a petition or failed to report a known forgery,
the Board has authority to “[d]isqualify obviously fraudulent signatures on a petition form on
which the [forgery] occurred, without checking the signatures against local registration records.”45
By its plain language, MCL 168.544c only allows this Board to disqualify “obviously
fraudulent” signatures without checking them against local registration records;46 any other

41
See Van Marter v Amer Fidelity Fire Ins Co, 114 Mich App 171; 318 NW2d 679 (1982) (“a
claim of fraud must be pleaded with specificity” and “[g]eneral allegations are not sufficient to
state a claim of fraud.”); State ex rel Gurganus v CVS Caremark Corp, 496 Mich 45, 64; 852
NW2d 103 (2014) (a claim for fraud must be based on “precise allegations of fraud”).
42
Wojcinski v State Bd of Canvassers, 347 Mich 573, 577-578; 81 NW2d 390 (1957) (“The right
to seek public office is, however, basic to the proper operation of our democratic form of
government. Where there is affirmative proof, as here, of the filing of sufficient petitions to qualify
for the ballot, denial of such a right should not rest under this statute upon rebuttal testimony of an
indefinite or vague character.”); 8A Mich. Civ. Jur. Elections § 52 (“Where there is affirmative
proof of filing of sufficient nomination petitions for office of circuit judge to qualify for the ballot,
denial of such a right should not rest on rebuttal testimony of an indefinite or vague character.”).
43
MCL 168.544c(8)-(10).
44
MCL 168.544c(12)
45
MCL 168.544c(11), (13).
46
People v Seewald, 499 Mich 111, 115 n 4; 879 NW2d 237 (2016) (“Pursuant to MCL
168.544c(10)(a), any ‘obviously fraudulent signatures on a petition form,’ which include the false
13
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
signatures are presumed valid and can only be stricken after a signature comparison using the
permissive “any redeeming qualities“ standard.47 So while this Board can invalidate “obviously
fraudulent” signatures,48 this high standard requires proof far beyond what Ms. Bray provides in
her complaint. Any signature that isn’t “obviously” ridiculous like “‘Charlie potatoes,’ ‘jip the
blood,’ ‘Lefty Louie,’ ‘Highy Kababler,’ and the like”49 requires a signature comparison.
And even if there were such an “obviously fraudulent” signature on one of Mr. Johnson’s
petition sheets—and Ms. Bray does not allege that there is50—this Board still wouldn’t have
authority to invalidate any of the other signatures on the sheet without a signature-by-signature
comparison for any redeeming qualities between the signature and the QVF and if the QVF is not
available, an additional comparison with the hard-copy signature in the local election official’s
records..
By statute, “[t]he invalidity of 1 or more signatures on a petition does not affect the validity
of the remainder of the signatures on the petition.”51 In like manner, the Court of Appeals has
recognized that the penalties for a fraudulent signature are “narrowly drawn” and “do not include

striking otherwise valid elector signatures.”52 That is, “[e]ven in the event of knowing and
intentional violations of [MCL 168.544c], the Legislature omitted from the list of punishments an
signature of one purporting to be a circulator, are disqualified and may not be counted toward the
number of signatures a candidate needs to appear on the ballot.”).
47
48
MCL 168.544c(8), (10), (13).
49
People ex rel Wright v Kelly, 294 Mich 503, 519; 293 NW 865 (1940)
50
Ms. Bray does not claim that there any obviously fraudulent signatures on the petitions collected
by the six challenged circulators. Rather, she merely claims the existence of “potential forgeries”
based on handwriting similarities and other visual indications.
51
MCL 168.544c(6).
52
Protecting Michigan Taxpayers v Board of State Canvassers, 324 Mich App 240, 246-249; 919
NW2d 677 (2018).
14
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
automatic disqualification of signatures” and “only ‘obviously fraudulent signatures’ may be
struck.”53 Thus, while “obviously fraudulent signatures” may be disqualified, the sanctions
available to this Board “do not encompass eliminating valid signatures on a petition circulated by
someone who has violated the law.”54
In sum, Ms. Bray fails to establish that any specific petition signatures collected by the six
challenged circulators are forgeries. But even if this Board finds an obviously fraudulent signature
on one of Mr. Johnson’s petitions, it is not authorized by law to automatically invalidate the other
signatures on that petitions. Instead, it has to evaluate the other signatures on a line-by-line basis
for “any redeeming qualities,” subject to the presumption of validity. 55 Either way, Ms. Bray’s
blanket challenges to the based on alleged forgeries by the six circulators lack merit.
F. Ms. Bray fails to establish that Mr. Johnson’s petitions include any signatures that
are invalid because they were made by someone who was dead at the time.
Ms. Bray challenges that Mr. Johnson’s petitions include 66 signatures from individuals
who were deceased “as of April 1, 2022.” In her view, this provides “a strong indication of
fraudulent activity in violation of the Michigan Election Law.”56 But her allegations are either

unsupported or flat-out wrong.57
To begin with, many of the challenged sheet/line designations that Ms. Bray claims include
a signature from made by a dead person are blank and contain no signature at all.
53
NW2d 677 (2018)
54
Id.
55
56
Carol Bray Sworn Complaint, p. 2.
57
Appendix 2, Signatures Allegedly Made By Deceased Voters.
15
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
Sheet 98, Line 7
Sheet 631, Line 10
Sheet 898, Line 9
Sheet 1330, Line 8
Sheet 2296, Line 10
Sheet 3003, Line 7
Sheet 3031, Line 8

Sheet 3874, Line 3
Sheet 4037, Line 8
Sheet 4147, Line 6
This is even true of several signatures for which Ms. Bray claims the signer is listed as
dead in the Qualified Voter File as of April 1, 2022.
16
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
Sheet 330, Line 8
Sheet 1325, Line 9
Sheet 2296, Line 9
Sheet 2985, Line 2
Sheet 3171, Line 6
Sheet 4133, Line 10
This is also true of many signatures by allegedly deceased people for which Ms. Bray links

to the signer’s purported obituary.
Sheet 34, Line 5
Sheet 868, Line 2
Sheet 868, Line 7
Sheet 1682, Line 9
17
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
Sheet 2256, Line 9
Sheet 2406, Line 8
Sheet 2473, Line 10
Sheet 2611, Line 3
Sheet 2766, Line 10
Sheet 3227, Line 9
Sheet 3512, Line 4

Sheet 4363, Line 8
Sheet 4392, Line 9
Sheet 4469, Line 2
18
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
Further, every single one of the remaining challenged sheet/line designations for which
Ms. Bray links to the signers purported obituary includes a name that is obviously different from
the name of the person who’s memorialized in the linked obituary.
Sheet 632, Line 2 (Obituary for James White)
Sheet 632, Line 4 (Obituary for Linda Minnie Robinson)
Sheet 643, Line 1 (Obituary for Sharon Willis)
Sheet 1455, Line 3 (Obituary for Robert Dewey)
Sheet 1639, Line 8 (Obituary for Dennis Green)

Sheet 2328, Line 2 (Obituary for Stella Ader)
Sheet 2388, Line 1 (Obituary for Lois Shaw)
Sheet 2477, Line 4 (Obituary for John C. Stebbins)
Sheet 2570, Line 9 (Obituary for Frances Dahlke)
Sheet 3632, Line 1 (Obituary for Richard Aron)
19
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
Sheet 4146, Line 1 (Obituary for Dorothy Bogan)
Sheet 4230, Line 9 (Obituary for Roger Bryan)
Sheet 4385, Line 1 (Obituary for Sharon Davis)
Because of their obvious deficiencies, Ms. Bray’s challenges to each of those signatures
lacks merit and should be ignored. Though the remaining challenges to signatures that were
allegedly from dead people aren’t so obviously meritless, Ms. Bray still fails to carry her “burden”
of establishing that those signatures are invalid by “clear, convincing and competent evidence.”58
In fact, there is no evidence to verify her claims. While Ms. Bray claims to have based her
allegations of dead people signing petitions by running a database search using “LexisNexis
SmartLinx Comprehensive Person Report,” she fails to provide the results of her searches to either

the Board or to Mr. Johnson. Due process and fundamental fairness require that those purported
results not be considered.
Given the presumption of validity attached to the signatures on Mr. Johnson’s petitions,
it’s up to Ms. Bray to establish that each of the challenged signatures was from someone who was
dead when the signature was allegedly made. Since she hasn’t done so, her challenges lack merit
and should be disregarded.
58
See Jaffee v Allen, 87 Mich App 281, 285; 274 NW2d 38 (1978)
20
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
G. Ms. Bray claims several of Mr. Johnson’s petition sheets are entirely invalid because
they are damaged or mutilated. Even a cursory review of those petition reveals that
she’s wrong.
Ms. Bray claims that all the signatures on 12 of Mr. Johnson’s petition sheets should be
treated as invalid because those sheets are “damaged, mutilated, or [have] mandatory elements of
the petition sheet obscured or covered.”59 There are two problems with these challenges.
First, Ms. Bray misstates the operative standard. According to Secretary of State Benson,
the fatal defects that can invalidate an entire petition sheet include: (1) “Damaged, mutilated or
torn petition sheets where any of the mandatory elements (heading, warning statements, circulator
certificate, signer entries) are illegible or omitted”; and (2) “Sheets where any of the mandatory
elements (heading, warning statements, circulator certificate, signer entries) are obscured or
covered by white-out, permanent maker, stickers, or other opaque material.”60 Ms. Bray’s
statement of the standard ignores the fact that “damaged, mutilated, or torn” petitions are only
invalid where those defects render mandatory elements “illegible or omitted.” 61 Similarly, Ms.
Bray’s statement of the standard ignores the fact that “obscure[ing] or cover[ing]” a mandatory

element only invalidates the entire sheet where there covering material is “white-out, permanent
maker, stickers, or other opaque material.”62
Second, the petitions that Ms. Bray challenges as damaged or mutilated are obviously
acceptable under the standard. None of the challenged petitions are “damaged, mutilated, or torn”
in a way that mandatory elements of the sheet are rendered “illegible or omitted.”63 Nor do any of
59
60
Forms Nominating and Qualifying Petitions (April 2020), pg. 6.
61
Id.
62
Id.
63
Id.
21
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
the challenged sheets have anything—let alone a mandatory elements—that are “obscured or
covered by white-out, permanent maker, stickers, or other opaque material.”64 In fact, most look
pristine. At most, a few of the challenged sheets are a touch rumpled or wrinkled (but not in a way
that renders anything on the sheet illegible or omitted) or include a stray pen mark (but not one
that obscures or covers a mandatory element).
Consider these sheets that are purportedly so “damaged” or “mutilated” that Ms. Bray
believes they should be completely invalidated:65
64
65
All of the challenged sheets are attached as Appendix 3, Allegedly Damaged Sheets.
22
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
23
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
As this Board can see for itself, Ms. Bray’s challenges consist of no more than nitpicking
minor, irrelevant flaws to disenfranchise the thousands of voters who signed Mr. Johnson’s
petition. Ms. Bray’s challenges lack merit.

H. Although Ms. Bray claims that several non-registered voters signed Mr. Johnson’s
petition, most of them were registered to vote at the address listed on the petition.
Ms. Bray claims that eight of the signatures on Mr. Johnson’s petition were made by
individuals who are not registered voters. But six of those signatures appear to be made by
individuals who are are registered to vote at the address provided on the petition form.
Sheet 115, Line 5
Sheet 115, Line 8
Sheet 602, Line 1
24
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
Sheet 611, Line 2
Sheet 611, Line 5
Sheet 973, Line 9
For these reasons, Ms. Bray’s challenges to those signatures lack merit.
I. Incomplete dates that include the month and day but not the year substantially
comply with MCL 168.544c, and that’s all that’s required.
Ms. Bray also challenges over two hundred signatures on Mr. Johnson’s petitions based on
allegations that they have “date-related errors” including being “undated,” having “an incomplete
date,” or being dated “after the date that the circulator dated the circulator’s signature.”66
To be valid, a petition signature must include “the date of signing” as provided by MCL

168.544c(1), which includes a space for month, day, and year.67 Further, the information in
countywide petitions “must be substantially as provided in [MCL 168.544c].”68 As a result, a
substantial compliance standard applies here rather than strict compliance.
Many of the challenged signatures listed a legible and correct date, especially when the
entire petition sheet is considered.69 These signatures should be counted as valid.70
66
Carol Bray’s Complaint at 33.
67
MCL 168.544c(2).
68
MCL 168.544d.
68See Mastin v Oakland County Elections Com’n, 128 Mich App 789, 802; 341 NW2d 797 (1983)
(“[P]etitions must be construed as a whole” and read in “context.”)
70
Appendix 4, Challenged Signatures with Allegedly Invalid Dates.
25
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
Still others provided incomplete (e.g., day and month, but not year) or obviously incorrect
dates (e.g., the signer’s date of birth). Although Michigan courts haven’t addressed whether a day-

month date format complies with MCL 168.544c(2), other courts have concluded that day-month
partial dates substantially complies with similar statutes.71 Given the permissive standard applied
to evaluating signatures in a nominating petition and the plain language of MCL 168.544d, the
Board should follow the McKenna Court’s lead and find that these slightly incorrect but still
substantially complaint signatures are valid.
In any event, many of Ms. Bray’s date-based challenges lack merit and should be rejected.
71
See McKenna v. Soto, 250 Ariz. 469, 472-473; 481 P.3d 695, 698 (2021) (holding that even
though nominating petition statute requiring petition signer to list “date of signing” was intended
to require “a complete date, consisting of the day, month, and year,” petition with incomplete dates
consisting solely of day and month “substantially complied” with the statute because “a review of
the information contained in the petition sheet revealed the validity of the questioned signatures.”)
26
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
J. Some of Mr. Johnson’s allegedly duplicative signatures aren’t duplicative. Even if
some are, a duplicative signature is still valid if that person signed a petition for Mr.
Johnson before they signed a petition for another candidate.
Ms. Bray claims that many signatures in Mr. Johnson’s petitions are invalid because they
are duplicative of other signatures in his petitions, or of signatures in petitions for other candidates
for governor. Once again, her challenges are overstated.
It’s undisputed that a registered voter who signs the same candidate’s petition multiple
times can only be counted once. So while the voters who signed Mr. Johnson’s petitions multiple
times can only be counted once, the Board should do just that—count them once and decline Ms.
Bray’s invitation to disenfranchise those voters by striking all the signatures of anyone who
inadvertently signed Mr. Johnson’s petitions twice.
It’s also undisputed that a registered voter should only sign one petition for a candidate for
governor.72 But the mere fact that a voter signs petitions for multiple candidates doesn’t
automatically invalidate that voter’s signature. Rather, MCL 168.547a provides that “If a qualified
and registered voter signs nominating petitions for a greater number of candidates for public office

than the number of persons to be elected thereto, his signatures, if they bear the same date, shall
not be counted upon any petition, and if they bear different dates shall be counted in the order of
their priority of date for only so many candidates as there are persons to be elected.” In plain
English, that statute means that if a voter signed petitions for multiple candidates for governor,
only the first recorded signature is valid. But Ms. Bray doesn’t provide any evidence that the
allegedly duplicative signatures on Mr. Johnson’s petition were recorded after (or on the same day)
72
MCL 168.544c(7) (“An individual shall not sign more nominating petitions for the same office
than there are persons to be elected to the office. An individual who violates this subsection is
guilty of a misdemeanor.”)
27
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
as the same voters’ signatures on the other candidate’s petition. So she’s failed to carry her burden
of establishing that the allegedly duplicative signatures are invalid.
As a result, the Board should only invalidate signatures that are truly duplicative of other
signatures on Mr. Johnson’s petitions. Similarly, it should also only invalidate signatures from a
voter that signed petitions for multiple candidates if the voter’s signature on Mr. Johnson’s petition
was recorded on a later date than his or her signature on the other candidate’s petition.
K. Ms. Bray claims that many of Mr. Johnson’s signatures are invalid because they listed
an incomplete street address or omitted a street address entirely. She’s wrong.
Ms. Bray challenges signature entries that she alleges are invalid because they included
“[a]n omitted or incomplete street address or use a post office box number in place of a street
address.”73 She also challenges many signatures that allegedly listed “the names of two or more
jurisdictions in the space for the city and township where registered.”74
It’s true that a signature without a valid street address is invalid. But many of the challenged
signatures list street addresses that appear to be complete, compliant, and valid.75

Ms. Bray also challenges several of Mr. Johnson’s signatures because they allegedly
include “a city or township” that is “located within the county listed in the heading of the
73
74
75
Appendix 5, Challenged Signatures with Allegedly Invalid Addresses (Code NA).
28
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
petition.”76 For example, she challenges every single signature on Sheet 1978, which has St. Clair
County listed in the sheet heading:77
Every signature on Sheet 1978 lists “Yale” as the city or township where the voter is

registered. Yale is a city located in St. Clair County, Michigan. As a result, each of the signatures
on Sheet 1978 lists a valid address and should thus be counted. Ms. Bray’s challenge to the
signatures on the sheet lacks merit.
76
77
Carol Bray Complaint at 27-28 (challenges to Sheet 1978, lines 1-10).
29
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
Similarly, Ms. Bray challenges every single signature on Sheet 1979, which has Kent
County listed in the sheet heading:78
Every signature on Sheet 1979 lists either “Grand Rapids” or “Rockford” as the city or

township where the voter is registered. Grand Rapids and Rockford are both cities in Kent County,
Michigan. As a result, each of the signatures on Sheet 1979 lists a valid address and should thus
be counted. Ms. Bray’s challenge to the signatures on the sheet lacks merit.
Ms. Bray also challenges signatures for allegedly listing multiple townships or cities. But
many signatures that Ms. Bray claims are invalid because the list two jurisdiction are valid because
they only list one city or township (even if the voter listed the county together with a single city or
township, that’s not invalid for listing multiple townships or cities).79 A voter who gave went above
and beyond to give accurate information should not be disenfranchised.
78
Carol Bray Complaint at 28 (challenges to Sheet 1979, lines 1-10).
79
Appendix 6, Challenged Signatures with Allegedly Invalid Addresses (Code DUAL).
30
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
Those signatures are valid. So Ms. Bray’s challenges to them lack merit.
L. Many of the signatures with alleged “other errors” are valid.
Ms. Bray also challenges signatures for purported “other errors.”80 However, many of the
challenges lack merit.
For example, Ms. Bray challenges two signatures for having incomplete printed names:
Sheet 2204, Line 3
Sheet 2427, Line 3
Similarly, Ms. Bray challenges a petition sheet because based on allegations that the
circulator’s “name” was “incomplete.”81
80
81
Carol Bray Complaint at 44 (challenge to Sheet 1498).
31
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
Those challenges lack merit. The Legislature has unambiguously mandated that “[t]he
failure of the circulator or an elector who signs the petition to print his or her name…does not
affect the validity of the signature of the circulator or the elector who signs the petition.”82
Similarly, Secretary of State Benson has instructed this Board that a signature variation where the
“signer omits his or her printed name” is “acceptable and will not result in the rejection of an
individual signature.83 So the challenged signatures listed above are valid.
Ms. Bray also challenges signatures in this category for having a “date error.” 84 But a
review of the challenged signature line reveals that the voter dated his signature as 3/28/22:
Sheet 141, Line 3
Because the voter gave correct information, he should not be disenfranchised. So that
signature should be counted as valid.
Finally, Ms. Bray challenges several entire sheets based on allegations that the circulator’s
signature was “incomplete.”85 This Board should review circulator signatures with the same

presumption of validity attached to each of the signatures and by employing the the permissive
“any redeeming qualities” standard that the Board and its staff must employ in evaluating each
voter’s signature.86 And, under the correct standard, many of the challenged signatures will be
deemed valid:
82
MCL 168.544c(2).
83
84
Carol Bray Complaint at 40 (challenge to Sheet 141, line 3).
85
Carol Bray Complaint at 41-44 (challenges to sheets 913, 917, 944, 945, 963, 966, 1790, 1818).
86
Forms Nominating and Qualifying Petitions (April 2020), pg. 12-13; Jaffee v Allen, 87 Mich App
281, 285; 274 NW2d 38 (1978).
32
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
33
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
34
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
35
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
36
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
In sum, many of the “other errors” challenges raised by Ms. Bray lack merit and should be
dismissed.
37
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
M. Some of the allegedly crossed-out signatures weren’t crossed out.
Ms. Bray challenges signatures that “have been crossed out on the Johnson Petitions and
may not be counted.”87 But, while Mr. Johnson doesn’t dispute that crossed out signatures should
not be counted, at least some of the signatures that Ms. Bray challenges were not actually crossed
out:
Sheet 778, Line 3
Sheet 3281, Line 10
Those signatures are valid, and Ms. Bray’s challenges to them are meritless.
N. Due process requires that Mr. Johnson: (1) receive copies of any evidence used to
evaluate the genuineness of the challenged signatures on his petitions, including the
signature records from the QVF and local records consulted by the Board; and (2) be
present, through counsel, during the Board’s signature-by-signature canvassing of
the petition signatures.
In her sworn complaint asking for an investigation of Mr. Johnson’s nominating petitions

under MCL 168.552(8), Ms. Bray contends that many of the signatures from voters supporting
Mr. Johnson’s right to appear on the primary ballot are invalid because they aren’t genuine.
MCL 168.552 governs the process for canvassing and challenging Mr. Johnson’s
nominating petitions. Subsection (8) provides that the Board “may cause a doubtful signature to
be checked against the qualified voter file or the registration records by the clerk of a political
subdivision in which the petitions were circulated.”88 It also states that the Board “shall verify…the
87
88
MCL 168.552(8).
38
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
genuineness of a signature as required by subsection (13).”89 In turn, Subsection (13) provides that
“Signature comparisons shall be made with the digitized signatures in the qualified voter file.”90
Thus, the Board “shall conduct the signature comparison using digitized signatures contained in
the qualified voter file for their respective investigations” or, “[i]f the qualified voter file does not
contain a digitized signature of an elector, the city or the township clerk shall compare the petition
signature to the signature contained on the master card.”91
Based on the plain language of MCL 168.552(13), longstanding Michigan case law, and
the guidance provided by Secretary of State Benson, evaluating the genuineness of the signatures
challenged by Ms. Bray will necessarily require the Board to engage in a line-by-line, signature-
by-signature comparison between the specifically challenged petition signatures and the digitized
signatures in the qualified voter file or other registration records.
Mr. Johnson has a fundamental right to seek public office.92 The thousands of voters who
signed petitions in support of his nomination as a candidate for the office of Governor of Michigan
have a First Amendment right to have their voices heard and signatures counted.93 Further, “[t]here

is a fundamental difference between actions taken to get a candidate's name on the ballot and
actions taken to prevent it from appearing”—while “[a]ssociating for the purpose of getting a
89
MCL 168.552(8).
90
MCL 168.552(13).
91
MCL 168.552(13).
92
Wojcinski v State Bd of Canvassers, 347 Mich 573, 577-578; 81 NW2d 390 (1957) (“The right
to seek public office is, however, basic to the proper operation of our democratic form of
government.”)
93
See Deleeuw v State Board of Canvassers, 263 Mich App 496, 504; 688 NW2d 847 (2004),
quoting Socialist Workers Party v. Secretary of State, 412 Mich. 571, 588, 317 N.W.2d 1 (1982)
The “expression of political preference ... [is] the bedrock of self-governance.” (Norman v Reed,
502 US 279, 288; 112 S Ct 698; 116 L Ed 2d 711 (1992) (recognizing the “the constitutional
interest of like-minded voters to gather in pursuit of common political ends, thus enlarging the
opportunities of all voters to express their own political preferences.”).
39
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
candidate's name or a legislative proposal on the ballot is protected activity under the First
Amendment; conspiring for the purpose of having it removed is not.”94
“Due process is a flexible concept, however, and determining what process is due in a
particular case depends on the nature of the proceeding, the risks and costs involved, and the
private and governmental interests that might be affected.”95 But in civil matters, due process
“requires notice of the nature of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard in a
meaningful…manner.”96 And, because of the constitutional interests and rights involved, “due
process requires that a party in an action challenging a nominating petition have an opportunity to
be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”97 Although “[t]he opportunity to be
heard does not mean a full trial-like proceeding,” it does “require a hearing to allow a party the
chance to know and respond to the evidence.”98
Here, despite the presumption of validity attached to each of the signatures and the
permissive “any redeeming qualities” standard that the Board and its staff must employ in
evaluating each signature,99 signature comparison is almost by definition a highly subjective and

indefinite process.100 Without the ability to further engage in the Board’s process, aside from
simply pointing to the standard, Mr. Johnson cannot meaningfully respond to or contest Ms. Bray’s
94
Deleeuw v State Board of Canvassers, 263 Mich App 496, 504; 688 NW2d 847 (2004)
95
By Lo Oil Co v Dept of Treasury, 267 Mich App 19, 29; 703 NW2d 822 (2005)
96
By Lo Oil Co v Dept of Treasury, 267 Mich App 19, 29; 703 NW2d 822 (2005) (citation
omitted); Spranger v City of Warren, 308 Mich App 477, 483; 865 NW2d 52 (2014) (“At a
minimum, due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful time and
manner.”).
97
16D C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 2146.
98
Cummings v Wayne Co, 210 Mich App 249, 253; 533 NW2d 13 (1995).
99
100
Jaffee v Allen, 87 Mich App 281, 285; 274 NW2d 38 (1978); Thompson v Vaughan, 192 Mich
512, 527; 159 NW 65 (1916).
40
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
allegations that his signatures are ungenuine or evaluate whether the challenged petition signatures
have “any redeeming qualities” that establish them as genuine without being able to physically
compare the challenged petition signatures to the signatures in the QVF or local registration
records. In other words, failure to provide Mr. Johnson with the signature records necessary to
evaluate the genuineness of the challenged petition signature would deprive him of “the chance to
know and respond to the evidence.”101 Due process requires that Mr. Johnson be given access to
the same digitized signature records—or whatever other evidence—the Board relies on to evaluate
the genuineness of the challenged petition signatures. Indeed, digitized signature records have been
produced to the candidate in similar disputes over the genuineness of petition signatures.102
Due process also requires that Mr. Johnson, through counsel, be present to observe during
the Board’s canvass and signature-by-signature comparison. Mr. Johnson cannot meaningfully
evaluate whether the Board’s canvass of his petition signatures applied the correct signature-
comparison standard or property evaluated Ms. Bray’s challenges. Furthermore, having to wait
until a few days before the May 26 hearing—which is only five days before the Board’s deadline

to complete the canvass—would deprive Mr. Johnson of the opportunity to meaningfully contest
101
Cummings v Wayne Co, 210 Mich App 249, 253; 533 NW2d 13 (1995).
102
See Wilcoxon v City of Detroit Election Com’n, 301 Mich App 619, 638-640; 838 NW2d 183
(2013) (“According to an affidavit submitted by Gina Avery, the department of elections
disqualified the signatures of three petitioners under the category ‘Can't determine,’ which
defendants' attorney explained at the hearing was the result of the address listed on the petition not
matching the voter card with the same name. The city proclaimed that if there were several people
with the same name, it was “impossible” to verify the signature. Yet, plaintiff demonstrated that
this impossibility simply did not exist. Her attorney presented the signature from the
qualified voter file whose signature “best” matched the disputed signature on the petition. Once
the circuit court found the signatures matched, the circuit court validated the signatures.”).
41
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
the Board’s proposed decision on the more than 6,000 challenged signatures or “to be heard in a
meaningful…manner.”103
There is nothing in the Michigan Election Law that prevents the presence of counsel at the
Board’s canvass. While MCL 168.552 doesn’t expressly allow candidates to be present through
counsel during the petition canvass, it also doesn’t expressly prohibit the presence of candidates
through counsel. And allowing Mr. Johnson to be present through counsel would be consistent
with his right to due process and the procedures for election-day or post-election canvasses.104 It
would also further the “compelling state interest” of “[t]ransparency in the political process.”105
In sum, due process requires that the Board provide Mr. Johnson with access to all of the
records necessary for him to meaningfully dispute the allegations in Carol Bray’s sworn complaint
and otherwise defend the genuineness of the signatures contained in his petitions. Due process also
requires that Mr. Johnson be able to be present, through counsel, during the Board’s signature-by-
signature canvass.

103
By Lo Oil Co v Dept of Treasury, 267 Mich App 19, 29; 703 NW2d 822 (2005) (citation
omitted); Spranger v City of Warren, 308 Mich App 477, 483; 865 NW2d 52 (2014) (“At a
minimum, due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful time and
manner.”).
104
MCL 168.801 (precinct canvass on election day “shall be public and the doors to the polling
places and at least 1 door in the building housing the polling places and giving ready access to
them shall not be locked during such canvass”); MCL 168.874(2)-(3) (Local canvassing boards
“shall conduct the recount so that the complete procedure may be observed and noted by the
candidates or persons interested in the ballot question, their counsel, and not to exceed 1 watcher
and 1 tallier at each table to check the work of the recount clerks”; “The candidates or persons
interested in the ballot question, their counsel, watchers, and talliers shall be allowed to observe
each ballot as it is called and to take notes as they desire for their own records.”).
105
League of Women Voters of Michigan v Secretary of State, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___;
2021 WL 5048187 at *14 (Docket Nos. 357984; 357986, October 29, 2021); Libertarian Party of
Ohio v Husted, 751 F3d 403, 413 (CA 6, 2014) (“[T]ransparency…is essential to the fair
contestation for political office.”).
42
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, this Board should dismiss Ms. Bray’s complaint. However,
if it decides to fully investigate each of her specific challenges, it should do so under the permissive
standards embodied in Michigan law and the Secretary of State’s guidance. Further, in the process
of that investigation, due process requires that Mr. Johnson be given a meaningful opportunity to
oppose Ms. Bray’s challenges, including both access to the signature records against which his
petition signatures will be compared, and the ability to be present through counsel when signatures
are being counted.
Respectfully submitted,


(616) 774-8000
jkoch@shrr.com
dtountas@shrr.com
Jason B. Torchinsky
Chris Winkelman
(540) 341-8808 (phone)
(540) 341-8809 (fax)
43
SHRR\108011\211591\5522156.v1-5/6/22
EXHIBIT 5
Dykema Gossett PLLC
Capitol View
201 Townsend Street, Suite 900
Lansing, MI 48933
WWW.DYKEMA.COM
Tel: (517) 374-9100
Fax: (517) 374-9191
Steven C. Liedel
Direct Dial: (517) 374-9184
Direct Fax: (855) 259-3571
Email: SLiedel@dykema.com
May 11, 2022 Via Email and Hand Delivery

430 West Allegan Street
Lansing, Michigan 48918
Re: Information Regarding Apparent Violations of Michigan Election Law Involving

Nominating Petitions Filed Perry Johnson Seeking to Qualify as a Candidate for
the Office of Governor
Dear Board Members:
I am writing to provide the Board of State Canvassers (the “Board”) and the Bureau of Elections
(the “Bureau”) with information relating to the apparent violation of the Michigan Election Law
involving the nominating petitions filed by Perry Johnson of Bloomfield Township on or about April
19, 2022, seeking to qualify as a candidate of the Republican Party for the office of governor (the
“Johnson Petitions”). This correspondence corrects page references to 56 of the 66 challenged
signatures included in Table 1 of the sworn complaint filed on behalf of Carol Bray of Haslett,

Michigan on April 26, 2022 (the “Complaint”) to assist the Board and the Bureau in locating
signatures included in the Johnson Petitions that were questioned in the Complaint as to their
validity and genuineness because the name and address associated with each of those
signatures appear to be the name and address of a dead person.
Apparent Signatures from the Dead
The Johnson Petitions include signatures from multiple people that would have been incapable
of signing a petition because they appear to have been dead on the date associated with the
signature. To assist the Board and the Bureau in locating those signatures, Table 1 indicates the
correct Bureau-assigned page stamp number and line number for 56 of the signatures questioned
as to their validity and genuineness in the Complaint the person signing was indicated as
deceased in a public records database search using LexisNexis SmartLinx Comprehensive
Person Report. In addition, if the qualified voter file indicated that an individual appearing on one
of the Johnson Petitions was dead as of April 1, 2022, the third column of Table 1 indicates “Yes”.
The name appearing on the petition is included in the fourth column of Table 1. Obituaries also
have been located for a number of individuals whose names appear on the Johnson Petitions,
with links to those obituaries included in the fifth column of Table 1.

May 11, 2022
Page 2
Table 1
Signatures on Johnson Petitions from Apparent Dead Persons
Page Stamp Line Number Dead in QVF Name on Petition Link to Obituary
2502 5 Kathleen Hocevar obituaries.neptunesociety.com/obituaries
/southfield-mi/kathleen-hocevar-
10085239
2569 3 Yes Annie Covick
2569 7 Wanda Steward
2813 8 Yes L Robinson
3071 10 Joyce Carson
3072 2 James White www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/name/jam
es-white-obituary?id=32332906
3072 5 Linda Minnie www.martenson.com/obituaries/Linda-
Robinson Minnie-Robinson?obId=21026199
3083 1 Sharon Willis www.funeralfinder.com/obituaries/Willis-
Sharon/11-19-2014/2437/
3249 5 Dorothy Williams
3254 5 Yes Billie Hardy
3258 1 Yes Josephine Hopkins
3310 2 Conrad Nowels www.tributearchive.com/obituaries/23921
539/conrad-wayne-nowels
3310 7 Robert Finnigan www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/whit
e-lake-mi/robert-finnigan-10035199
3340 9 Cora Williams
3342 8 Yes James Holloway
3763 9 Yes Mary Vonlinsowe
3768 8 Myrtle Peden

3879 3 Robert Dewey hosting-
7303.tributes.com/obituary/show/Robert-
Bob-Dewey--108511102
4060 5 Ellen Wert
4062 6 Daniel Heming
4063 8 Dennis Green www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/name/den
nis-green-obituary?id=5969362
4064 5 Gary Martin
4106 9 Mary Ruehr www.schrader-
howell.com/obituaries/Maryann-
Ruehr?obId=3284769
2060 9 Nancy Roberts www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/hometown
life/name/nancy-roberts-
obituary?pid=199577873
2100 9 Yes Rose Gonzalez
2100 10 Jose Brown
2108 7 Charles Edwards
2124 7 Ruth Wilson
2134 2 Stella Ader molnarfuneralhome.com/tribute/details/2
0514/Stella-Ader/obituary.html
2194 1 Lois Shaw www.clorafuneralhome.com/obituaries/Lo
is-Shaw-4/

May 11, 2022
Page 3
Page Stamp Line Number Dead in QVF Name on Petition Link to Obituary
2212 8 Rose Deagle www.weisefuneralhome.com/obituary/ros
e-mare-deagle
2225 6 Naomi Rolland
2229 9 Yes Darthea Levy
2237 7 Charles Bowie
2279 10 Yvonne Frazee molnarfuneralhome.com/tribute/details/2
0513/Yvonne-Frazee/obituary.html
2283 4 John Stebbins www.echovita.com/us/obituaries/mi/gard
en-city/john-c-stebbins-13142569
72 9 Frances Dahlke www.tributes.com/obituary/show/Frances
-Dahlke-96328131
123 3 Sarah Gregory www.tributearchive.com/obituaries/23254
879/sarah-gregory
452 3 Yes Richard Hale
536 7 Ali Medin
550 2 Yes Nathan Clayton
568 7 Thomas Walker
596 8 Richard Vaughn
600 10 Grace Hollingsworth
738 6 Betty Allen
1634 2 Jessie Cunning
1639 7 Yes Amelia Martinez
1640 8 Charlie Walker
1752 10 Yes Herman Rogler
1765 1 Dorothy Bogan www.martenson.com/obituaries/Dorothy-
Bogan?obId=21604336
1765 6 Charline Bufkin

1766 6 Larry Brodie
1857 9 Roger Bryant www.clorafuneralhome.com/obituaries/R
oger-Bryant-4/
1859 7 Yes James Brooks
2335 8 Romualdo Tiseo www.bcfh.com/obituaries/obitpage.php?o
bitkey=Romualdo-Tiseo
2364 9 Thomas Brown www.dignitymemorial.com/en-
ca/obituaries/warren-mi/thomas-brown-
10352421
A scan of each of the petition sheets referenced in Table 1 is attached as Exhibit 1. More detailed
information relating to each of the signatures challenged in the Complaint and apparently affixed
in violation of the Michigan Election Law because the name and address associated with the
signature appears to be that of a dead person is as follows:
Johnson Petition No. 2502, Line No. 5
The name included on page 2502, line 5 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of
Kathleen Hocevar, with a signature date of April 16, 2022. Ms. Hocevar would not have been

May 11, 2022
Page 4
capable of signing the petition for Perry Johnson on April 16, 2022 because according to an
obituary at the website address included in Table 1, she appears to have passed away on March
4, 2021.
Her name and a signature affixed by someone else, apparently in violation of the Michigan
Election Law, appears on the petition sheet circulated on behalf of Perry Johnson by William
Williams of 5970 Maxwell in Detroit.

William Williams also is accused of fraudulent activity relating to signatures on the nominating
petitions submitted by James Craig, a person seeking to qualify as a candidate for the office of
governor, in a sworn complaint submitted on April 26, 2002 by Veronica Taylor-Biffle (the “Craig
Fraud Complaint”), the sworn complaint of Jeffrey David Hillman dated April 26, 2022 relating
to signatures appearing on the nominating petitions submitted by John Michael Malone, a
candidate for the office of judge of the circuit court for the 3rd judicial circuit (the “Malone Fraud
Complaint”), and the sworn compliant of Kay I. Shelton dated April 26, 2022 relating to
signatures appearing on the nominating petitions submitted by Tricia Dare, a candidate for the
office of judge of the Oakland County Circuit Court (the “Dare Fraud Complaint”), each of
which remain pending before the Board.

May 11, 2022
Page 5
The name included on page 2569, line 7 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Annie
Covick of Flat Rock, with a signature date of April 6, 2022. As of April 1, 2022, the qualified voter
file appears to indicate that Ms. Covick was deceased.
Election Law, appears on the petition sheet circulated on behalf of Perry Johnson by a Dulce
Romero of Beltsville, Maryland.
The name included on page 2569, line 3 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Wanda
Steward of Flat Rock with a signature date of April 6, 2022. A public database search indicates
that a person with that name died before that date.

Her name and a signature appear on the petition sheet circulated on behalf of Perry Johnson by
a Dulce Romero of Beltsville, Maryland.
The name included on page 2813, line 8 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of L.
Robinson of Troy, with a signature date of March 20, 2022. As of April 1, 2022, the qualified voter
file appears to indicate that Mr. Robinson was deceased.

May 11, 2022
Page 6
The name of L. Robinson and a signature affixed by someone else, apparently in violation of the
Michigan Election Law, appears on the petition sheet circulated on behalf of Perry Johnson by
Nicolas Goyette of Davison.
The name included on page 3071, line 10 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Joyce
Carson of Dearborn, with a signature date of March 5, 2022

William Williams also is accused of fraudulent activity relating to signatures in the Craig Fraud
Complaint, the Malone Fraud Complaint, and the Dare Fraud Complaint, each of which remains
pending before the Board.
The name included on page 3072, line 2 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of James
White of Melvindale, with a signature date of March 6, 2022.

May 11, 2022
Page 7
His name and a signature appear on the petition sheet circulated on behalf of Perry Johnson by
a Yazmine Vasser of Troy.
Yazmine Vasser also is accused of fraudulent activity relating to signatures in the Craig Fraud
Complaint, the Malone Fraud Complaint, and the Dare Fraud Complaint.
The name included on page 3072, line 5 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Linda
Minnie Robinson of Lincoln Park, with a signature date of March 6, 2022. Ms. Robinson would
not have been capable of signing the petition for Perry Johnson on March 6, 2022 because
according to an obituary at the website address included in Table 1, she appears to have passed
away on May 3, 2021.


May 11, 2022
Page 8
Complaint, the Malone Fraud Complaint, and the Dare Fraud Complaint, each of which remain
The name included on page 3083, line 1 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Sharon
Willis of Detroit, with a signature date of March 8, 2022. Ms. Willis would not have been capable
of signing the petition for Perry Johnson on March 8, 2022 because according to an obituary at
the website address included in Table 1, she appears to have passed away on November 19,
2014.
a “Justin Gorlal” of Detroit.

The name included on page 3249, line 5 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Dorothy
Williams of Detroit, with a signature date of March 5, 2022.

May 11, 2022
Page 9
The name included on page 3254, line 5 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Billie
Hardy of Detroit, with a signature date of April 15, 2022. As of April 1, 2022, the qualified voter
file appears to indicate that Billie Hardy was deceased.
Billie Hardy’s name and a signature affixed by someone else, apparently in violation of the
William Williams of 5970 Maxwell in Detroit.

The name included on page 3258, line 1 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of
Josephine Hopkins of Detroit, with a signature date of April 15, 2022. As of April 1, 2022, the
qualified voter file appears to indicate that Josephine Hopkins was deceased.

May 11, 2022
Page 10
The name included on page 3310, line 2 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Conrad
Nowels of Farmington Hills, with a signature date of March 10, 2022.
Mr. Nowels would not have been capable of signing the petition for Perry Johnson on March 10,
2022 because according to an obituary at the website address included in Table 1, he appears
to have passed away on February 2, 2022.


May 11, 2022
Page 11
The name included on page 3310, line 7 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Robert
Finnigan of Waterford, with a signature date of March 10, 2022.
Mr. Finnigan would not have been capable of signing the petition for Perry Johnson on March
10, 2022 because according to an obituary at the website address included in Table 1, he
appears to have passed away on January 30, 2021.


May 11, 2022
Page 12
The name included on page 3340, line 9 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Cora
Williams of Detroit, with a signature date of March 15, 2022.

The name included on page 3342, line 8 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of James
Holloway of Detroit, with a signature date of April 15, 2022. As of April 1, 2022, the qualified voter
file appears to indicate that James Holloway was deceased.
His name and a signature affixed by someone else, apparently in violation of the Michigan

May 11, 2022
Page 13
The name included on page 3763, line 9 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Mary
Vonlinsowe of Flat Rock, with a signature date of April 7, 2022. As of April 1, 2022, the qualified
voter file appears to indicate that Ms. Vonlinsow was deceased.
Election Law, appears on the petition sheet circulated on behalf of Perry Johnson by Davon
Best of Miami, Florida using an incomplete address.
Davon Best also is accused of fraudulent activity relating to signatures in the Malone Fraud
Complaint, which remains pending before the Board.

The name included on page 3768, line 8 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of “Myrtle
Peden” of Flat Rock, with a signature date of April 7, 2022.
The name of “Myrtle Peden” at 2052 Will Carleton Road in Flat Rock and a signature affixed by
someone else, apparently in violation of the Michigan Election Law, appears on the petition
sheet circulated on behalf of Perry Johnson by Davon Best of Miami, Florida using an
incomplete address.

May 11, 2022
Page 14
Davon Best also is accused of fraudulent activity relating to signatures in the Malone Fraud
The name included on page 3879, line 3 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Robert
Dewey of Battle Creek, with a signature date of April 2, 2022. Mr. Dewey would not have been
obituary at the website address included in Table 1, he appears to have passed away on
February 23, 2021.
a Renee Hausmann of Palm Bay, Florida.
Johnson Petition No. 4060, Line No. 5 RECEIVED by MCOA 5/27/2022 11:02:20 AM
The name included on page 4060, line 5 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Ellen
Wert of Milford, with a signature date of April 16, 2022.
Election Law, appears on the petition sheet circulated on behalf of Perry Johnson by Stephen
Tinnin of Wixom.

May 11, 2022
Page 15
Stephen Tinnin also is accused of fraudulent activity relating to signatures in the Craig Fraud
The name included on page 4060, line 5 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Daniel
Heming of Milford, with a signature date of April 16, 2022.
Tinnin of Wixom.

The name included on page 4063, line 8 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Dennis
Green of Clarkston, with a signature date of April 16, 2022. Mr. Green would not have been

May 11, 2022
Page 16
obituary at the website address included in Table 1, he appears to have passed away in 2021.
Tinnin of Wixom.

The name included on page 4064, line 5 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Gary
Martin of Woodhaven, with a signature date of April 16, 2022.
Tinnin of Wixom.

May 11, 2022
Page 17
The name included on page 4106, line 9 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Mary
Ruehr of Plymouth, with a signature date of April 17, 2022. Ms. Ruehr would not have been
obituary at the website address included in Table 1, she appears to have passed away on
September 9, 2018.
a Ryan Snowden of Glenarden, Maryland.

Ryan Snowden also is accused of fraudulent activity relating to signatures in the Malone Fraud
The name included on page 2060, line 9 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Nancy
Roberts of Highland, with a signature date of March 12, 2022. Ms. Roberts would not have been

May 11, 2022
Page 18
obituary at the website address included in Table 1, she appears to have passed away on July
23, 2021.
Tinnin of Wixom.

The name included on page 2100, line 9 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Rose
Gonzalez of Detroit, with a signature date of April 15, 2022. As of April 1, 2022, the qualified
voter file appears to indicate that Rose Gonzalez was deceased.
Election Law, appears on the petition sheet circulated on behalf of Perry Johnson by Nicholas
Carlton of 19754 Santa Barbara in Detroit.

May 11, 2022
Page 19
Nicholas Carlton also is accused of fraudulent activity relating to signatures in the Craig Fraud
The name included on page 2100, line 10 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Jose
Brown of Detroit, with a signature date of April 15, 2022.

The name included on page 2108, line 7 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Charles
Edwards of Detroit, with a signature date of April 15, 2022.

May 11, 2022
Page 20
The name included on page 2124, line 7 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Ruth
Wilson of Milford, with a signature date of March 7, 2022.
Election Law, appears on the petition sheet circulated on behalf of Perry Johnson by LeVaughn
Hearn of 17367 Hamburg in Detroit.

LeVaughn Hearn also is accused of fraudulent activity relating to signatures in the Malone Fraud
Complaint and the Dare Fraud Complaint, each of which remains pending before the Board.
The name included on page 2134, line 2 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Stella
Ader of Southgate, with a signature date of April 17, 2022. Ms. Ader would not have been
December 15, 2021.

May 11, 2022
Page 21
Election Law, appears on the petition sheet circulated on behalf of Perry Johnson by Jehvon
Evans of 15751 Auburn in Detroit.
Jehvon Evans also is accused of fraudulent activity relating to signatures in the Malone Fraud

The name included on page 2194, line 1 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Lois
Shaw of Detroit, with a signature date of March 8, 2022. Ms. Shaw would not have been
capable of signing the petition for Perry Johnson on March 8, 2022 because according to an
obituary at the website address included in Table 1, she appears to have passed away on May
5, 2021.

May 11, 2022
Page 22
a “Justin Gorlal” of 17855 Oaktree in Detroit.
The name included on page 2212, line 8 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Rose
Deagle of Woodhaven, with a signature date of March 9, 2022. Ms. Deagle would not have
been capable of signing the petition for Perry Johnson on March 8, 2022 because according to
an obituary at the website address included in Table 1, she appears to have passed away on
March 2, 2021.

a Diallo Vaughn of 23470 Radclift in Oak Park.

May 11, 2022
Page 23
Diallo Vaughn also is accused of fraudulent activity relating to signatures in the Craig Fraud
The name included on page 2225, line 6 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Naomi
Rolland of Detroit, with a signature date of March 8, 2022.

The name included on page 2229, line 9 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Darthea
Levy of Highland Park, with a signature date of March 7, 2022. As of April 1, 2022, the qualified
voter file appears to indicate that Darthea Levy was deceased.

May 11, 2022
Page 24
The name included on page 2237, line 7 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Charles
Bowie of Detroit, with a signature date of March 8, 2022.

The name included on page 2279, line 10 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Yvonne
Frazee of Wyandotte, with a signature date of March 2, 2022. Ms. Frazee would not have been
capable of signing the petition for Perry Johnson on March 2, 2022 because according to an
December 14, 2021.

May 11, 2022
Page 25

The name included on page 2283, line 4 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of John
Stebbins of Garden City, with a signature date of March 4, 2022. Mr. Stebbins would not have
been capable of signing the petition for Perry Johnson on March 4, 2022 because according to

May 11, 2022
Page 26
an obituary at the website address included in Table 1, he appears to have passed away on
August 6, 2021.

The name included on page 72, line 9 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Frances
Dahlke of Royal Oak, with a signature date of April 16, 2022. Ms. Dahlke would not have been

May 11, 2022
Page 27
August 23, 2013.

The name included on page 123, line 3 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Sarah
Gregory of Detroit, with a signature date of April 17, 2022. Ms. Gregory would not have been

May 11, 2022
Page 28
November 23, 2021.

The name included on page 452, line 3 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Richard
Hale of Ypsilanti Township, with a signature date of April 11, 2022. As of April 1, 2022, the
qualified voter file appears to indicate that Mr. Hale was deceased.
Election Law, appears on the petition sheet circulated on behalf of Perry Johnson by David
Alessi, Jr. of Wesley Chapel, Florida.

May 11, 2022
Page 29
The name included on page 536, line 7 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Ali Medin
of Dearborn, with a signature date of March 5, 2022.
The name of Ali Medin and a signature affixed by someone else, apparently in violation of the
William Williams of 5970 Maxwell in Detroit.

The name included on page 550, line 2 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Nathan
Clayton of Ypsilanti Township, with a signature date of March 6, 2022. As of April 1, 2022, the
qualified voter file appears to indicate that Mr. Clayton was deceased.

May 11, 2022
Page 30
The name included on page 568, line 7 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Thomas
Walker of Detroit, with a signature date of March 17, 2022.

The name included on page 596, line 8 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of “Richard
Vaughn” of Detroit, with a signature date of March 7, 2022. As of April 1, 2022, the qualified voter
file appears to indicate that Mr. Vaughn was deceased.

May 11, 2022
Page 31
The name included on page 596, line 8 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Grace
Hollingsworth of Detroit, with a signature date of March 7, 2022.

The name included on page 738, line 6 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Betty
Allen of Pontiac, with a signature date of March 9, 2022.
Election Law, appears on the petition sheet circulated on behalf of Perry Johnson by Deshawn
Evans of Harper Woods.

May 11, 2022
Page 32
Deshawn Evans also is accused of fraudulent activity relating to signatures in the Craig Fraud
Complaint and the Dare Fraud Complaint, both of which remains pending before the Board.
The name included on page 1634, line 2 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of a
“Jessie Cunning” of Detroit with a signature date of April 15, 2022.
The name of Jessie Cunning and a signature affixed by someone else, apparently in violation of
the Michigan Election Law, appears on the petition sheet circulated on behalf of Perry Johnson
by William Williams of 5970 Maxwell in Detroit.

“Amelia Martinez” of Detroit with a signature date of April 15, 2022. As of April 1, 2022, Amelia
Martinez appears to be deceased.
The name of Amelia Martinez and a signature affixed by someone else, apparently in violation
of the Michigan Election Law, appears on the petition sheet circulated on behalf of Perry
Johnson by William Williams of 5970 Maxwell in Detroit.

May 11, 2022
Page 33
Charlie Walker of Detroit with a signature date of April 15, 2022.
The name of Charlie Walker and a signature affixed by someone else, apparently in violation of
the Michigan Election Law, appears on the petition sheet circulated on behalf of Perry Johnson
by William Williams of 5970 Maxwell in Detroit.

Herman Rogler of Warren with a signature date of April 18, 2022. As of April 1, 2022, the
qualified voter file appears to indicate that Mr. Rogler was deceased.

May 11, 2022
Page 34
The name included on page 1765, line 1 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Dorothy
Bogan of Detroit, with a signature date of April 16, 2022. Ms. Bogan would not have been
obituary at the website address included in Table 1, she appears to have passed away on July 2,
2021.


May 11, 2022
Page 35
The name included on page 1765, line 6 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Charline
Bufkin of Detroit with a signature date of April 16, 2022.

The name included on page 1766, line 6 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of Larry
Brodie of Detroit with a signature date of April 16, 2022.

May 11, 2022
Page 36
The name included on page 1857, line 9 of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of a “Roger
Bryant” of Detroit, with a signature date of April 17, 2022. Mr. Bryant would not have been
obituary at the website address included in Table 1, he appears to have passed away on March
22, 2021.


May 11, 2022
Page 37
The name included on page 1859, line 7of the Johnson Petitions is indicated as that of a James
Brooks of Detroit with a signature date of April 17, 2022. As of April 1, 2022, the qualified voter
file appears to indicate that Mr. Brooks was deceased.
Romualdo Tiseo of Sterling Heights, with a signature date of March 4, 2022. Mr. Tiseo would not

have been capable of signing the petition for Perry Johnson on March 4, 2022 because
according to an obituary at the website address included in Table 1, he appears to have passed
away on January 1, 2021.
Tinnin of Wixom.

May 11, 2022
Page 38
Thomas Brown of Sterling Heights, with a signature date of March 9, 2022. Mr. Bryant would not
have been capable of signing the petition for Perry Johnson on March 9, 2022 because
according to an obituary at the website address included in Table 1, he appears to have passed
away on January 14, 2021.

Election Law, appears on the petition sheet circulated on behalf of Perry Johnson by Deshawn
Evans of Harper Woods.

May 11, 2022
Page 39
Deshawn Evans also is accused of fraudulent activity relating to signatures in the Craig Fraud
Complaint and the Dare Fraud Complaint, both of which remains pending before the Board.
Violations of the Michigan Election Law
Under the Michigan Election Law, an individual is prohibited from signing a nominating petition
with a name other than his or her own.1 Violation of this prohibition is a crime, punishable by a
fine of up to $500 or imprisonment for up to 93 days, or both.2 An deceased person is not
capable of signing a petition. When the name of a dead person appears on a petition, a person
other than the dead person must have signed the petition in violation of the Michigan Election
Law. If one signature was added to a petition sheet illegally, there is the potential that others
were also similarly added to the same petition and all signatures included on the petition should
be verified as those of the voter indicated. It is similarly a crime—a felony—for an individual to
sign a petition with multiple names.
Circulators of nominating petitions are required to certify3 all of the following:
(1) that “each signature on the petition was signed in his or her presence”;

(2) that “he or she has neither caused nor permitted a person to sign the petition more than
once and has no knowledge of a person signing the petition more than once”; and
(3) that, “to his or her best knowledge and belief, each signature is the genuine signature of
the person purporting to sign the petition, the person signing the petition was at the time
of signing a registered elector of the city or township listed in the heading of the petition,
and the elector was qualified to sign the petition”.
Each nominating petition is required4 to include the following warning to petition circulators:
Warning-A circulator knowingly making a false statement in the above

certificate, a person not a circulator who signs as a circulator, or a person
1
MCL 168.544c(10).
2
MCL 168.544c(9).
3
MCL 168.544c
4
MCL 168.544c(1).

May 11, 2022
Page 40
who signs a name other than his or her own as circulator is guilty of a
misdemeanor. 5
A circulator who signs the name of a dead person or any other person on a nominating petition
has committed a crime. A circulator may not “[m]ake a false statement in a certificate on a
petition.”6
If the Board determines that an individual has knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with
these restrictions, the Board may (1) disqualify obviously fraudulent signatures without checking
the validity against local registration records, or (2) disqualify from the ballot a candidate who
committed, aided or abetted, or knowingly allowed the violation of the restrictions on a petition to
nominate that candidate.7
Thank you for your consideration of this information and for your enforcement of the
requirements of the Michigan Election Law.
Sincerely,
Dykema Gossett PLLC
Steven C. Liedel
Attachments
c: Jonathan Brater

Adam Fracassi
4857-1390-9535.3
5
Id.
6
MCL 168.544c(8)(b).
7
MCL 168.544c(11).

EXHIBIT 6
STATE OF MICHIGAN
BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS
__________________________________________
In re Nominating Petitions for the Office of Governor filed by Perry Johnson

______________________________________________________________________________
Perry Johnson’s Response in Opposition to Carol Bray’s “Information

Regarding Apparent Violations of Michigan Election Law Involving
Nominating Petitions Filed [By] Perry Johnson Seeking to Qualify as a
Candidate for the Office of Governor”
______________________________________________________________________________
Steven C. Liedel (P58852) Jonathan B. Koch (P80408)

DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC D. Adam Tountas (P68579)
Attorney for Carol Bray SMITH HAUGHEY RICE & ROEGGE
201 Townsend St Ste 900 Attorneys for Perry Johnson
Lansing, MI 48933 100 Monroe Center NW
(517) 374-9100 Grand Rapids, MI 49503
sliedel@dykema.com (616) 774-8000
jkoch@shrr.com
dtountas@shrr.com

Chris Winkelman**
HOLTZMAN VOGEL BARAN TORCHINSKY
& JOSEFIAK PLLC
15405 John Marshall Hwy
Haymarket, VA 20169
(540) 341-8808
*Licensed to practice in Virginia and the District of Columbia

**Licensed to practice in Florida
______________________________________________________________________________
SHRR\5531254v1
Introduction
The supplemental complaint Carol Bray presented to the Board of Canvassers providing
additional “information” in support of her original sworn complaint must be disregarded as
untimely. By statute, Ms. Bray had seven days from April 19, 2022 to file her challenges to a
candidate’s nominating petition (which she did by filing her original sworn complaint). But she
waited until May 13, 2022—more than two weeks after the deadline expired—to file her
supplemental challenges. The relevant statutes require strict compliance and do not provide for
amended or supplemental challenges. And, although this Board can grant extensions, it can only
do so for reasons that do not apply here.
The Michigan Supreme Court has held that it is “error” for this body to consider challenges
filed outside the 7-day deadline. So this Board must disregard Ms. Bray’s untimely supplemental
filing. But, even if the Board does consider the filing otherwise barred by statute, Ms. Bray’s
updated allegations of invalid signatures do not authorize this Board to strike entire petition sheets
or disqualify Mr. Johnson’s candidacy entirely. Rather, because “[t]he invalidity of 1 or more

signatures on a petition does not affect the validity of the remainder of the signatures on the
petition,” 1 this Board must evaluate the other signatures on a line-by-line basis under the “any
redeeming qualities” and presumptive-validity standards required by the Secretary of State and
well-established Michigan law.
1
MCL 168.544c(6).
2
SHRR\5531254v1
Argument
A. Ms. Bray filed her amended challenges long after the 7-day deadline expired. So it
would be error for this Board to consider it.
The first problem with Ms. Bray’s latest filing is that it was untimely. The Michigan
Supreme Court has held that it is “error” for this Board to consider untimely filed challenges to
nominating signatures. So this body must disregard Ms. Bray’s supplemental filing.
MCL 168.552 provides that a person challenging the sufficiency of a nominating petition
must file a complaint “within 7 days after the deadline for filing the nominating petitions.” 2 And
that limitation isn’t optional. The Michigan Supreme Court has held that when a party files
challenges to a petition after “the deadline for [their] consideration” it is “error” for this Board “to
consider the complaint challenging the validity of the nominating signatures.” 3 And, while the
Board can extend the 7-day deadline, it can only do so if “the challenger did not receive a copy of
each petition sheet that the challenger requested from the secretary of state.” 4 That is not alleged
and didn’t happen here. So this Board is statutorily barred from extending the 7-day deadline to
allow for review of Ms. Bray’s supplemental filing.

The deadline for Mr. Johnson to file nominating petitions supporting his candidacy expired
on April 19, 2022. 5 So Ms. Bray had seven days to file a complaint challenging Mr. Johnson’s
nominating petitions. And she did just that by filing a 49-page complaint on April 26, 2022
challenging thousands of signatures on Mr. Johnson’s petitions. But, as shown in Mr. Johnson’s
response to Ms. Bray’s complaint, many of her challenges were woefully deficient (e.g., they
2
MCL 168.552(8).
3
Callahan v Board of State Canvassers, 467 Mich 864; 650 NW2d 656 (2002) (Mem).
4
MCL 168.552(8).
5
MCL 168.53 (“Beginning January 1, 2014, nominating petitions shall be received by the secretary
of state for filing in accordance with this act up to 4 p.m. of the fifteenth Tuesday before the August
primary”; April 19, 2022 is the fifteenth Tuesday before the August 2, 2022 primary).
3
SHRR\5531254v1
challenged blank signatures lines or were clearly meritless). Given those deficiencies, Ms. Bray
tried to take a second bite at the apple by filing another brief on May 13, 2022 that purports to cure
some of the defects in her challenges to signatures she claims are invalid because they were from
deceased individuals. But that brief was untimely because it was filed more than two weeks after
the statutory 7-day deadline for filing challenges to Mr. Johnson’s nominating petitions expired.
As a result, under well-established Michigan law, it would be “error” for this Board “to consider
the complaint challenging the validity of the nominating signatures.” 6 So Ms. Bray’s latest filing
must be disregarded.
Bray may argue that her untimely filing should still be considered because it amends her
old challenges rather than making entirely new challenges. But that argument doesn’t pass muster.
Although MCL 168.552(8) provides a 7-day deadline for filing complaints and allows extensions
for reasons that don’t apply here, it says nothing about amendments to challenges or supplemental
filings. So there’s no statutory basis for Ms. Bray to file amendments to the challenges raised in
her sworn complaint, and it would be an abuse of this Board’s discretion to allow her to do so. 7

And, since MCL 168.552 doesn’t provide for amendments to sworn complaints, neither this Board
nor any Michigan court has authority to create such a provision out of thin air. 8
6
Callahan v Board of State Canvassers, 467 Mich 864; 650 NW2d 656 (2002) (Mem).
7
See Stumbo v Roe, 332 Mich App 479; 957 NW2d 830 (2020) (participants in the electoral
process “must strictly comply” with the requirements “identified in the Michigan Election Law in
the absence of any statutory language expressly indicating that substantial compliance with the
statute’s requirements suffices.”); see also Moore v Genesee County, ___ Mich App ___; ___
NW2d ___; No. 355291; 2021 WL 2600829 at *4 (Mich App June 24, 2021) (“There is simply no
statutory provision for amending an AOI after the deadline has passed. Rather, if a candidacy
applicant has failed to comply with the statutory requirements, defendants were immediately under
a clear legal duty not to certify the applicant….The trial court abused its discretion by ignoring the
plain statutory requirements and ordering defendants to accept an amended or corrected AOI after
the expiration of the filing deadline.”).
8
Mich Assoc of Home Builders v Troy, 504 Mich 204, 212-213; 934 NW2d 713 (2019) (“[A] court
may read nothing into an unambiguous statute that is not within the manifest intent of the
4
SHRR\5531254v1
In sum, because Ms. Bray’s latest filing was submitted after the expiration of the 7-day
deadline for challenging Mr. Johnson’s nominating petitions, it was untimely. So this Board must
refuse to consider it under well-established Michigan law.
B. This Board lacks authority to strike entire petition sheets (or disqualify Mr. Johnson
from the ballot) just because someone else may have forged signatures.
Although Ms. Bray doesn’t ever come right out and say it, she appears to imply that this
body should invalidate the entirety of any petition sheet that contains an allegedly invalid signature
and even consider disqualifying Mr. Johnson from the ballot entirely regardless how many valid
signatures he submitted. This body is statutorily barred from doing either of those things.
As an initial matter, the presence of allegedly forged signatures on Mr. Johnson’s petition
sheets does not enable this Board to disqualify him from the ballot without regard to how many
valid signatures he has. Under the plain language of the Michigan Election Law, this Board can
only disqualify from the primary ballot a candidate who “committed, aided or abetted, or
knowingly allowed” the forging of signatures on a nominating petition in violation of MCL
168.544c(8), (10), or (12). 9 Here, however, there is no evidence or even allegation that Mr. Johnson

had anything to do with any of purported forgery alleged in Ms. Bray’s complaint. So, while Ms.
Bray dances around the issue by citing the statute without further explanation, the reality is that
she provides no evidence, allegation, or inuendo that Mr. Johnson is anything more than an
innocent victim of alleged forgery perpetrated by others.
Legislature as derived from the words of the statute itself.”); People v Pinkney, 501 Mich 259, 286
n 67; 912 NW2d 535 (2018), citing, e.g., Malpass v Dep't of Treasury, 494 Mich 237, 251, 833
NW2d 272 (2013) (“[T]o supply omissions transcends the judicial function.” (citations and
quotation marks omitted)); Hobbs v McLean, 117 US 567, 579, 6 S Ct 870, 29 L Ed 940
(1886) (“When a provision is left out of a statute, either by design or mistake of the legislature, the
courts have no power to supply it. To do so would be to legislate and not to construe.”).
9
MCL 168.544c(11)-(13).
5
SHRR\5531254v1
This Board also lacks authority to invalidate and ignore entire petition sheets just because
Ms. Bray claims that they contain one or more allegedly forged signatures. If an individual forges
one or more signatures on a petition sheet, this Board has statutory authority to invalidate any
“obviously fraudulent” signatures. 10 But, by statute, “[t]he invalidity of 1 or more signatures on a
petition does not affect the validity of the remainder of the signatures on the petition.” 11 Similarly,
the Court of Appeals has recognized that the penalties for a fraudulent signature are “narrowly
drawn” and “do not include striking otherwise valid elector signatures.” 12 That is, “[e]ven in the
event of knowing and intentional violations of [MCL 168.544c], the Legislature omitted from the
list of punishments an automatic disqualification of signatures” and “only ‘obviously fraudulent
signatures’ may be struck.” 13 Thus, while “obviously fraudulent signatures” may be disqualified,
the sanctions available to this Board “do not encompass eliminating valid signatures on a petition
circulated by someone who has violated the law.” 14 So even if Ms. Bray can establish that a petition
sheet contains a signature that purports to be from a person who was deceased at the time, that
“does not affect the validity of the remainder of the signatures on the petition.” 15

This is especially true because “certain other election law violations do result in the
elimination of valid signatures.” 16 For example, the Court of Appeals has held that “negation” of
otherwise valid signatures is appropriate “when a circulator collects signatures after signing and
10
MCL 168.544c(8)-(13).
11
MCL 168.544c(6).
12
NW2d 677 (2018).
13
NW2d 677 (2018).
14
Id. at 248-249.
15
MCL 168.544c(6).
16
Id. at 249.
6
SHRR\5531254v1
dating a petition” or “fails to sign the sheet entirely.” 17 Similarly, when a candidate omits his or
her “complete address” in the heading of nominating petition sheets, it “render[s] them
defective.” 18
Consistent with the approach taken by Michigan courts, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson
has provided guidance regarding the limited and specific defects that can “render an entire
[petition] sheet invalid.” 19 According to Secretary Benson, an entire sheet is only invalid if the
heading of the petition sheet omits the county of circulation or lists two or more counties (and it’s
not apparent that circulation was confined to a single county), or if the heading omits required
information about the candidate or office sought (e.g., candidate’s name, address, party affiliation,
or the office sought). 20 She has also opined that an entire sheet is invalid if the sheet isn’t signed
by a circulator (or is signed by more than one circulator), or if the circulator omits the date of
signing or his or her address. 21 Finally, Secretary Benson has opined that an entire petition sheet
is invalid if it’s damaged or mutilated such that mandatory elements are illegible or omitted, or if
some opaque material covers or obscures any of the mandatory elements. 22 Notably absent from

that list, however, is any mention of one or more invalid elector signatures being a basis for
invaliding the entire sheet.
As a result, even if this Board determines that there is an obviously fraudulent signature on
one of Mr. Johnson’s petitions, it is not authorized by law to automatically invalidate the other
17
Id.
18
Delaney v Board of State Canvassers, No 333410; 2016 WL 3365337 at *2 (Mich App June
16, 2016) (Exhibit 1).
19
Secretary of State Guidance re: Circulating and Canvassing Countywide Petition Forms
Nominating and Qualifying Petitions (April 2020), pg. 5-6 (Attached as Appendix 1 to Mr.
Johnson’s Response to Carol Bray’s Sworn Complaint).
20
Id. at 5-6.
21
Id. at 6.
22
Id.
7
SHRR\5531254v1
signatures on that petition sheet or disqualify him from the ballot. Instead, this Board must evaluate
the other signatures on a line-by-line basis for “any redeeming qualities,” subject to the
presumption of validity, to determine whether Mr. Johnson has enough signatures to qualify for
the August 2, 2022 primary ballot. 23
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, this Board cannot consider Ms. Bray’s untimely filing
because it is barred from doing so by the plain language of MCL 168.522 and Michigan Supreme
Court precedent. Even if the Board does consider it, Ms. Bray’s untimely filing does not establish
a basis for invaliding entire petition sheets or disqualifying Mr. Johnson without first conducting
a signature-by-signature investigation. And, at the end of the day, the bottom line is that even if
every single one of Ms. Bray’s timely and untimely challenges are valid (they are not), Mr. Johnson
still has more than 15,000 valid signatures. So this Board’s duty is clear: it must find that Mr.
Johnson’s nomination petitions are more than sufficient to qualify him for the August 2, 2022
primary ballot.
23
Id. at 12-13.
8
SHRR\5531254v1
Respectfully submitted,

(616) 774-8000
jkoch@shrr.com
dtountas@shrr.com
Jason B. Torchinsky
Chris Winkelman
(540) 341-8808 (phone)
(540) 341-8809 (fax)
9
SHRR\5531254v1
EXHIBIT 7
From: MDOS-Canvassers <MDOS-Canvassers@michigan.gov>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 7:55 PM
Subject: Nominating Petitions
Attachments: Staff Reports.zip
This email is regarding the sufficiency of your nominating petitions you submitted to the Bureau of Elections. The Bureau has
completed its review of nominating petitions filed and issued the attached staff reports regarding your petitions’ sufficiency. These staff
reports will be published on the Board of State Canvassers’ website later tonight.
The Board of State Canvassers will conduct a meeting on Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 9:00 am. The meeting will be held in the Senate
Hearing Room in Boji Tower at 124 W. Allegan Street, Lansing, MI 48933. At this meeting, the Board will make a final determination on
whether the accept the staff’s recommendation. You may present testimony to the Board.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Bureau of Elections.

1
EXHIBIT 8
STATE OF MICHIGAN
BUREAU OF ELECTIONS
LANSING
May 23, 2022
REVIEW OF NOMINATING PETITION
PERRY JOHNSON
Republican Candidate for Governor
NUMBER OF VALID SIGNATURES REQUIRED: 15,000 signatures.
TOTAL FILING: 23,193 signatures.
RESULT OF REVIEW: 13,800 facially valid signatures, 9,393 invalid signatures.
Total number of signatures filed 23,193

Not registered Less: 68
Jurisdiction errors (no city in county known by name given Less: 1,336
by signer, dual jurisdiction entry, jurisdiction name given
by signer does not align with address)
Date errors (no date given by signer, date of birth entered, Less: 269
or date given by signer is later than circulator’s date of
signing)
Address errors (no street address or rural route given) Less: 81

Circulator errors (circulator did not sign or date petition, Less: 239
etc.)
Signature errors (no signature or incomplete signature) Less: 15
Miscellaneous errors (signatures of dubious authenticity Less: 402
where the petition signature does not match the signature
on file or multiple signatures appear to have been written
by the same individual, etc.)
Number of signatures on sheets submitted by fraudulent- Less: 6,983
petition circulators
TOTAL 13,800
Staff reviewed each petition sheet submitted by Mr. Johnson. During that review, staff flagged
each sheet which was signed by a fraudulent-petition circulator. For additional information on
sheets submitted by fraudulent-petition circulators, see Staff Report on Fraudulent Nominating
Petitions.
In total, staff’s review of Mr. Johnson’s petition sheets identified 9,393 invalid signatures and
13,800 facially valid signatures, which dropped him below the 15,000 threshold and rendered
him ineligible for the ballot.
BUREAU OF ELECTI ONS
RICHARD H. AUSTIN BUILDING  1ST FLOOR  430 W. ALLEGAN  LANSING, MICHIGAN 48918
Michigan.gov/Elections  517-335-3234
Signatures from the following fraudulent-petition circulators were included in Mr. Johnson’s
submission:
Davon Best 60 signatures

Antonio Braxton 177 signatures
Brianna Briggs 254 signatures
Nicholas Carlton 404 signatures
DeShawn Evans 401 signatures
Jehvon Evans 70 signatures
Justin Garland 203 signatures
LeVaughn Hearn 108 signatures
Brianna Heron 450 signatures
Aaliyah Ingram 154 signatures
Niccolo Mastromatteo 97 signatures
Giovannee Smith 460 signatures
Ryan Snowden 1,077 signatures
Trevon Stewart 29 signatures
Stephen Tinnin 1,034 signatures
Yazmine Vasser 576 signatures
Diallo Vaughn 440 signatures
William Williams 989 signatures
6,983 signatures
Distinctive characteristics of petition sheets submitted by fraudulent-petition circulators included

all of the following:
1. Signatures from voters who have been canceled or have not lived at the address on
the petition for years.

Through its review, staff identified a number of fraudulent signatures that were purported to be
from voters who had been canceled. Voters were canceled for a variety of reasons which
included moving out of state and death. Several signatures also listed an address where the voter
has not resided from at least one to eight years prior to signing.
Johnson petition sheet 602, line 6: moved from this address in 2021.
Johnson petition sheet 2068, line 2: canceled.
2. Misspelled names or addresses.
In some cases, the voter’s name is misspelled, either in the signature block or in the block for the
voter’s printed name. Misspelling of the purported individual’s own name is an indicator of
fraud. Although signatures do not need to be legible to be accepted, a large number of signatures
in which the proffered signature appears to have a different spelling than the printed name is an
indicator of fraud.
2
Johnson petition sheet 736, line 8: voter’s name is Lia and the signature indicates what appears
“Lian” or “Liar.”
Johnson petition sheet 736, line 10: voter’s surname is Ziga and the signature and printed name
indicate “Zigh.”
Johnson petition sheet 723, line 5: voter’s name is Jody and signature and printed name indicate
“Joby.”
Johnson petition sheet 611, line 1: voter’s surname is McDonough and printed name indicates
“McDough.”
Johnson petition sheet 603, line 4: voter’s surname is Breecher and printed name indicates
“Beecher.”
Johnson petition sheet 4043, line 1: voter’s name is Seana and signature and printed name
indicate “Sean.”
Johnson petition sheet 4043, line 3: voter’s name is Bornstein and signature and printed name
indicate “Bornstien.”
Johnson petition sheet 2626, line 3: voter’s name is Vicki but sheet indicates that she signs her
name as “Vicki” but prints it as “Viki.”

In some cases, the name of the voter’s jurisdiction or street was spelled wrong, or the jurisdiction
was mischaracterized. For example, Bloomfield Hills was often written as Bloomfield.
Johnson petition sheet 735, line 8: voter lives on Crossbridge Dr. in Holly and the petition sheet
indicates “Crosshires Dr.” in “Holy.”
Johnson petition sheet 731, lines 4 and 7: the city of Clarkston is spelled “Clarksten.”
Additionally, both appear to be written by the same hand.
Johnson petition sheet 4064, line 8: voter lives on Callender St, not “Calender St.”
Johnson petition sheet 611, lines 4 and 8: voters live in Bloomfield Hills and petition sheet
indicates Bloomfield.
3. Repeated use of an uncommon signature abbreviation.
3
An additional anomaly is the use of a first name and last initial as a signature. Using a first initial
and last name (for example, J. Smith) is not uncommon; the inverse (John S.) is rare.
Nonetheless, this unusual combination was included throughout the fraudulent petition sheets,
including the below examples:
Johnson petition sheet 602, line 6:
Further examples of the fraudulent signatures can be found in Staff Report on Fraudulent
Nominating Petitions.
ADDITIONAL INVALID SIGNATURES IDENTIFIED DURING FACE REVIEW: As

with all candidates, the staff initially conducted a face review of Mr. Johnson’s petition sheets.
Substantial numbers of signatures were deemed invalid on face review based on the errors
described above, with one of the largest numbers coming from jurisdictional errors. The three
jurisdictional error codes are OC, NC, and DUAL, which correspond with the provisions in the
Michigan Election Law1 and are described in the manual produced by the Bureau on Circulating
and Canvassing Countywide Petition Forms: Nominating and Qualifying Petitions.2 This manual
is provided to election officials and candidates for office.
OC describes an instance in which the address given is outside the city or township identified by
the signer. For instance, commonly signers would write “Oakland” or “Wayne” as their city or
township when they actually lived in Oakland or Wayne counties. Because there is a township of
Oakland and city of Wayne, staff verified that signers committed the errors described. This error
invalidated 521 signatures.
1
MCL 168.544c and 168.544d.
2
https://www.michigan.gov/-
/media/Project/Websites/sos/16delrio/SOS_ED105_County_Pet_Form.pdf?rev=daee67c93fb24f5e95c14a39d625ff9
5
4
NC describes an instance where there is no city or township by the name listed located within the
county listed in the heading of the petition sheet. For instance, the petition sheet heading would
identify all signers as Macomb County residents but individual signers would list their city or
township as Monroe (which is in Monroe County), Ann Arbor (which is in Washtenaw County)
or Troy (which is in Oakland County). This error invalidated 711 signatures.

DUAL describes a dual jurisdictional entry, meaning the signer wrote the names of two or more
jurisdictions in the space for the city or township where registered. If it is clear that one of the
two entries refers to the county—for instance “Detroit, Wayne Co.” or “Detroit/Wayne
County”—the signature would not be invalidated, but if the signer wrote “Detroit/Wayne”—it
represents a dual jurisdictional entry and is invalid. This error invalidated 104 signatures.
The petition also included 402 signatures with miscellaneous errors, including signatures of
dubious authenticity submitted by circulators other than those listed in the fraudulent-circulator
report. For instance, Dulce Amaya Romero submitted 4 petition sheets which 40 signatures of
dubious authenticity.
5
CHALLENGE: Mr. Johnson’s signatures were challenged by Carol Bray. Specifically, Ms.
Bray alleged that the signatures included all of the following:
• 66 entries by dead persons
• 1 entry from a person who submitted an affidavit indicating that her signature was forged
• 99 entries that were crossed out (note: this is not an error. These signatures are never
included in the Bureau’s count and therefore do not need to be removed.)
• 98 duplicate signatures
• 334 entries by persons who were also included on petition sheets of other gubernatorial
candidates
• 8 entries of signers who are not registered to vote in the city or township indicated
• 47 entries that appear not to include a signature
• 293 entries that include jurisdictional errors
• 230 entries that include date errors
• 293 miscellaneous errors
• 343 sheets submitted by fraudulent-petition circulators (specifically, Stephen Tinnin,
Yazmine Vassar, Deshawn Evans, Nicholas Carlton, Diallo Vaughn, and William
Williams)
In sum, Ms. Bray challenged 6,065 signatures. However, as stated above, the challenge was not
processed, because the circulators named above are the same ones the staff had already identified
as fraudulent-petition circulators in its own review. Mr. Johnson did not meet the threshold for
certification to the ballot based on the staff’s initial review.
Mr. Johnson’s response to the challenge argued that Ms. Bray could not know that signatures on
the 343 sheets were fraudulent because she does not have access to the Qualified Voter File to
verify signatures. However, the staff’s review of signatures submitted by fraudulent-petition
circulators determined these signatures were invalid.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Determine petition insufficient.
6
EXHIBIT 9
STATE OF MICHIGAN
BUREAU OF ELECTIONS
LANSING
May 23, 2022
STAFF REPORT ON FRAUDULENT NOMINATING PETITIONS
I. Introduction
During review of candidate nominating petitions submitted for the August 2, 2022 Primary
Election, Bureau of Elections (Bureau) staff identified 36 petition circulators1 who submitted
fraudulent petition sheets consisting entirely of invalid signatures. All petition sheets submitted
by these circulators displayed suspicious patterns indicative of fraud, and staff reviewing these
signatures against the Qualified Voter File (QVF) did not identify any signatures that appeared to
be submitted by a registered voter. Taken together, these circulators provided nominating
petitions in at least 10 petition drives. During standard petition review, staff identified the same
circulators in several sets of petitions for which at least 2,000 signatures were required to appear
on the ballot, including candidates for governor, circuit judge, and district judge.
In total, the Bureau estimates that these circulators submitted at least 68,000 invalid signatures
submitted across 10 sets of nominating petitions. In several instances, the number of invalid
signatures submitted by these circulators was the reason a candidate had an insufficient number
of valid signatures. In other instances, while invalid signatures were identified in the candidate’s
filing, the number was insufficient to move the number of signatures below the threshold for
ballot qualification.

Although it is typical for staff to encounter some signatures of dubious authenticity scattered
within nominating petitions, the Bureau is unaware of another election cycle in which this many
circulators submitted such a substantial volume of fraudulent petition sheets consisting of invalid
signatures, nor an instance in which it affected as many candidate petitions as at present.
Because of the pervasiveness of fraudulent petition sheets and the fact that sheets submitted by
the same circulators affected multiple candidates, staff have prepared an omnibus report
documenting the detection of, and staff response to, these petition sheets. The extent to which
each candidate’s ballot qualification is affected by these circulators is proportional to the number
and percentage of these circulator sheets in the candidate’s nominating petition submission. This
report explains how and when staff identified the fraudulent petition sheets, the process
developed to address the fraudulent sheets, and an appendix showing examples of the practices
these circulators used to submit invalid signatures.
1
See Appendix II for list of circulators.
BUREAU OF ELECTIONS
RICHARD H. AUSTIN BUILDING  1ST FLOOR  430 W. ALLEGAN  LANSING, MICHIGAN 48918
Michigan.gov/Elections  517-335-3234
II. Timeline of Detection and Response
The Bureau of Elections accepts filings for candidates seeking election to certain offices in
Michigan. Most candidates make their filings in the two weeks preceding the filing deadline. In
2022, the filing deadline was April 19.2
Given the large number of candidates seeking to qualify for the ballot, Bureau staff began to
review nominating petitions at the end of March, after several gubernatorial candidates had
submitted nominating petitions. During this review, staff noticed a large number of petition
sheets, submitted by certain circulators, appeared fraudulent and consisted entirely of invalid
signatures. These petition sheets tended to display at least one of the following patterns:
• An unusually large number of petition sheets where every signature line was completed,
or where every line was completed but one or two lines were crossed out;3
• Many sheets showing signs of apparent attempts at “intentional” signature invalidity,
including sheets where an entry listed a county in the “city or township” field, or a birth
date rather than the date of signing in the “date” field;4
• An unusually large number of petition sheets that showed no evidence of normal wear
that accompanies circulation, including folding, scuffing, minor water damage from rain,
or any of the other characteristics that come from sheets being kept on clipboards and
handled by multiple people in public or outdoor conditions.
• Sheets that appeared to be “round-tabled” a practice in which a group of individuals
passes around sheets with each individual signing one line on each sheet with
handwriting different from the circulator’s handwriting, in an attempt to make
handwriting and signatures appear authentic and received from actual voters.
• Sheets on which blank and completed lines were randomly interspersed, indicating that a
sheet had been submitted “mid-round-table.” In such cases, a sheet was submitted even
though the round-tabling process had not been completed.
• Sheets where all ten lines had signatures and partial addresses or dates, but only a random

subset were fully completed;
• Sheets on which every instance of the handwriting of certain letters across different
signatory lines and sheets, including in the signatures themselves, was near-identical;5
• Sets of sheets where the two or three distinct handwriting styles appeared on multiple
sheets.6
2
“[N]ominating petitions shall be received by the secretary of state for filing in accordance with this act up to 4 p.m.
of the fifteenth Tuesday before the August primary.” (MCL 168.53)
3
Sheets on which every line is completing are relatively uncommon because of the requirement that voters sign
petition sheets only with a header including the voter’s county of residence. Usually, a circulator gathering
signatures will collect signatures on multiple sheets for multiple counties simultaneously. When the circulator has
completed circulation of those sheets, they will often have a handful of entirely completed sheets and a roughly
equivalent number of partially completed sheets. The fraudulent-petition circulators submitted few sheets with fewer
than ten signatures, and most of the sheets with fewer than ten signatures were the result of signatures crossed out in
black marker rather than any remaining blanks. The cross-out signatures appear to attempts to mimic legitimate
circulators crossing off the names of signatories determined to be ineligible prior to submission.
4
These errors are uncommon but sporadically observed on sheets submitted by typical circulators. In this case they
appear to be an unsuccessful attempt to mimic the difficulties of collecting signatures from real individuals.
5
For example, capital "A" and "H" would be identical across all petition sheets for a given circulator.
6
For example, in one cluster each sheet would have a distinctive slanted signature, a distinctive looping signature,
and a signature that was unusually small.
2
Based on these observations, staff began to compare signatures on the petitions to the QVF.
During its review against the QVF, staff noticed the following:
• Discrepancies in the signature appearing on the petition sheet and the voter’s signature
appearing in the Qualified Voter File;
• An unusually high number of signatures corresponding to addresses where the voter was
previously but not currently registered to vote;7
• An unusually high number of signatures corresponding to formerly registered voters
whose registrations were cancelled because the voter had died months or years prior to
the date of the signature;8
• Several errors in the voters’ names where the name on the petition was spelled differently
than the voters’ registration in the QVF or where the petition used the voter’s middle
name or a diminutive or nickname;
• The jurisdictions listed almost always utilized the mailing address versus the actual
jurisdiction.
After review, staff identified across multiple drives numerous circulators that had submitted
fraudulent signatures and assembled a list of the names of circulators who had signed multiple
petition sheets consisting of invalid signatures. These patters suggest to staff that the fraudulent
circulators were utilizing an outdated mailing list obtained from some source. As more
nominating petitions were submitted, staff continued to identify fraudulent sheets and build the
list of circulators consistently submitting such sheets.
After the April 19, 2022 filing deadline passed, staff scanned and provided copies of nominating
petitions to anyone who had requested copies. As much as possible, staff provides copies of all
requested petitions within 24 hours of receiving the request. Challenges to the sufficiency of
nominating petitions were submitted to the Bureau of Elections by Tuesday, April 26.9 Some
challenges included lists of circulators who challengers alleged had submitted fraudulent petition
sheets. Many of the circulators on the lists included by challengers were the same circulators

staff had identified during the initial review of petitions.10
III. Processing Petition Sheets
The Bureau’s standard approach to processing nominating petitions has two stages. First, staff
“face reviews” every petition sheet and signature for facial compliance with the Michigan
Election Law, which includes: checking that the signature header and the circulator certificate
are properly completed; that each signature is accompanied by an address, name, and date; that
7
Many of these voters had moved years prior to the date they allegedly signed the petition sheet. A large number of
out-of-date addresses is often the result of fraudulent-petition circulators finding names on outdated voter
registration and mailing lists to add to petition sheets.
8
Similar to the outdated addresses, a high frequency of names of deceased individuals indicates that fraudulent-
petition circulators found names to include on petition sheets on an outdated voter registration or mailing list.
9
As in every election cycle, in addition to challenges to petition signatures, a number of challenges were made to
the sufficiency of a candidate’s Affidavit of Identity or Affidavit of Candidacy. These affidavit challenges are
resolved by the Secretary of State in her role as the filing official for these candidates. Just as the Secretary of State
does not determine the sufficiency of a candidate’s nominating petitions, the Board of State Canvassers does not
determine the sufficiency of a candidate’s filed affidavit. For that reason, staff does not address challenges to
affidavits in staff reports presented to the Board.
10
Some circulators who challengers claimed to have submitted fraudulent petitions were reviewed by staff and
found to be legitimate circulators collecting real signatures. For example, one challenge cited Abram Minton, but
staff determined that the signatures on Minton’s petitions sheets did not appear to be forged.
3
the city or township in which the signer claimed to reside was in the county written on the
signature header; and other issues required for a facially valid sheet or signature. During past
face reviews, the Bureau has identified scattered instances of signatures of dubious authenticity,
and upon review of the signature removed these from the total of valid signatures
At the conclusion of stage one (face review), staff determines how many signatures have been
disqualified for facial errors and the calculates the balance of remaining potential valid
signatures remaining. If the candidate now has fewer signatures than the total required to qualify,
the Bureau will recommend that the Board determine the petitions insufficient. If the candidate
has more signatures remaining than the required number to qualify, the Bureau notes the
difference (the “cushion”).
In the second stage, Bureau staff then reviews any challenges to the petition’s sufficiency. If the
number of challenged signatures is larger than the cushion, staff processes the challenge and
determines how many of the challenged signatures were invalid. If the number of challenged
signatures is not larger than the cushion, staff does not process the challenge because the cushion
could not be overcome by the challenge (even if all challenged signatures were invalid, the
candidate would still have enough signatures to qualify).
After reviewing the challenge, if the number of potentially valid signatures remaining on the
candidate’s nominating petitions falls below the threshold required to be placed on the ballot,
staff recommends that the Board of State Canvassers determine the candidate’s petitions to be
insufficient. If, at the time processing was complete, the number of potentially valid signatures
remaining on the candidate’s nominating petitions is above the threshold required to be placed on
the ballot, staff recommends that the Board of State Canvassers certify the candidate’s name to
the ballot.
Because, in the past, the number of signatures of dubious authenticity were typically scattered
throughout petitions and relatively small in number, the Bureau has previously not developed a
separate review procedure for fraudulent petition sheets. Instead, the Bureau would review sheets

and signatures individually if identified during face review or during a challenge. However,
because of the unprecedented number of fraudulent petition sheets consistent of invalid
signatures identified during the initial review of petition sheets submitted this election cycle, and
the fact that the same fraudulent-petition circulators submitted petition sheets for many different
candidates, it was not practical to review these sheets individually during the course of ordinary
face review and challenge processing.
Instead, staff utilized an additional step within the processing method described above. Prior to
face review, staff reviewed each candidate’s petitions for petitions signed by circulators who
were suspected of submitting fraudulent sheets.11 Signatures appearing on these fraudulent sheets
were separated from the remaining petition sheets for each candidate. To verify that these
fraudulent petition sheets did not include sheets or individual signatures that were actually valid
signatures submitted by registered voters, staff conducted a targeted signature check of
11
Additionally, during this review staff flagged the names of additional circulators who submitted forged petition
sheets. These additional names were checked and, if they were determined to have submitted a large number of
entirely forged signature sheets, their names were added to the list of circulators whose petition sheets were pulled
prior to the facial review.
4
signatures across each circulator’s sheets for each candidate to confirm that these circulators’
submissions in fact consisted of fraudulent sheets with invalid signatures.12
The Bureau determined that all reviewed signatures appearing on sheets signed by the
fraudulent-petition circulators were invalid. After petition sheets submitted by the fraudulent-
petition circulators were identified, the number of signatures appearing on those sheets was
totaled and that total was subtracted from the number of signatures submitted by the candidate. If
the candidate had enough potentially valid signatures to remaining to avoid immediate
disqualification, the petitions were then put through the face review and challenge process
described above. If not, Bureau recommended the Board determine the petitions insufficient.
Staff determined that the fraudulent petition sheets consisted of signatures that were invalid
because the petitions consisted of names of voters who were not registered in the appropriate
jurisdiction, or names of valid registered voters with forged signatures. Staff were able to
identify fraudulent petition sheets using a combination of methods. First, staff noted that the
signatures, names, addresses, and dates on many of the fraudulent sheets were obviously signed
by one or a small number of individuals which can be seen in the Upon noticing these
similarities in handwriting, staff began to check individual signatures and voter information
against the Qualified Voter File.
Review showed that a significant percentage of alleged signatories were no longer registered in
the jurisdiction because they had moved from the address marked on the petition sheet months or
years before. Review also revealed that a number of the alleged signatories’ registrations were
cancelled because the individual had died prior to the date of signing. None of the reviewed
signatures appearing on these petition sheets had redeeming qualities demonstrating a match
when compared with the signature on file.
IV. Remedial Action
The Bureau’s review of sheets submitted by fraudulent-petition circulators has resulted in

determinations that many candidates have insufficient petitions for this election. Candidate-level
determinations are described on the staff report for each candidate. Staff are also working with
the Michigan Department of State’s Office of Investigative Services to refer incidents of
apparent fraud to law enforcement for criminal investigation.
At this point, the Bureau does not have reason to believe that any specific candidates or
campaigns were aware of the activities of fraudulent-petition circulators. The Bureau notes the
preponderance of media reports about the difficulty in securing circulators and signatures this
year, given the abundance of petition campaigns nationwide and the continuing lack of in-person
events.13 Reportedly, the average cost of signature gathering rose from $5 to $7 per signature to
$20 per signature. A news article from late 2021 indicates that head of the firm was recruiting
circulators in Florida.14 He previously pled guilty to two counts of election fraud in 2011,15 in
12
If this targeted review showed that a circulator had collected legitimate signatures, the circulator was removed
from the list of fraudulent-petition circulators and signatures appearing on that circulator’s petition sheets were
added back into the universe of potentially valid signatures.
13
Soaring signature costs may bar some candidates from making Michigan ballot | Bridge Michigan
14
Man who broke law gathering voter signatures in VA now doing same work in Florida | WFLA
15
Case #: CR11000315-00 and CR11000316-00
5
which he reportedly instructed two individuals to sign as a witness on dozens of petition sheets
filled with signatures they did not collect.16
The Bureau does recommend that candidates and campaigns implement a quality control process
before filing petitions, and to cross out any invalid signatures proper to submission.17 Regardless
of the level of review candidates conducted before submitting nominating petitions, the Bureau’s
recommendation to the Board is based on the number of valid signatures remaining after review.
16
Head of Signature Collection Firm Pleads Guilty | ARLnow - Arlington, Va. local news
17
See Circulating and Canvassing Countywide Petition Forms (Nominating and Qualifying Petitions), p. 14,
available at https://www.michigan.gov/sos/elections/candidates/filing
6
Appendix I: Examples of Fraudulent Practices
7
1. Identical sheets collected for multiple drives
During the canvass, the Bureau was notified via email by a citizen who indicated that two
judicial candidates running for the same office engaged the same group of fraudulent circulators
staff identified. The email alleged that the pages circulated are nearly identical which caused
Shelton to not submit the signatures. When comparing the pages between the two candidates
below, they are virtually identical with the only differences between the two being the name of
the information in the heading:
8
(Continued: virtually identical petition sheets submitted by the same circulator in the same order
for two different candidates in the same race.)
2. Signatures from voters who have been canceled or have not lived at the address on
the petition for years.
Through its review, staff identified a number of fraudulent signatures that were purported to be
from voters who had been canceled. Voters were canceled for a variety of reasons which
9
included moving out of state and death. Several signatures also listed an address where the voter
has not resided from at least one to eight years prior to signing.
Brown petition sheet 1435, line 6: moved from address listed in 2014.
Brown petition sheet 1291, line 10: died in 2019.
Brown petition sheet 1521, line 9: moved from this address in 2014.
Markey petition sheet 1274, line 5: died 1/2022.
Johnson petition sheet 602, line 6: moved from this address in 2021.
Johnson petition sheet 2068, line 2: canceled.

Malone petition sheet 207, line 8: canceled 2021.
Malone petition sheet 9, line 8: died in 2020.
Malone petition sheet 418, lines 3 and 9: canceled.
Malone petition sheet 659, line 1 and 2: died in 2021 and 2016, respectively:
Malone petition sheet 481, line 2: died in 2018.
Brandenburg petition sheet 233, line 4: died in 2016.
10
3. Signatures where the voter’s name was misspelled or utilized an uncommon
abbreviation
In some cases, the voter’s name is misspelled, either in the signature block or in the block for the
voter’s printed name. The purported name of a registered voter being misspelled is an indicator
of fraud. Although signatures do not need to be legible to be accepted, a large number of petition
sheets across multiple drives contained errors in which the proffered signature appears to have a
different spelling than the printed name - an indicator of fraud.
Johnson petition sheet 736, line 8: voter’s name is Lia and the signature indicates “Lian” or
“Liar.”
Johnson petition sheet 736, line 10: voter’s surname is Ziga and the signature and printed name
indicate “Zigh.”
Johnson petition sheet 723, line 5: voter’s name is Jody and signature and printed name indicate
“Joby.”
Johnson petition sheet 611, line 1: voter’s surname is McDonough and printed name indicates
“McDough.”
Johnson petition sheet 603, line 4: voter’s surname is Breecher and printed name indicates
“Beecher.”

Johnson petition sheet 4043, line 1: voter’s name is Seana and signature and printed name
indicate “Sean.”
Johnson petition sheet 4043, line 3: voter’s name is Bornstein and signature and printed name
indicate “Bornstien.”
Johnson petition sheet 2626, line 3: voter’s name is Vicki but sheet indicates that she signs her
name as “Vicki” but prints it as “Viki.”
Malone petition sheet 206, line 8: voter’s name is Adolfo Gutierrez-Cosme but printed name
indicates “Adolf Cosme.”
Malone petition sheet 243, line 1: voter’s name is Teddy Tue but signature indicates “Telly T.”
11
Malone petition sheet 497, line 4: voter’s name is Brian Lee but signature and printed name
indicate “Bryan Lee.”
Malone petition sheet 208, line 8: voter’s name is Shannon Lemmon but printed name indicates
“Shannon Lemmons.”
An additional anomaly is the use of a first name and last initial as a signature. Using a first initial
and last name (for example, J. Smith) is not uncommon; the inverse (John S.) is rare.
Nonetheless, this unusual combination was included throughout the fraudulent petition sheets,
including the below examples:
Brown petition sheet 31, line 3:
Brown petition sheet 1796, lines 6 and 8:

Markey petition sheet 1274, lines 5 and 6:
4. Misspellings in other fields or mischaracterizations of jurisdictions
In some cases, the name of the voter’s jurisdiction or street was spelled wrong, or the jurisdiction
was mischaracterized. For example, Bloomfield Hills was often written as Bloomfield.
Johnson petition sheet 735, line 8: voter lives on Crossbridge Dr. in Holly and the petition sheet
indicates “Crosshires Dr.” in “Holy.”
12
Johnson petition sheet 731, lines 4 and 7: the city of Clarkston is spelled “Clarksten.”
Additionally, both appear to be written by the same hand.
Johnson petition sheet 4064, line 8: voter lives on Callender St, not “Calender St.”
Johnson petition sheet 611, lines 4 and 8: voters live in Bloomfield Hills and petition sheet
indicates Bloomfield.
In addition to the examples above, throughout the Malone submission, fraudulent-petition

circulator Stephen Tinnin listed their jurisdiction as Brownstone Township instead of
Brownstown Township, as in Malone petition sheets 518, 160, and 342, below.

5. Distinctive flourishes repeated throughout several signatures
Characteristics of certain fraudulent-petition circulators included a distinctive writing slant, use

of certain letters or, in this case the lower-case “f” in Flint and circle instead of a dot over the
lower-case “i.”
Markey petition sheet 2268, line 6:

13
Brandenburg petition sheet 875, line 5:
The 1st and 2nd signatures on Brown petition sheet 1187 and the 4th and 5th signatures on Brown
petition sheet 1356 display the same distinctive flourish across the entire signature. The flourish
does not appear in any of the four signatures in QVF.
The “M” in the 2nd and 10th signatures on Malone petition sheet 714 is also distinctive.
In some cases, rather than attempting varying signatures, the circulator would intentionally
scrawl illegibly for some or all signatures, as on Craig petition sheet 248, below. Staff compared
all of the following signatures against those in the QVF and none had any redeeming qualities.
Additionally, the first signer lives in Farmington Hills, not Farmington.

Craig petition sheet 2548, below, likewise shows consistent use of an intentionally illegible
scrawl. None remotely resembled the signer’s QVF signature.
6. Petition sheets all in the same hand
Some pages are more obvious than others. For instance, at times fraudulent-petition circulators
made little effort to vary handwriting.
Craig petition sheet 887:

14
Malone petition sheet 243:
7. Roundtabled sheets

In other instances, they circulated petition sheets among themselves, each filling out a line. The
petition sheets below are examples sheet that were submitted “mid-round-table.” While most of
the values are completed, the people who were charged with forging the signatures on lines 3, 5,
and 9 of Craig petition sheet 2521 left those spaces blank. There are distinctive patterns between
the completed lines as well.
Below is another example of a sheet that was submitted mid-round-table, where blank and
completed lines were randomly interspersed.
15
8. Examples from other circulators
Staff’s tally for fraudulent-petition circulators and fraudulent signatures likely understates the
total volume. Additional examples of sheets clearly completed by a single hand, or which were
round-tabled, are below. In the second and third example, alternating lines were filled out by
different colored pens to convey randomness. However, similar handwriting is clear across
sheets and especially when the lines completed in a certain color are considered together.
Cox (unnumbered because fraudulent-petition circulators were not enough to place candidate
below minimum signature threshold)
16
Appendix II: List of Circulators Submitting Fraudulent Petitions
The following fraudulent-petition circulators submitted petition sheets across at least 10

campaigns:
Davon Best Teddrick Lee

Siarra Bergami Niccolo Mastromatteo
Antonio Braxton Indira Radcliffe
Brianna Briggs Aaliyah Render
Charles Calvin Priya Render
Nicholas Carlton Indira Roopchard
Jaylynn Casey Giovannee Smith
DeShawn Evans Tremari Smith
Jehvon Evans Ryan Snowden
Justin Garland Stephen Tinnin
Corey Hampton Freddie Toliver
Jonell Hampton Diallo Vaughn
LeVaughn Hearn Yazmine Vasser
Briana Heron William Williams
Aaliyah Ingram
Danyil Lancaster
The following fraudulent-petition circulators submitted petition sheets for a single campaign:
Charlotte Hanover
Violet Rose Edwards
Cory Sims
Crystal Stephens
Siarra Brown

Dashlene Petit Phard
17
EXHIBIT 10
EXHIBIT 11
EXHIBIT 12
Delaney v. Board of State Canvassers, Not Reported in N.W.2d (2016)
2016 WL 3365337
address in the heading of his nominating petition was a fatal

2016 WL 3365337 defect under MCL 168.544c(1), and the Board had no clear
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. duty to certify the petition.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION. CHECK We review a trial court's grant or denial of a writ of mandamus
COURT RULES BEFORE CITING. for an abuse of discretion. Wilcoxon v. City of Detroit Election
Comm., 301 Mich.App 619, 630; 838 NW2d 183 (2013).
UNPUBLISHED Although the underlying question whether the writ should
Court of Appeals of Michigan. issue is reviewed for abuse of discretion, we review de novo
as questions of law whether a defendant has a clear legal
David M. DELANEY, Plaintiff–Appellant, duty to perform and whether a plaintiff has a clear legal right
v. to performance. Id.; Barrow v. Detroit Election Comm., 301
Mich.App 404, 411; 836 NW2d 498 (2013).
BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS and
Secretary of State, Defendants–Appellees. Michigan election law allows an individual who filed a
nominating petition and is aggrieved by a decision of
Docket No. 333410. the Board of Canvassers to seek mandamus relief. MCL
| 168.552(12); Deleeuw v. State Bd. of Canvassers, 263
June 16, 2016. Mich.App 497, 502; 688 NW2d 847 (2004). A plaintiff has
the burden of establishing entitlement to the extraordinary
Ingham Circuit Court; LC No. 16–000440–AA.
remedy of a writ of mandamus. Wilcoxon, 301 Mich.App at
Before: METER, P.J., and BORRELLO and M.J. KELLY, JJ. 632. The plaintiff must show that (1) he has a clear legal right
to the performance of the duty sought to be compelled, (2) the
Opinion defendant has a clear legal duty to perform such act, (3) the
act is ministerial in nature such that it involves no discretion
PER CURIAM. or judgment, and (4) the plaintiff has no other adequate legal
or equitable remedy. Id.
*1 Plaintiff appeals by right the trial court's order denying
his request for mandamus in this election case. We affirm.
Nominating petitions for elective offices “shall be on a form

prescribed by the secretary of state[.]” MCL 168.544d. A
On April 18, 2016, plaintiff timely filed a nominating petition
nominating petition must include the candidate's address.
to become a candidate for the open position of 46th Circuit
MCL 168.544c(1) governs the form and content of a
Court Judge in the August 2, 2016 primary election. The
petition comprised twenty-two nominating petition sheets and nominating petition for nonpartisan elections,1 and provides
223 signatures. In the headings of two of the nominating in pertinent part:
petition sheets, plaintiff's address was incomplete. The sheets
included only plaintiff's 4–digit house number, “2839,”
*2 A nominating petition shall be 8–½ inches by 14 inches
without his street name, “Abbey.” Defendants rejected the
in size.... The name, address, and party affiliation of the
signatures on those sheets, explaining: “On two petition
candidate and the office for which petitions are signed
sheets in the ‘Street Address or Rural Route’ field, the
shall be printed in type not larger than 24–point. [Emphasis
candidate wrote only, '2839_____,' omitting a street name or
added.]
rural route.” As a result, plaintiff's nominating petition had
The Legislature's use of the word “shall” is unambiguous
only 184 valid signatures, short of the 200 signatures required
and denotes mandatory action. Wilcoxon, 301 Mich.App at
to qualify for placement on the primary election ballot.
631; STC Inc. v. Dep't. of Treasury, 257 Mich.App 528,
537; 669 NW2d 594 (2003). The nominating petition form
Plaintiff filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. He asked
under § 544c(1) includes a line designated for filling in the
the trial court to compel defendants to certify his nominating
candidate's “Street Address or Rural Route.”
petition and place his name on the August 2, 2016 primary
Plaintiff's nominating petition sheets that contain only his
election ballot. The court denied the request. The court
house number on the address line do not satisfy the address
determined that plaintiff's failure to include his complete
© 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

Delaney v. Board of State Canvassers, Not Reported in N.W.2d (2016)
2016 WL 3365337
from the nominating petition sheets was apparent on the

requirement. In Stand Up for Democracy v. Secretary of
face of the petition. Accordingly, under § 552(9), the Board
State, 492 Mich. 588; 822 NW2d 159 (2012), our Supreme
was authorized to consider the deficiency. See also Auto
Court interpreted MCL 168.482(2), governing the type size
Club of Mich. Comm. for Lower Rates Now v. Bd. of State
for referendum petitions. The Court held that because the
statute “uses the mandatory term ‘shall’ and does not, by its Canvassers (On Remand), 195 Mich.App 613, 624; 491
plain terms, permit certification of deficient petitions with NW2d 269 (1992) (“the Board of State Canvassers possesses
regard to form or content, ... the doctrine of substantial the authority to consider questions of form, and thus issues
compliance is inapplicable to referendum petitions submitted other than whether there are sufficient valid signatures to
for certification.” Id. at 594. Similarly, MCL 168.544c(1) qualify [an initiative petition] for certification [.]”)2
uses the word “shall” to mandate the content of a nominating
petition to include the candidate's address and does not The omission of plaintiff's complete address from two of the
expressly permit the certification of deficient petitions. The nominating petition sheets rendered those sheets invalid. The
omission of plaintiff's complete address on the nominating trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the requested
petition sheets rendered them defective and defendants had relief because plaintiff failed to establish entitlement to the
no legal duty to accept them for certification. certification of his nominating petition and a duty on the part
of defendants to do so.
We reject plaintiff's challenge to the Board's authority to
review the form and content of his nominating petition in the *3 Affirmed. This opinion shall have immediate effect
context of certifying nominating petitions. MCL 168.552(9) pursuant to MCR 7.215(F)(2).
allows the Board “to consider any deficiency found on the
face” of a petition, if doing so “does not require verification
All Citations
against data maintained in the qualified voter file or in the
voter registration files maintained by a city or township Not Reported in N.W.2d, 2016 WL 3365337
clerk.” In this case, the omission of part of plaintiff's address
Footnotes
1 Circuit court judges are “nominated and elected at non-partisan elections in the circuit in which they reside[.]” Const
1963, art 6, § 12. MCL 168.544a provides that the form of nonpartisan nominating petitions shall be the same as the

form for partisan nominating petitions under MCL 168.544c, except the petitions shall be designated “nonpartisan.” MCL
168.544c(1) prescribes the standards for petition size, form, and content for nominating petitions for partisan offices, and
therefore for nonpartisan offices under § 544a.
2 Plaintiff cites Deleeuw for the proposition that the Board's authority to review nominating petitions is limited to determining
whether they contain enough valid signatures. His reliance on Deleeuw is misplaced. That case involved a challenge to
nominating petitions based on alleged improper motives of the persons circulating the petitions. Deleeuw, 263 Mich.App at
498–500. In that context, this Court stated that the Board's duties under MCL 168.552(8) with regard to qualifying petitions
is “sole[ly] ... to determine whether the signatures on the petitions are valid, including those of the people who circulate the
petitions, whether they are the signatures of registered voters, and whether there are sufficient valid signatures to certify
the petitions.” Id. at 500–501. This Court observed: “There is nothing in the statute that would permit the board to look
behind the signatures to determine the motives of the individual signatories or the motives or desires of the candidate.”
Id. at 501. In contrast, here, the Board's reason for rejecting the petition concerned a facial defect based on the absence
of required information under MCL 168.544c.
End of Document © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.

Government Works.

EXHIBIT 13
League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Secretary of State, --- N.W.2d ---- (2022)
2022 WL 211736
Synopsis
2022 WL 211736
Background: Voter advocacy organizations brought action
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
against Secretary of State, challenging constitutionality of
Supreme Court of Michigan.
election law amendments that limited amount of initiative
petition signatures that could be obtained from each
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS congressional district, required paid petition circulators to
OF MICHIGAN, Progress Michigan, disclose non-volunteer status via pre-circulation affidavit,
Coalition to Close Lansing Loopholes, and and required petition forms to include checkbox indicating
whether circulator was paid or unpaid. Following Department
Michiganders for Fair and Transparent of Attorney General's intervention as defendant, the Court
Elections, Plaintiffs-Appellants, of Claims, Cynthia Diane Stephens, J., 2021 WL 4518981,
v. struck down the geographical limitation as well as the
checkbox requirement, but upheld the affidavit requirement.
SECRETARY OF STATE,
The parties filed cross-appeals, and the Court of Appeals,
Defendant-Appellee, 2021 WL 5048187, affirmed in part and reversed in part.
and Organizations, Attorney General, and Secretary of State each
applied for leave to appeal.
Attorney General, Intervening
Defendant-Appellee.
League of Women Voters of Michigan, Holdings: The Supreme Court, Megan K. Cavanagh, J., held
Progress Michigan, Coalition to Close Lansing that:
Loopholes, and Michiganders for Fair and
[1] statute limiting amount of referendum or initiative petition
Transparent Elections, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
signatures that could be obtained from each congressional
v. district constituted undue burden on voters' exercise of their
Secretary of State, Defendant-Appellee, direct-democracy rights, and thus, was unconstitutional;
and
[2] statute limiting amount of signatures for initiated

Attorney General, Intervening constitutional amendments that could be obtained from
Defendant-Appellant. each congressional district, and accompanying provisions,
constituted an undue burden on state constitution's self-
League of Women Voters of Michigan,
executing voter-initiated constitutional-amendment process;
Progress Michigan, Coalition to Close Lansing
Loopholes, and Michiganders for Fair and [3] as a matter of first impression, checkbox requirement
Transparent Elections, Plaintiffs-Appellees, survived exacting scrutiny under the First Amendment,
abrogating League of Women Voters v. Secretary of State, 331
v. Mich.App. 156, 952 N.W.2d 491;
Secretary of State, Defendant-Appellant,
and [4] state's asserted concerns did not make burdens on First
Amendment rights added by affidavit requirement necessary
Attorney General, Intervening
or appropriate, and thus, requirement was unconstitutional
Defendant-Appellee. and provision making it misdemeanor to provide false
statement on affidavit was not valid; and
Nos. 163711, 163712, 163744,
163745, 163747, and 163748 [5] Supreme Court's holding that checkbox requirement did
| not violate First Amendment would be applied prospectively
Decided January 24, 2022 only.

2022 WL 211736
State election statute limiting amount of

referendum or initiative petition signatures that
Affirmed. could be obtained from each congressional
district constituted undue burden on voters'
Zahra, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting exercise of their direct-democracy rights,
in part, joined by Viviano, J. and thus, was unconstitutional; state
constitutional provision governing initiative and
Bernstein, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and referendum was self-executing, but statute's
dissenting in part. 15% geographic-distribution requirement went
beyond formulating process by which initiative
Clement, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting petitioned legislation would reach legislature
in part. or electorate, and instead imposed additional
substantive requirement that did not advance any
express constitutional requirements, as cap on
West Headnotes (30) how many signatures could come from each
part of state would make it more difficult
and expensive to gather required number of
[1] Appeal and Error Statutory or legislative signatures within required timeframe. Mich.
law Const. art. 2, § 9; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §
Whether statute is constitutional is question of 168.471.
law that an appellate court reviews de novo.
[6] Election Law Constitutional and Statutory

[2] Constitutional Law Clearly, positively, or Provisions
unmistakably unconstitutional The initiative provision set forth in the state
Court presumes that a statute is constitutional constitution serves as an express limitation on the
unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent. authority of the Legislature. Mich. Const. art. 2,
§ 9.

[3] Constitutional Law Facial invalidity
The party challenging the facial constitutionality [7] Constitutional Law Self-Executing
of an act must establish that no set of Provisions
circumstances exists under which the act would Significance of designating constitutional
be valid; the fact that the act might operate provision as self-executing is that, while
unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of implementing legislation is to some extent
circumstances is insufficient. inevitable and necessary, courts will protect
self-executing provision from legislative
1 Cases that cite this headnote encroachment.
[4] Constitutional Law Self-Executing

Provisions [8] Constitutional Law Self-Executing
The legislature may not act to impose additional Provisions
obligations on a self-executing constitutional The only limitation, unless otherwise expressly
provision. indicated, on legislation supplementary to self-
executing constitutional provisions, is that the
right guaranteed shall not be curtailed or any
[5] Election Law Validity undue burdens placed thereon.

2022 WL 211736
Initiative petition circulation is protected by the

[9] Constitutional Law Particular Provisions First Amendment because it is core political
State election statute limiting amount speech that involves both the expression of a
of signatures for initiated constitutional desire for political change and a discussion of
amendments that could be obtained from the merits of the proposed change. U.S. Const.
each congressional district, and accompanying Amend. 1.
provisions, constituted an undue burden
on state constitution's self-executing voter-
initiated constitutional-amendment process; [13] Constitutional Law Political speech,
constitutional requirement for minimum number beliefs, or activity in general
of signatures ensured threshold level of support
Laws that directly or severely burden political
before proposed change to state constitutional
speech are generally subject to strict or exacting
could be submitted to all voters for approval
judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment.
or rejection, and statutory geographic limit
U.S. Const. Amend. 1.
exceeded Legislature's authority to regulate self-
executing constitutional process by imposing
substantive requirement that did not advance
express constitutional requirement, and in [14] Constitutional Law Compelled or forced
fact aligned with proposals that constitutional speech, support, or participation
convention specifically rejected. Mich. Const. Exacting scrutiny under the First Amendment
art. 12, § 2; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 168.471, Free Speech Clause requires a relevant
168.477, 168.482(4). correlation or substantial relation between the
governmental interest and the information
required to be disclosed; that governmental
[10] Constitutional Law Submission to interest must also be sufficiently important and
Popular Vote; Initiative must reflect the seriousness of the actual burden
on First Amendment rights. U.S. Const. Amend.
Generally, the right of qualified voters of the
1.
State to propose amendments to the Constitution
by petition can be interfered with neither by the

legislature, the courts, nor the officers charged
with any duty in the premises. Mich. Const. art. [15] Constitutional Law Initiatives
12, § 2. Election Law Ballot Measures; Initiative
and Referendum in General
States maintain considerable leeway to protect
[11] Constitutional Law Initiative and integrity and reliability of initiative process, as
referendum; direct democracy they have with respect to election processes
Constitutional Law Circulation of generally, and there is difference between
petitions regulations that directly affect core political
speech protected by the First Amendment and
The individual right to solicit signatures to
those that simply regulate mechanics of electoral
qualify an initiative petition is protected by the
process. U.S. Const. Amend. 1.
rights of free expression, assembly, and petition
under state constitution. Mich. Const. art. 1, §§
3, 5.
[16] Constitutional Law Elections in general
Constitutional Law Elections, voting, or
[12] Constitutional Law Circulation of ballot access in general
petitions No bright line separates permissible election-
related regulation from unconstitutional

2022 WL 211736
infringements on First Amendment freedoms, as

even structural decisions may affect individual's [19] Constitutional Law Initiative and
right to speak and associate with others for referendum; direct democracy
political ends. U.S. Const. Amend. 1. Statutes Constitutionality of initiative
statutes
Statutes Constitutionality of referendum
[17] Constitutional Law Political speech, statutes
beliefs, or activity in general Statute requiring a petition that proposes
Where there is no severe burden on a constitutional amendment, initiation of
political speech or regulation is merely one legislation, or referendum on legislation to
of mechanical electoral processes, courts include a checkbox indicating whether the
considering First Amendment challenge to circulator is a paid signature gatherer or a
regulation generally apply more flexible review volunteer signature gatherer, was subject to strict
such as Anderson-Burdick test, which requires scrutiny under the First Amendment; check box
reviewing court to weigh character and requirement compelled the petition circulator to
magnitude of burden state's rule imposes on disclose their status as paid or volunteer at the
those rights against interests state contends same time as the political message was being
justify that burden, and consider extent to which delivered, and thus, it was not a step removed
state's concerns make burden necessary. U.S. from the communicative aspect of petitioning,
Const. Amend. 1. but rather, it was inextricably linked to the
circulator's delivery of core political speech
during a one-on-one discussion of the merits
[18] Constitutional Law Distribution, of the proposed change. U.S. Const. Amend. 1;
solicitation, and circulation Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 168.482(7).
Constitutional Law Initiative and
referendum; direct democracy
[20] Constitutional Law Political speech,
Statutes Constitutionality of initiative
beliefs, or activity in general
statutes
Even if only minimal burdens on core political

Statutes Constitutionality of referendum
speech protected by the First Amendment rights
statutes
are at stake, pursuant to exacting-scrutiny review,
Statute requiring a petition that proposes the state must still have an adequate interest
a constitutional amendment, initiation of in imposing a requirement, and the requirement
legislation, or referendum on legislation to must bear a substantial relationship to that
include a checkbox indicating whether the interest. U.S. Const. Amend. 1.
circulator is a paid signature gatherer or a
volunteer signature gatherer, survived exacting
scrutiny under the First Amendment; given
[21] Election Law Sufficiency
the limited nature of the required disclosure,
seriousness of the actual burden on First The simple interest in providing voters with
Amendment rights caused by statute was so additional relevant information does not justify a
minimal that the governmental interest in state requirement that a writer make disclosures
increasing information for voters justified the in an initiative or referendum petition that she
requirement; abrogating League of Women would otherwise omit.
Voters v. Secretary of State, 331 Mich.App. 156,
952 N.W.2d 491. U.S. Const. Amend. 1; Mich.
Comp. Laws Ann. § 168.482(7). [22] Constitutional Law Circulation of
petitions

2022 WL 211736
Constitutional Law Petitions General rule is that judicial decisions are to be

Statute requiring a paid signature gatherer, given complete retroactive effect.
before circulating any initiative or referendum
1 Cases that cite this headnote
petition, to file a signed affidavit with the
secretary of state that indicates he or she
is a paid signature gatherer, did not burden [25] Courts In general; retroactive or
core political speech, and thus, was subject prospective operation
to flexible Anderson-Burdick test, in which Absent any reason to depart from standard
court would weigh character and magnitude of practice of providing full retroactive effect
burden requirement imposed on those rights to Supreme Court's decisions, Court's holding
against interests state contended justified that that state election statute limiting amount
burden, and consider extent to which state's of signatures for initiated constitutional
concerns made burden necessary, on First amendments that could be obtained from each
Amendment challenge; affidavit requirement congressional district, and statute requiring
was a prerequisite to circulation of a petition a petition that proposes a constitutional
that was a step removed from the communicative amendment, initiation of legislation, or
aspects of petitioning. U.S. Const. Amend. 1; referendum on legislation to include a checkbox
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 168.482a. indicating whether the circulator is a paid
signature gatherer or a volunteer signature
gatherer, were unconstitutional, would be given
[23] Constitutional Law Circulation of full retroactive effect. U.S. Const. Amend. 1;
petitions Mich. Const. art. 2, § 9; Mich. Const. art. 12, § 2;
Constitutional Law Petitions Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 168.471, 168.482a.
Election Law Validity
State's asserted concerns did not make burdens
[26] Courts In general; retroactive or
on First Amendment free speech rights added by
prospective operation
statute requiring paid signature gatherer, before
circulating any initiative or referendum petition, If a decision establishes a new principle of law,
Supreme Court then considers three factors in

to file affidavit with secretary of state that
indicates he or she is a paid signature gatherer, determining whether it applies retroactively: (1)
necessary or appropriate, and thus, statute the purpose to be served by the new rule, (2)
was unconstitutional and provision making it the extent of the reliance on the old rule, and (3)
misdemeanor to provide false statement on the effect of retroactivity on the administration
affidavit was not valid; affidavit did nothing of justice.
to inform general electorate about who may be
funding petition drives, amount of money spent,
or whether a circulator was paid or volunteer, nor [27] Courts In general; retroactive or
did it appear to serve state's interest in verifying prospective operation
campaign-finance disclosures, but it did have Supreme Court's holding that statute requiring
potential to decrease pool of potential circulators a petition that proposes a constitutional
and hinder petition drives that employed paid amendment, initiation of legislation, or
signature gatherers. U.S. Const. Amend. 1; Mich. referendum on legislation to include a checkbox
Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 168.482a, 168.482c. indicating whether the circulator is a paid
signature gatherer or a volunteer signature
gatherer, survived exacting scrutiny under the
[24] Courts In general; retroactive or First Amendment, was a new rule of law, and
prospective operation thus, satisfied threshold question on inquiry
of whether holding should be given full

2022 WL 211736
retroactive effect; although no precedent was

being overruled, it was an issue of first West Codenotes
impression that had been subject to vigorous
Held Unconstitutional
debate essentially since statute was enacted. U.S.
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 168.471, 168.477, 168.482(4),
Const. Amend. 1; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §
168.482a
168.482(7).
Held Invalid
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 168.482c
[28] Courts In general; retroactive or
prospective operation Recognized as Unconstitutional
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 168.472
A rule of law is new for purposes of resolving
the question of its retroactive application either BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH
when an established precedent is overruled or
when an issue of first impression is decided
which was not adumbrated by any earlier
OPINION
appellate decision.
Cavanagh, J.
[29] Courts In general; retroactive or This case involves the validity of amendments to the
prospective operation Michigan Election Law, MCL 168.1 et seq., which have the
ability to affect how millions of Michiganders participate in
Supreme Court's holding that statute requiring a
this state's direct-democracy process. It, therefore, concerns
petition that proposes constitutional amendment,
issues that are of the utmost importance to the constitutional
initiation of legislation, or referendum on
rights of the voters in this state. It is this Court's duty to bring
legislation to include checkbox indicating
finality to these issues with a clear and decisive answer. To
whether circulator is paid signature gatherer or
that end, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ resolution of the
volunteer signature gatherer, did not violate First
constitutionality of the disputed provisions at issue. We agree
Amendment, would be applied prospectively
that the 15% geographic requirement in MCL 168.471, as
only; although giving ruling prospective-only
amended by 2018 PA 608, is unconstitutional, as are the other
application would deprive voters who had

provisions relating to this geographic requirement in MCL
already signed petitions without checkboxes of
168.477 and MCL 167.482(4). Additionally, the affidavit
information about status of circulators, until
requirement that 2018 PA 608 added to MCL 168.482a is
Court of Appeals recently upheld requirement,
unconstitutional. However, the checkbox requirement that
every court that had considered question held
was added to MCL 168.482(7) passes constitutional muster.
that it was unconstitutional, and if decision
We further hold that our decision today will be afforded
were applied retroactively, there would likely
be additional litigation to test its application prospective effect.1
to petition signatures that had already been
gathered. U.S. Const. Amend. 1; Mich. Comp.
Laws Ann. § 168.482(7). I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Our Constitution recognizes three forms of direct democracy.

[30] Courts Previous Decisions as Controlling First, the people have “the power to approve or reject laws
or as Precedents enacted by the legislature, called the referendum.” Const.
1963, art. 2, § 9. Second, the people have “the power
Attorney General's formal opinions do not bind
to propose laws and to enact and reject laws, called the
the courts.
initiative.” Id. Finally, “[a]mendments may be proposed to
this constitution by petition of the registered electors of this
state.” Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2. To avail themselves of these
processes, proponents must gather petition signatures.

2022 WL 211736
three provisions.4 The Attorney General opined that all

*6 To invoke the initiative or referendum, petitions signed
three provisions violated the state and federal Constitutions.
by a number of registered electors, not less than eight
percent for initiative and five percent for referendum of the See OAG, 2019-2020, No. 7,310 (May 22, 2019).5 Like
total vote cast for all candidates for governor at the last in the instant case, a cohort of similar plaintiffs challenged
preceding general election at which a governor was elected the constitutionality of the provisions in the Court of
shall be required. [Const. 1963, art. 2, § 9.] Claims seeking a declaratory judgment consistent with OAG,
To initiate a constitutional amendment, “[e]very petition 2019-2020, No. 7,310. Litigation ensued, raising largely the
shall ... be signed by registered electors of the state equal in same issues we decide today, as well as other issues that are no
number to at least 10 percent of the total vote cast for all longer relevant to the instant dispute. Eventually, however, the
candidates for governor at the last preceding general election lead plaintiff in that litigation abandoned its ballot initiative
at which a governor was elected.” Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2. in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, making the issues
moot and leaving no party with standing to pursue the appeal.
The Constitution gives the Legislature a role in regulating all Declining to issue an advisory opinion, this Court vacated
three processes. It is directed to “implement the provisions of” the lower-court decisions and remanded those cases to the
the section on referendum and initiative, Const. 1963, art. 2, § trial court to be dismissed. League of Women Voters of Mich.
9, while petitions for a constitutional amendment “shall be in v. Secretary of State, 506 Mich. 561, 571, 957 N.W.2d 731
the form, and shall be signed and circulated in such manner, (2020).
as prescribed by law,” Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2. The Michigan
Election Law, MCL 168.1 et seq., designates the Secretary of *7 On February 8, 2021, the instant plaintiffs filed a
State as the official with whom such petitions are to be filed. new complaint in the Court of Claims challenging the
See MCL 168.471. The Secretary of State then submits the constitutionality of 2018 PA 608. The Department of the
petitions to the Board of State Canvassers, MCL 168.475(1), Attorney General intervened to defend the laws, and the
which “canvass[es] the petitions to ascertain if the petitions Michigan House and Senate participated as amici curiae.
have been signed by the requisite number of qualified and Cross-motions for summary disposition were filed. On July
registered electors,” MCL 168.476(1), and then “make[s] an 12, 2021, the Court of Claims struck down the geographical
official declaration of the sufficiency or insufficiency of a limitation in MCL 168.471 as well as the checkbox
petition,” MCL 168.477(1). requirement of MCL 168.482(7); however, it upheld the
affidavit requirement, MCL 168.482a, as constitutional.
In December 2018, the Legislature adopted and the Governor

signed into law Public Act 608. It made three relevant changes Both plaintiffs and defendants appealed, and the Court of
to the procedures regulating the referendum, initiative, and Appeals consolidated the appeals. Plaintiffs filed a bypass
constitutional-amendment process. First, it amended MCL application in this Court under MCR 7.305(C)(1)(a), but
168.471 to require that, when “determin[ing] the validity the Department of the Attorney General, as intervening
of a petition,” “[n]ot more than 15% of the signatures defendant,6 did not join in that request. This Court granted
to be used ... shall be of registered electors from any 1 immediate consideration, but denied bypass and directed the
congressional district.”2 Second, it amended MCL 168.482 Court of Appeals to expedite its consideration. League of
by adding Subsection (7), which changed the required Women Voters of Mich. v. Secretary of State, ––– Mich. ––––,
form of petitions to include checkboxes “to clearly indicate 963 N.W.2d 377 (2021). On October 29, 2021, the Court of
whether the circulator of the petition is a paid signature Appeals affirmed in part the Court of Claims’ opinion striking
as unconstitutional the geographic limitation in MCL 168.471
gatherer or a volunteer signature gatherer.”3 Finally, it added
and the requirement in MCL 168.482(4) that petitions include
MCL 168.482a, which provides in Subsection (1) that paid
language identifying the signer's congressional district. The
signature gatherers “must, before circulating any petition, file
majority opinion also reversed the Court of Claims as to
a signed affidavit with the secretary of state that indicates he
the checkbox and affidavit requirements, holding that the
or she is a paid signature gatherer”; subsequent subsections
checkbox requirement in MCL 168.482 was constitutional,
set out consequences for noncompliance.
but that the affidavit requirement in MCL 168.482a overly
burdened the free-speech rights of the petitions’ sponsors.
In January 2019, the Secretary of State requested that the
League of Women Voters of Mich. v. Secretary of State,
Attorney General advise her on the constitutionality of these

2022 WL 211736
––– Mich.App. ––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––, 2021 WL 5048187 Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697
(2021) (Docket Nos. 357984 and 357986). (1987) (alterations in Council of Orgs.). Our task, then, is
to determine whether 2018 PA 608 is unconstitutional in the
Plaintiffs applied for leave to appeal in this Court on abstract, rather than to “analyze the statute ‘as applied’ to the
November 2, 2021, arguing that the checkbox requirement, particular case.” Crego v. Coleman, 463 Mich. 248, 269, 615
MCL 168.482(7), was unconstitutional. They also moved for N.W.2d 218 (2000).
immediate consideration and expedited briefing and argument
and requested a decision by December 31, 2021. Intervening
defendant, the Department of the Attorney General, applied
III. THE GEOGRAPHIC-DISTRIBUTION
for leave to appeal on November 15, 2021, asking this Court
REQUIREMENT
to reverse the Court of Appeals as to the 15% geographic
requirement, MCL 168.471, and the affidavit requirement, We turn first to the requirements of MCL 168.471 and
MCL 168.482a. Defendant Secretary of State also applied for MCL 168.477 that no more than 15% of the signatures
leave to appeal on November 15, 2021, simply requesting required to invoke direct democracy can be gathered from one
that this Court apply any decision prospectively in light of congressional district. Plaintiffs challenged this requirement
the fact that there are several petitions already in circulation as a violation of the Michigan Constitution. This Court has
that have sought to comply with changing standards. The explained:
Court has also received amicus curiae briefs from the Board
of State Canvassers, the Michigan Senate and House of Our primary goal in construing a constitutional provision
Representatives, and two ballot-question committees, Secure is to give effect to the intent of the people of the state of
MI Vote and Unlock Michigan. We now consider the three Michigan who ratified the Constitution, by applying the
applications together, as well as the other briefing submitted, rule of “common understanding.” We locate the common
affirm the Court of Appeals as to the constitutionality of understanding of constitutional text by determining the
each provision, and hold that our decision shall be applied plain meaning of the text as it was understood at the time
prospectively only. of ratification. Interpretation of a constitutional provision
also takes account of “the circumstances leading to the
adoption of the provision and the purpose sought to
be accomplished.” The Address to the People, which
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL
was distributed to Michigan citizens in advance of the
STANDARDS

ratification vote and which explained in everyday language
[1] [2] Whether a statute is constitutional is a question what each provision of the proposed new Constitution
of law that we review de novo. McDougall v. Schanz, 461 was intended to accomplish, and, to a lesser degree,
Mich. 15, 23, 597 N.W.2d 148 (1999). We presume that the constitutional convention debates are also relevant to
a statute is constitutional “unless its unconstitutionality is understanding the ratifiers’ intent. [Mich. Coalition of State
clearly apparent.” Id. at 24, 597 N.W.2d 148. Employee Unions v. Michigan, 498 Mich. 312, 323-324,
870 N.W.2d 275 (2015) (citations omitted).]
*8 [3] Plaintiffs presented a facial challenge to the
constitutionality of 2018 PA 608. “[A] statute comes [4] We have previously held that both the section of
clothed in a presumption of constitutionality” because we our Constitution governing the power of referendum and
presume that “the Legislature does not intentionally pass an initiative, Const. 1963, art. 2, § 9, and the section providing
unconstitutional act.” Cruz v. Chevrolet Grey Iron Div. of for citizen-initiated constitutional amendment, Const. 1963,
Gen. Motors Corp, 398 Mich. 117, 127, 247 N.W.2d 764 art. 12, § 2, are self-executing. Wolverine Golf Club v.
(1976). “The party challenging the facial constitutionality of Secretary of State, 384 Mich. 461, 466, 185 N.W.2d
an act ‘must establish that no set of circumstances exists under 392 (1971); Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v.
which the [a]ct would be valid. The fact that the ... [a]ct Secretary of State, 503 Mich. 42, 63, 921 N.W.2d 247 (2018).
might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set “It is settled law that the legislature may not act to impose
of circumstances is insufficient ....’ ” Council of Orgs. & additional obligations on a self-executing constitutional
Others for Ed. About Parochiaid, Inc. v. Governor, 455 Mich. provision.” Wolverine Golf Club, 384 Mich. at 466, 185
557, 568, 566 N.W.2d 208 (1997), quoting United States v. N.W.2d 392 (quotation marks and citation omitted). That

2022 WL 211736
said, the constitutional text for referendums and initiatives is Even so, the Legislature has adopted several valid
distinct from the text for constitutional amendments, so we rules for direct-democracy petitions—deadlines, type-size
consider them separately. requirements, and the like—that are not set out in the
Constitution. To truly make sense of the scope of this power to
“implement,” we must understand this section in the context
of what it replaced. The original referendum and initiative
A. REFERENDUMS AND INITIATIVES
provisions in Michigan were amendments of the legislative
[5] [6] As indicated, the Michigan Constitution reserves vesting clause; while Const. 1908, art. 5, § 1 originally did no
to the people the ability to approve legislation that the more than vest the Legislature with the legislative power of
Legislature has already adopted (the referendum), and to the state, an amendment ratified by the voters in 1913 added
propose laws to the Legislature and enact them if the some 1,300 words of additional detail clawing back from
Legislature refuses (the initiative). Const. 1963, art. 2, § 9. the Legislature the right of the people themselves to initiate
Direct democracy in Michigan is a series of powers that legislation and approve legislation enacted by the Legislature:
the people have reserved to themselves from the Legislature.
The initiative found its birth in the fact that political parties
“The initiative provision set forth in art. 2, § 9 ... serves as
repeatedly made promises to the electorate both in and out
an express limitation on the authority of the Legislature.”
of their platforms to favor and pass certain legislation for
Woodland v. Mich. Citizens Lobby, 423 Mich. 188, 214, 378
which there was a popular demand. As soon as election
N.W.2d 337 (1985). However, the Legislature is directed to
was over their promises were forgotten, and no effort was
“implement the provisions” of Const. 1963, art. 2, § 9.
made to redeem them. These promises were made so often
and then forgotten that the electorate at last through sheer
*9 The Legislature's power and duty to “implement” Const.
desperation took matters into its own hands and constructed
1963, art. 2, § 9 does not support an ability to enact the 15%
a constitutional procedure by which it could effect changes
geographic-distribution requirement. Looking first to the text
in the Constitution and bring about desired legislation
of the provision, the word “implement” means “[t]o put into
without the aid of the legislature. [Hamilton v. Secretary of
practical effect; carry out[.]” American Heritage Dictionary
State, 227 Mich. 111, 130, 198 N.W. 843 (1924) (opinion
of the English Language (5th ed.).7 It carries the connotation of Bird, J.).]
that some received set of rules is being carried out, not that a It was in this atmosphere of mistrust that the people ratified
new set of rules is to be created. In keeping with this vision an amendment to the Constitution that specified such details
of a limited role for the Legislature, Const. 1963, art. 2, § 9 as the size of the type to be used (and its color), various

says that “[t]he power of referendum ... must be invoked in the required aspects of the form of petition certificates, extensive
manner prescribed by law within 90 days following the final deadlines, and so on. We therefore held from early on that the
adjournment of the legislative session at which the law was provision was self-executing:
enacted.” (Emphasis added.) This language has significance
because, as this Court has recognized: *10 The section of the Constitution under consideration
is not a mere statement of principles. On the contrary, it
The committee on style and drafting of the constitutional points out in detail the various steps to be taken in referring
convention of 1961 made a distinction in the use of the an act of the legislature to the electors, and undoubtedly
words “prescribed by law” and the words “provided by intends that the conduct of the election and the canvass
law.” Where “provided by law” is used, it is intended that and return of votes shall be in accordance with the general
the legislature shall do the entire job of implementation. laws of the State. And the legislature in its session of 1915
Where only the details were left to the legislature and made certain amendments to the general election laws, with
not the over-all planning, the committee used the words the evident purpose of adapting them more fully to the
“prescribed by law.” [Beech Grove Inv. Co. v. Civil Rights requirements of the referendum. Perhaps further action by
Comm., 380 Mich. 405, 418-419, 157 N.W.2d 213 (1968).] the legislature may be advisable in aid of the constitutional
This text empowers the Legislature only to adopt rules that provision; but, so far as the proceedings are under review in
further the principles already set forth in Const. 1963, art. 2, this case, the course to be taken is plainly pointed out, and
§ 9—which has no geographic-distribution requirement. this court should not, at the present time, enter into a minute
investigation for the purpose of discovering whether there
may not be somewhere in the election laws an inapplicable

2022 WL 211736
provision, or a step not clearly provided for. [Thompson Secretary of State, 24 Mich.App. 711, 728-729, 180 N.W.2d
v. Secretary of State, 192 Mich. 512, 520, 159 N.W. 65 820 (1970), aff'd 384 Mich. 461, 185 N.W.2d 392 (1971)
(1916).] (“[T]he term ‘self-executing’ ... cloak[s] the [constitutional]
provision with the necessary characteristics to render its
When this constitutional material was reviewed at the most express provisions free from legislative encroachment.”).
recent constitutional convention, it was substantially slimmed “The only limitation, unless otherwise expressly indicated,
down to the language we have now. As the Address to the on legislation supplementary to self-executing constitutional
People said, the revision “eliminat[ed] much language of a provisions is that the right guaranteed shall not be curtailed
purely statutory character.” 2 Official Record, Constitutional or any undue burdens placed thereon.” Hamilton, 227 Mich.
Convention 1961, p. 3367. at 125, 198 N.W. 843 (opinion of Bird, J.) (quotation marks
and citation omitted).
Matters of legislative detail contained in the present section
of the constitution are left to the legislature. The language *11 Our inquiry, therefore, must be concerned with whether
makes it clear, however, that this section is self-executing a particular law constitutes an “undue burden” on voters’
and the legislature cannot thwart the popular will by exercise of their direct-democracy rights. We have said that
refusing to act. [Id.] the Legislature's power to implement direct democracy is “a
It is in this context, then, that the Legislature was directed to directive to the legislature to formulate the process by which
“implement the provisions of this section,” Const. 1963, art. 2, initiative petitioned legislation shall reach the legislature or
§ 9.8 The Legislature was empowered to, in effect, prescribe the electorate.” Wolverine Golf Club, 384 Mich. at 466, 185
the sorts of details that had previously been written directly N.W.2d 392. The clearest examples of legislation that the
into the Constitution—deadlines, type sizes, requirements of Legislature can adopt to “implement” direct democracy are
form, and so on. As the chair of the committee on legislative the sorts of requirements that were formerly provided in the
powers reported to the convention when the language was Constitution of 1908—type size, the timeline for circulating
first considered: petitions, the duties of state officials in processing petitions
that have been submitted, and so on.
The committee is of the opinion there is much within the
existing section 1 of a purely legislative character and The 15% requirement in MCL 168.471, by contrast, does not
therefore several exclusions and changes are suggested. merely fill in necessary details, but rather adds a substantive
obligation. Soutar v. St. Clair Co. Election Comm., 334 Mich.
***

258, 265, 54 N.W.2d 425 (1952) (When “the language of
Removed from constitutional status are the provisions on the Constitution is self-executing,” “[o]bligations other than
content and time of filing petitions, canvassing of names on those so imposed may not be added.”). The primary reason
petitions, type sizes, and right of the legislature to prescribe for a constitutionally required signature floor for referendums
penalties.... and initiatives is to establish a minimum level of support
for a proposed change in the law before it is presented
All of these matters are left to the legislature in the last to the Legislature or to all Michigan voters for approval
sentence. However, the language of the last sentence also or rejection. By choosing a statewide minimum number of
makes it clear that the section is self executing and the signatures without a geographic cap, the people demonstrated
legislature cannot thwart popular will by refusing to act. [2 their intent to allow a relatively small coalition of voters from
Official Record, Constitutional Convention 1961, p. 2392.] a concentrated geographic area to propose changes to the law,
with the understanding that such proposals will not become
[7] [8] It is clear that the original referendum and law without the approval of the Legislature or a majority of
initiative provisions of the Constitution of 1908 were the voters in a statewide election.
self-executing, and the Constitution of 1963 maintained
that self-executing status. The significance of designating A cap on how many signatures can come from each part
a constitutional provision as self-executing is that, while of the state undermines the intentions described above in
implementing legislation is to some extent inevitable and several regards. The cap would undoubtedly make it more
necessary, the courts will protect a self-executing provision difficult and expensive to gather the required number of
from legislative encroachment. See Wolverine Golf Club v. signatures within the time frame required by Michigan's

2022 WL 211736
election laws because signature gatherers would need to cover

a larger swath of terrain. Perhaps more importantly, the related
enforcement provisions would effectively ensure that some
B. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
voters’ signatures would be rendered void merely because
they were obtained after the 15% cap for that district had been [9] As noted, the 15% geographic-distribution requirement
reached, something that voters are unlikely to know when applies to all three forms of direct democracy in Michigan.
signing a petition. Such disenfranchisement would weigh We have addressed the two provided for in Const. 1963,
most heavily on those residing in more densely populated art. 2, § 9 and determined that the geographic limit is
parts of the state, and it would run directly contrary to the unconstitutional. However, the third form of direct democracy
clear intention that nothing more than a minimum number —initiated constitutional amendments—is provided for in
of signatures from the statewide population is necessary to Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2, and the constitutional language is
propose changes to Michigan's laws. As the Court of Appeals somewhat different. Intervening defendant argues that even
noted, this will “have the effect of reducing the ‘total quantum if the 15% requirement as applied to Const. 1963, art. 2, §
of speech,’ ” League of Women Voters, ––– Mich.App. at 9 is invalid, the language of Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2 allows
––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––, slip op. at 12, during an election for it to be validly applied as to petitions for constitutional
cycle rather than increasing it and would restrict the powers amendments. Specifically, Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2 provides
of direct democracy that the people reserved to themselves. that a petition to initiate an amendment “shall be in the
form, and shall be signed and circulated in such manner, as
Indeed, we concluded in Wolverine Golf Club that even a prescribed by law.” We now consider whether this specific
statutory recitation of the requirements of the Constitution of authority to prescribe the manner of signing and circulating
1908 is not proper if on-the-ground conditions do not demand the petition gives the Legislature broader authority to regulate
it. Under the Constitution of 1908, initiative proposals needed initiated constitutional amendments.
to be submitted at least 10 days before the beginning of
the legislative session at which they were to be considered. Much as with Article 2, § 9, the text of Article 12, § 2 indicates
The Michigan Election Law was drafted to track this that the Legislature lacks this power. Critically, the text says
constitutional requirement. MCL 168.472. But circumstances that the Legislature may “prescribe[ ] by law” the form of
have changed since 1908—the Legislature has gone from petitions and the manner in which they are to be signed and
meeting for a few months every other year to nearly the circulated. As already noted, we held in Beech Grove Inv.
entire calendar year of every year. As a result, the purpose Co., 380 Mich. at 419, 157 N.W.2d 213, that this “prescribed

of requiring that initiative proposals be submitted before the by law” phrasing was used “[w]here only the details were
legislative session begins has been obviated, and when the left to the legislature and not the over-all planning ....” It is
Constitution of 1963 removed the 10-day requirement, we more than a mere “detail,” or a matter of “functional detail”
struck down MCL 168.472 as unconstitutional, because it as Justice Zahra suggests in his partial dissent, to require
“restricts the utilization of the initiative petition and lacks any that signatures be distributed geographically in addition to
current reason for so doing.” Wolverine Golf Club, 384 Mich. requiring an overall raw total. As we explained in Part
at 466, 185 N.W.2d 392.9 III(A), the 15% geographic-distribution requirement does not
merely restrict where signatures of Michigan citizens may
*12 In sum, we conclude that the 15% geographic- be collected; it limits from whom they may be gathered.
distribution requirement does not merely “implement the Thus, it is a limitation of a substantive right that his partial
provisions” of Const. 1963, art. 2, § 9. The constitutional text dissent significantly undervalues by dismissing it as a mere
does not provide for such a requirement, and the Legislature's “procedural” requirement akin to the timing requirements at
power (and duty) to prescribe details in furtherance of issue in Consumers Power Co. v. Attorney General, 426 Mich.
the constitutional processes does not extend this far. The 1, 392 N.W.2d 513 (1986).10
15% requirement goes beyond “formulat[ing] the process
by which initiative petitioned legislation shall reach the *13 That said, as with the legislative initiative and the
legislature or the electorate,” Wolverine Golf Club, 384 Mich. referendum, the Legislature no doubt has some power to
at 466, 185 N.W.2d 392, and instead imposes an additional prescribe laws not specified in the four corners of the
substantive requirement that does not advance any of the constitutional text. The evolution of Michigan's constitutional
express constitutional requirements. text provides a clue to the proper scope of the Legislature's

2022 WL 211736
authority. The first direct-democracy process in Michigan law in nature. But since this is a provision in derogation of the
was established in the Michigan Constitution of 1908, which power of the legislature, so to speak, it seemed desirable
allowed citizens to initiate constitutional amendments. Const. that it be self executing in nature, and that is why there is
1908, art. 17, § 2. The 1908 Constitution contained some 500 still a great deal of material here but far less than there was
words detailing the required content of petition forms, the before. [Id. at 2460.]
duties of the Secretary of State when petitions were submitted,
the election processes to use in submitting proposals to the Indeed, the most extensive debate at the convention about
electorate, and so forth. Id. And this constitutional section was this section was over the number of signatures to require.
further expanded by amendment in 1913. Given this extensive Some delegates wanted an absolute cap on the number of
level of detail, we held that signatures necessary to put a measure on the ballot, while
others preferred the 10% threshold, meaning the qualifying
[t]he constitutional provision contains procedural rules, figure would roughly increase with the state's population.
regulations, and limitations; it maps the course and marks Obviously, the sentiment in favor of an absolute cap did not
the way for the accomplishment of an end; it summons no prevail, see id. at 3199, but the discussion suggests that the
legislative aid and will brook no elimination or restriction delegates only contemplated the raw number of signatures
of its requirements; it grants rights on conditions expressed, as the hurdle that amendment proponents would need to
and if its provisions are complied with and its procedure overcome. Indeed, on two separate occasions, the convention
followed its mandate must be obeyed. Its provisions are ... voted down geographic-distribution requirements, rejecting
self-executing. [Hamilton, 221 Mich. at 544, 191 N.W. 829 proposals to cap the share of signatures that any given
(emphasis added).] county could contribute at 10%, id. at 2465-2469, and 25%,
id. at 3200-3201. The criticism of these proposals was not
It was in light of this background that the convention drafted grounded in a sense that this was a detail that should be left
Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2. Much as with initiatives and to the Legislature, but rather that they were substantively
referendums, the convention affirmatively introduced a role
unacceptable.11 It is hard to read this action by the convention
for the Legislature to play—prescribing by law the form
and conclude that a geographic-distribution requirement
of initiative petitions and how the petitions must be signed
was contemplated as the sort of detail the Legislature was
and circulated. But as with initiatives and referendums, it
used the “prescribed by law” phrasing, signifying that “only empowered to fill in.12
the details were left to the legislature”—which is exactly
what the Address to the People said. See 2 Official Record, *14 [10] In sum, we have always understood the section

Constitutional Convention 1961, p. 3407 (“Details as to form on citizen-initiated constitutional amendments to be self-
of petitions, their circulation and other elections procedures executing—meaning the Legislature is constrained from
are left to the determination of the legislature.”). As the encroaching upon it just as the Legislature is constrained from
committee report on the proposed language noted at the encroaching upon the statutory initiative and referendum.
convention, the proposal had “the aim of eliminating matters “Of the right of qualified voters of the State to propose
which we were convinced were statutory detail ....” Id. at amendments to the Constitution by petition it may be said,
2459. A committee member noted: generally, that it can be interfered with neither by the
legislature, the courts, nor the officers charged with any
The proposal that has just been read by the secretary duty in the premises.” Scott v. Secretary of State, 202 Mich.
eliminates a great deal of material that was previously in the 629, 643, 168 N.W. 709 (1918). We have confirmed that
constitution. We have tried to include the bare skeleton of the alterations made in the 1963 Constitution did not change
the provision in order to still keep it self executing without the self-executing character of this section. See Ferency v.
providing all the varied material as to how names are to Secretary of State, 409 Mich. 569, 591 n 9, 297 N.W.2d 544
be set forth and all of this type of thing which is presently (1980) (“While some of the legislation-like procedural detail
provided for in the statutes of this state. It was the opinion was eliminated in the 1963 Constitution, much was retained
of the committee that in the event the legislature refused with the express purpose of preserving the self-executing
to act to provide the things that are called for here by this character.”); Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution, 503
constitution that in one way or another it would still be Mich. at 63, 921 N.W.2d 247. While the 1963 Constitution
possible to get an amendment on the ballot with the amount did add a role for the Legislature to play, the constitutional
of material which is still left, which is still greatly statutory text and convention debates point to a limited role for

2022 WL 211736
the Legislature, and we have said that “the principle that issue in Consumers Power Co..14 It does not align with any
the Legislature may not unduly burden the self-executing of the aspects of statutory detail that were in the Constitution
constitutional procedure applies equally to both” initiated of 1908 and removed when the Constitution of 1963 was
legislation and initiated constitutional amendments. Ferency, proposed and ratified. Rather, it aligns with proposals that
409 Mich. at 591 n 10, 297 N.W.2d 544. the convention specifically rejected, apparently, in no small
part out of concerns that such requirements would reduce
We have already held that this geographic-distribution or enhance the political power of Michiganders on the basis
requirement is an undue burden on the exercise of the of the location of their residence. We agree with Justice
legislative initiative (and referendum) power, and we likewise Zahra that Article 12, § 2 requires a proposed constitutional
conclude that it is an undue burden on the constitutional- amendment to be supported by “registered electors of the
amendment initiative power. We have suggested that the state equal in number to at least 10 percent of the total vote
clearest examples of requirements that the Legislature can cast” for governor in the last election. But the Constitution
provide by statute under Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2 are of requires nothing more than this minimum level of support
the sort that Const. 1908, art. 17, § 2 formerly provided from the electorate as a whole, and it does not require
directly in the Constitution itself. See Citizens for Capital that such support be evenly distributed in geographic terms.
Punishment v. Secretary of State, 414 Mich. 913, 914 (1982) Accordingly, we conclude that it is an undue burden on the
(“The relevant provisions of the 1908 Constitution described Constitution's self-executing voter-initiated constitutional-
in detail the form and manner for the signing of petitions....
amendment process.15
[T]he Legislature has provided those details [by statute] as
contemplated by art. 12, § 2 of the 1963 Constitution.”). It
is true that the current constitutional language “summons ...
legislative aid,” Hamilton, 221 Mich. at 544, 191 N.W. 829, IV. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
in a way that the Constitution of 1908 did not, and it was
on this basis that we upheld, in Consumers Power Co., *15 [11] Although plaintiffs’ challenge to the 15% cap is
the constitutionality of 1973 PA 112, which established a grounded in the Michigan Constitution, its challenge to the
rebuttable presumption that petition signatures older than 180 disclosure requirements in 2018 PA 608 is grounded in federal
days had been given by someone no longer registered to vote constitutional law. While “[t]he Michigan Constitution has
in Michigan. But in that case, we noted that “[t]he purpose of been interpreted as affording broader protection of some
the statute is to fulfill the constitutional directive of art. 12, § individual rights also guaranteed by the federal constitution's
Bill of Rights,” it “has never been so interpreted in the free

2 that only the registered electors of this state may propose
a constitutional amendment.” Consumers Power Co., 426 expression and petition context.” Id. at 202, 378 N.W.2d 337.
Mich. at 8, 392 N.W.2d 513. No such constitutional directive Accordingly, while the “individual right to solicit signatures
to qualify an initiative petition is protected by the rights of
is at issue here.13
free expression, assembly, and petition, guaranteed in [Const.
1963, art. 1, §§ 3 and 5],” Woodland, 423 Mich. at 215, 378
Much as with the legislative initiative, then, we hold that
N.W.2d 337, we look to federal jurisprudence to analyze the
the 15% geographic-distribution requirement goes beyond
disclosure requirements.
the Legislature's power under Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2
to prescribe the “form” of petitions and the “manner” of
[12] [13] [14] Petition circulation is protected by the
their signing and circulation. The constitutional text does
First Amendment because it is “core political speech” that
not provide for such a distribution requirement, and in fact,
“involves both the expression of a desire for political change
similar concepts were expressly rejected at the convention.
and a discussion of the merits of the proposed change.”
As with legislative initiatives, the constitutional requirement
Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 421-422, 108 S.Ct. 1886, 100
for a minimum number of signatures ensures a threshold
L.Ed.2d 425 (1988). Laws that directly or severely burden
level of support before a proposed change to our state's
political speech are generally subject to strict or exacting
Constitution can be submitted to all voters for approval or
judicial scrutiny. Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm., 558
rejection. The 15% requirement exceeds the Legislature's
U.S. 310, 340, 130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010). A
authority to regulate a self-executing constitutional process
plurality of the United States Supreme Court recently clarified
by imposing a substantive requirement that does not advance
that “compelled disclosure requirements are reviewed under
the express constitutional requirement—unlike the law at
exacting scrutiny.” Americans for Prosperity Foundation v.

2022 WL 211736
Bonta, 594 U.S. ––––, ––––, 141 S.Ct. 2373, 2383, 210 processes, courts generally apply a more flexible review such
L.Ed.2d 716 (2021) (opinion of Roberts, C.J.); but see id. as the Anderson-Burdick test.16 This test requires a reviewing
at ––––; 141 S.Ct. at 2390 (Thomas, J., concurring in part court to “weigh the character and magnitude of the burden
and concurring in the judgment) (“Laws directly burdening the State's rule imposes on those rights against the interests
the right to associate anonymously, including compelled the State contends justify that burden, and consider the extent
disclosure laws, should be subject to the same scrutiny as to which the State's concerns make the burden necessary.”
laws directly burdening other First Amendment rights.”); Timmons, 520 U.S. at 358, 117 S.Ct. 1364 (quotation marks
id. at ––––; 141 S.Ct. at 2393 (Alito, J., concurring in and citations omitted).
part and concurring in the judgment) (“I am not prepared
at this time to hold that a single standard applies to all
disclosure requirements” because there was “no need to
decide which standard should be applied here or whether A. THE CHECKBOX REQUIREMENT
the same level of scrutiny should apply in all cases in
*16 [18] Pursuant to 2018 PA 608, MCL 168.482(7) now
which the compelled disclosure of associations is challenged
requires a petition that proposes a constitutional amendment,
under the First Amendment.”). Exacting scrutiny requires
initiation of legislation, or referendum on legislation to
“a ‘relevant correlation’ or ‘substantial relation’ between
include “at the top of the page check boxes and statements
the governmental interest and the information required
printed in 12-point type to clearly indicate whether the
to be disclosed.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 64, 96
circulator of the petition is a paid signature gatherer or a
S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (citations omitted). That
volunteer signature gatherer.” Any signature obtained on a
governmental interest must also be “sufficiently important”
petition that does not comply with the checkbox requirement
and “must reflect the seriousness of the actual burden on First
in MCL 168.482(7) “is invalid and will not be counted.” MCL
Amendment rights.” Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 196, 130
168.482(8). If this requirement imposes an impermissible
S.Ct. 2811, 177 L.Ed.2d 493 (2010) (quotation marks and
burden on political speech, then it must be struck down.
citations omitted).
Somewhat instructive is the Supreme Court's decision in
[15] [16] [17] However, states maintain “considerable
Buckley, 525 U.S. 182, 119 S.Ct. 636, 142 L.Ed.2d 599.
leeway to protect the integrity and reliability of the
In that case, the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality
initiative process, as they have with respect to election
of a Colorado statute that required petition circulators to
processes generally.” Buckley v. American Constitutional Law
“wear identification badges stating their names, their status

Foundation, 525 U.S. 182, 191, 119 S.Ct. 636, 142 L.Ed.2d
as ‘VOLUNTEER’ or ‘PAID,’ and if the latter, the name
599 (1999). And there is a difference between regulations
and telephone number of their employer[.]” Id. at 188, 119
that directly affect core political speech and those that simply
S.Ct. 636. The federal district court struck the provision, and
regulate the “mechanics of the electoral process.” McIntyre
the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
v. Ohio Elections Comm., 514 U.S. 334, 345, 115 S.Ct.
affirmed, explaining that “the badge requirement force[d]
1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995); see also Buckley, 525 U.S.
circulators to reveal their identities at the same time they
at 207-208, 119 S.Ct. 636 (Thomas, J., concurring). “No
deliver their political message,” at a time “when the reaction
bright line separates permissible election-related regulation
to their message may be the most intense, emotional, and
from unconstitutional infringements on First Amendment
unreasoned.” American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc.
freedoms,” Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520
v. Meyer, 120 F.3d 1092, 1102 (CA 10, 1997), aff'd sub
U.S. 351, 359, 117 S.Ct. 1364, 137 L.Ed.2d 589 (1997), as
nom. Buckley, 525 U.S. 182, 119 S.Ct. 636, 142 L.Ed.2d
even structural decisions may affect an individual's right to
speak and associate with others for political ends, Anderson 599 (1999).17 The Supreme Court echoed those concerns:
v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 75 L.Ed.2d “The injury to speech is heightened for the petition circulator
547 (1983). The Supreme Court has left the determination of because the badge requirement compels personal name
the appropriate level of scrutiny open-ended, noting that there identification at the precise moment when the circulator's
is “no substitute for the hard judgments that must be made.” interest in anonymity is greatest.” Buckley, 525 U.S. at 199,
Buckley, 525 U.S. at 192, 119 S.Ct. 636 (quotation marks and 119 S.Ct. 636 (emphasis added).
citation omitted). Where there is no severe burden on political
speech or the regulation is merely one of mechanical electoral [19] Similar to the badge requirement in Buckley, the
checkbox requirement in MCL 168.482(7) compels the

2022 WL 211736
petition circulator to disclose their status as paid or volunteer *17 Second, plaintiffs also argue that the checkbox's “size
at the same time the political message is being delivered. and location will discourage signing by triggering hostility
It is not a “step removed from the communicative aspect to paid circulators.” As the Court of Appeals recognized,
of petitioning ....” Doe, 561 U.S. at 213, 130 S.Ct. 2811 while a circulator's paid status may cause some persons not to
(Sotomayor, J., concurring). Instead it is inextricably linked engage with the circulator, it might also provide an incentive
to the circulator's delivery of “core political speech” during a for others to sign a petition to help someone who is just “
one-on-one “discussion of the merits of the proposed change.” ‘doing their job.’ ” Id. at ––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––, slip op.
Meyer, 486 U.S. at 421, 108 S.Ct. 1886. Accordingly, at 19 (opinion of the Court). That being said, the Court of
we conclude that it is subject to exacting-scrutiny review. Appeals noted that the checkbox could create administrative
Therefore, we must determine whether it is substantially burdens for petition sponsors by making them ensure that
related to a sufficiently important governmental interest, checkboxes are adequately marked in order for them to avoid
weighing the strength of the interest against the seriousness being thrown out under MCL 168.482a(4). In sum, for the
of the burden on First Amendment rights. Doe, 561 U.S. at sake of argument, we will assume that the checkbox imposes
196, 130 S.Ct. 2811 (opinion of the Court). some direct but minimal burden on core political speech.
We begin with the alleged burden imposed by MCL [20] Even if only minimal burdens are at stake, pursuant
168.482(7). Plaintiffs contend that it will discourage to exacting-scrutiny review, the state must still have an
participation in the petition-circulation process just as the adequate interest in creating the checkbox requirement, and
name-badge requirement in Buckley did. Similarly, they also the checkbox must bear a substantial relationship to that
argue that the checkbox's “size and location will discourage interest. Intervening defendant contends that the checkbox
signing by triggering hostility to a paid circulator.” provides “valuable information to the electors,” explaining:
First, we reject the argument that the checkbox requirement It is no secret that financial incentives can alter individuals’
is analogous to the name badge at issue in Buckley. In that priorities—it may well be that electors see a volunteer as
case, the Colorado law required petition circulators to wear more committed to the cause they are circulating petitions
a badge disclosing their name and whether they were paid or for, and thus more worthy of their support. On the other
volunteer (and if paid, by whom). Buckley, 525 U.S. at 197, hand, an elector could view a paid circulator as evidence
119 S.Ct. 636. The Court, however, confined its review to that the petition drive is well-funded, more likely to
whether requiring that circulators disclose their names was succeed, and therefore more worthy of support. Either way,
the result is more relevant information for the electorate.

constitutional. Id. at 197, 200, 119 S.Ct. 636. In holding
that the requirement was unconstitutional, the Court noted Similarly, the Court of Appeals concluded that “transparency
its agreement with the lower courts that the requirement in the political process, especially transparency that permits
“force[d] circulators to reveal their identities at the same time voters to ‘follow the money,’ is a compelling state interest.”
they deliver their political message,” which is when “reaction League of Women Voters, ––– Mich.App. at ––––, ––– N.W.2d
to the circulator's message is immediate and may be the most ––––, slip op. at 18. The United States Supreme Court has
intense, emotional, and unreasoned,” exposing circulators to repeatedly held that increasing the amount of information
“ ‘heat of the moment’ harassment.” Id. at 198-199, 119 available to the voters is a legitimate state interest. See,
S.Ct. 636 (quotation marks and citations omitted). These risks e.g., McConnell v. Federal Election Comm., 540 U.S. 93,
are not nearly as apparent here—circulators are not being 196, 124 S.Ct. 619, 157 L.Ed.2d 491 (2003) (holding that
forced to reveal anything as personal as their identity or their “providing the electorate with information” is an “important
employer, and they are therefore not subject to the same sort state interest[ ]”), overruled on other grounds by Citizens
of personalized heat-of-the-moment harassment. Moreover, United, 558 U.S. at 365, 130 S.Ct. 876; Eu v. San Francisco
as the concurring judge below observed, plaintiffs provide no Co. Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 228, 109
evidence to support the proposition that a checkbox disclosure S.Ct. 1013, 103 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989) (“Certainly the State has
would hinder petition-gathering companies from recruiting a legitimate interest in fostering an informed electorate.”);
and retaining paid circulators. League of Women Voters, Buckley, 424 U.S. at 76, 96 S.Ct. 612 (upholding a law whose
––– Mich.App. at ––––, ––– N.W.2d –––– (Cameron, J., purpose was “to insure that the voters are fully informed”).
concurring). “In the election context, disclosure requirements serve the
important function of transparency ....” Libertarian Party of
Ohio v. Husted, 751 F.3d 403, 413 (CA 6, 2014); see also

2022 WL 211736
Citizens in Charge v. Gale, 810 F.Supp.2d 916, 928 (D.Neb, requirement of MCL 168.482a does not pass constitutional
2011) (upholding a provision similar to MCL 168.482(7)). muster, and therefore we affirm the judgment of the Court of
Appeals despite rejecting some of its analysis.
[21] In other contexts, such as whether personal or
demographic information is disclosed, it might be a closer call [23] First we consider the character and magnitude of the
on whether a general interest in providing “information” to burden imposed. Timmons, 520 U.S. at 358, 117 S.Ct. 1364.
the electorate can survive exacting scrutiny. As Justice Alito We note that that the affidavit required by MCL 168.482a
has observed: is only required to be filed by paid signature gatherers and
thus imposes additional hurdles on causes furthered by groups
Were we to accept respondents’ asserted informational who might rely on professional petition circulators. See Riley
interest, the State would be free to require petition v. Nat'l Federation of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781,
signers to disclose all kinds of demographic information, 799, 108 S.Ct. 2667, 101 L.Ed.2d 669 (1988). Additionally,
including the signer's race, religion, political affiliation, because signature gathering often operates on fairly short time
sexual orientation, ethnic background, and interest-group
lines,18 the requirement that a new employee file an affidavit
memberships. [Doe, 561 U.S. at 207, 130 S.Ct. 2811 (Alito,
before they may begin gathering signatures is likely to hinder
J., concurring).]
the ability to obtain the requisite number of signatures.
“The simple interest in providing voters with additional
Paid circulators are often seasonal or temporary employees,
relevant information does not justify a state requirement that
and there is no licensing requirement for this line of work.
a writer make ... disclosures she would otherwise omit.”
Circulators also might not reside in the county (or even the
McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 348, 115 S.Ct. 1511. However, given
state) where signatures are being collected. Completing an
the limited nature of the disclosure, we conclude that the
affidavit in front of a local notary and then filing it with the
“seriousness of the actual burden” on First Amendment
Secretary of State before a single signature can be gathered
rights caused by the checkbox requirement is so minimal
is a substantial burden and precondition on one's ability to
that a governmental interest in increasing information for
engage in political speech. We therefore reject intervening
voters justifies the requirement. Doe, 561 U.S. at 196,
defendant's suggestion that the affidavit is merely a “minor
130 S.Ct. 2811 (opinion of the Court) (quotation marks
administrative burden.”
and citations omitted). Therefore, we conclude that MCL
168.482(7) survives exacting scrutiny, and we affirm the
Second, we must consider the interests that the state contends
Court of Appeals.
justifies these burdens. Timmons, 520 U.S. at 358, 117 S.Ct.

1364. According to intervening defendant, the precirculation
affidavit promotes greater transparency and it also ensures
B. THE AFFIDAVIT REQUIREMENT ballot integrity by allowing the state to locate paid circulators
and verify campaign-finance reporting. Like the Court of
*18 [22] An entirely new provision to the Michigan Appeals, however, we struggle to understand how the
Election Law was added by 2018 PA 608: MCL 168.482a. affidavit serves any asserted state interest.
This section requires a paid signature gatherer, “before
circulating any petition, [to] file a signed affidavit with To begin, unlike the checkbox requirement, the affidavit
the secretary of state that indicates he or she is a paid requirement of MCL 168.482 does nothing to increase
signature gatherer.” MCL 168.482a(1) (emphasis added). transparency or provide information to the potential signer
Any signature obtained on a petition by a paid circulator who of a petition. It is not immediately clear that the information
has not filed the precirculation affidavit “is invalid and must
in the affidavit would be available to the public,19 and it
not be counted.” MCL 168.482a(2). Unlike the checkbox
would not need to be, as the checkbox requirement would
requirement, the affidavit requirement is a prerequisite to
readily inform the elector of the circulator's status as paid
circulation of a petition that is a “step removed from the
or volunteer. Also, ballot-question petitions must include
communicative aspects of petitioning.” Doe, 561 U.S. at 213,
information about the proponent of the petition drive under
130 S.Ct. 2811 (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (quotation marks
the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, MCL 169.201 et seq.
and citation omitted). As it does not directly burden core
(stating in MCL 169.247(1) that “printed matter having
political speech, we apply the flexible Anderson-Burdick test.
reference to ... a ballot question, shall bear upon it an
However, even under this more relaxed standard, the affidavit
identification that contains the name and address of the person

2022 WL 211736
paying for the matter”). By including this information along requirement necessary or appropriate. Timmons, 520 U.S.
with the checkbox, petitions already adequately inform voters at 358, 117 S.Ct. 1364. In other words, when weighing
about what special-interest groups are involved in gathering the burdens on First Amendment rights with the state's
signatures for a particular cause. asserted interest, we conclude that the burden eclipses the
nominal interest. The affidavit does nothing to inform the
*19 “Disclosure of the names of initiative sponsors, and general electorate about who may be funding petition drives,
of the amounts they have spent gathering support for their the amount of money spent, or whether a circulator is
initiatives,” is a state interest that we are willing to recognize paid or volunteer, nor does it appear to serve the state's
because it provides the electorate with information and interest in verifying campaign-finance disclosures. However,
exposes special interests who may bankroll a petition drive. it does have the potential to decrease the pool of potential
Buckley, 525 U.S. at 202-203, 119 S.Ct. 636. However, as circulators and hinder petition drives that employ paid
the Court of Appeals recognized, the Michigan Campaign signature gatherers. For these reasons, we affirm the Court of
Finance Act already requires ballot-question committees to Appeals’ holding that MCL 168.482a is unconstitutional.22
report the names, addresses, and amounts contributed by
financial supporters, as well as whether they hire a firm that
employs paid circulators. See MCL 169.226(1)(b) through
(j); MCL 169.206. Intervening defendant suggests that the V. PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION
affidavit requirement is rationally related to the state's interest
*20 [24] It is well established that “the general rule is
in “verifying campaign-finance reporting”; however, we need
that judicial decisions are to be given complete retroactive
not decide whether this justification could survive scrutiny
effect.” Hyde v. Univ. of Mich. Bd. of Regents, 426 Mich.
because the MCL 168.482a affidavit does not require the
223, 240, 393 N.W.2d 847 (1986). “However, where injustice
circulator to disclose whom they are employed or paid by.20 might result from full retroactivity, this Court has adopted a
more flexible approach, giving holdings limited retroactive or
More importantly, just as the precirculation timing of prospective effect.” Lindsey v. Harper Hosp., 455 Mich. 56,
the affidavit requirement works to impose a burden on 68, 564 N.W.2d 861 (1997).
First Amendment-related activity, its timing also serves to
demonstrate the lack of state interest. Intervening defendant [25] The Secretary of State urges this Court to give our
suggests that the affidavit allows the state to locate paid decision prospective effect. In her application, she explains
circulators, but the MCL 168.482a affidavit requires only that the 15% requirement has never been enforced in reliance

the circulator's signature and the attestation that they are a on OAG, 2019-2020, 7,310 and subsequent court opinions.
paid signature gatherer. It does not require any identifying The affidavit requirement has only been enforced since
information. Conversely, completed petitions are required to July 12, 2021, when the Court of Claims upheld it as
provide the circulator's signature, name, and residence as constitutional. And the checkbox requirement was not subject
part of the certificate of circulator located at the bottom to enforcement until the Court of Appeals upheld it as
of a petition sheet, MCL 168.544c(1), and a checkbox constitutional on October 29, 2021. Because we agree with
indicating whether the circulator was paid for their service. the lower courts as to the unconstitutionality of MCL 168.471
MCL 168.482(7).21 This raises questions about how the and MCL 168.482a, we need not depart from our standard
affidavit would assist the Secretary of State in locating paid practice of providing retroactive effect regarding those two
circulators. It is not apparent why the state would need to, provisions. Instead our focus is on whether enforcement of the
as suggested by intervening defendant, locate paid circulators checkbox's constitutionality should be afforded prospective-
before signatures are even gathered and turned in or how only effect as, according to the Secretary of State, two
the state would be able to do so. The timing of the affidavit petitions currently in circulation do not contain the checkbox
also distinguishes this case from the affidavit mentioned in requirement of MCL 168.482(7), while one petition that
Buckley, 525 U.S. at 191 n 10, 119 S.Ct. 636, and upheld in received preliminary approval does contain a checkbox but
Husted, 751 F.3d at 413, both of which required affidavits to has not yet begun circulation.
be filed at the time the petition was submitted.
[26] Our test for deciding retroactivity questions was most
In sum, we conclude that the state's asserted concerns do clearly laid out in Pohutski v. Allen Park, 465 Mich. 675,
not make the burdens added by the precirculation affidavit 641 N.W.2d 219 (2002). In that case, we noted that there is a

2022 WL 211736
“threshold question whether the decision clearly establishe[s] to the extent of the reliance on the old rule, it is important
a new principle of law.” Id. at 696, 641 N.W.2d 219, citing to note that until the Court of Appeals recently upheld the
Riley v. Northland Geriatric Ctr. (After Remand), 431 Mich. checkbox requirement every court that had considered the
632, 645-646, 433 N.W.2d 787 (1988) (opinion of Griffin, J.). question held that MCL 168.482(7) was unconstitutional.24
If a decision establishes a “new principle of law,” we then Further, the Board of State Canvassers, while not required to
consider three factors: “(1) the purpose to be served by the do so by statute, has long offered the opportunity to ballot
new rule, (2) the extent of the reliance on the old rule, and proposal committees to have their petitions preliminarily
(3) the effect of retroactivity on the administration of justice.”
approved as to form prior to circulation in order to prevent
Pohutski, 465 Mich. at 696, 641 N.W.2d 219, citing People v. the late discovery of defects in those forms—discoveries
Hampton, 384 Mich. 669, 674, 187 N.W.2d 404 (1971). that, without preapproval, might not be detected until after
circulation is complete. Here, after the Court of Claims held
[27] [28] The threshold question, then, is whether a that the checkbox requirement was unconstitutional, under the
decision amounts to a new rule of law. “A rule of law is law in effect at the time, the Board approved the petitions
new for purposes of resolving the question of its retroactive of two ballot-question committees, amici curiae Unlock
application ... either when an established precedent is Michigan and Secure MI Vote, whose petitions lack paid
overruled or when an issue of first impression is decided circulator checkboxes. The committees’ reliance on the “old
which was not adumbrated by any earlier appellate decision.” rule” and use of the now-defective petitions, therefore, was
People v. Phillips, 416 Mich. 63, 68, 330 N.W.2d 366 (1982). understandable given the Board's approval of their petitions.
Here, while no precedent is being overruled, this is an issue The committees did what they could to ensure compliance
of first impression that has been subject to vigorous debate with the law by seeking and obtaining preapproval of their
essentially since 2018 PA 608 was enacted. We therefore
petitions from the Board.25 We reject the argument that these
conclude that the threshold question has been satisfied.
committees assumed the risk that the form of their petitions
without checkboxes would be deficient when they began their
[29] We then turn to the three-factor test.23 We conclude that petition drives before a final resolution on the merits could
under the unique circumstances presented in this case, which be reached regarding the challenges in this litigation. Again,
materially affect the right of the people to exercise direct the people reserved the right to govern themselves through
democracy, the test points toward prospective application of the process of direct democracy. Michigan's citizens should
our decision here. Generally speaking, the purpose served not be expected to sideline their rights to participate in direct
by the checkbox is to allow the public to be more informed democracy while waiting for a final determination on the

about the paid or volunteer status of circulators when legality of contested legislation through the oftentimes long
solicited to sign a petition. Giving our ruling prospective-only and arduous process of litigation.
application, therefore, will deprive voters who have already
signed petitions without checkboxes of this information. In Moreover, we have an interest in avoiding a disruption in
other words, the voters who have signed those petitions will the administration of justice. Were this decision applied
not be afforded the same amount of information as those retroactively to these parties, we would at minimum face the
who sign petitions going forward. That said, the effect of near certainty of additional litigation to test its application
this factor is somewhat diminished by the fact that some to petition signatures that have already been gathered. A
voters who have signed petitions without a checkbox may petition's failure to strictly comply with MCL 168.482(7)
have done so knowing that the circulator was paid or would would arguably be grounds to throw it out. See Stand
have signed the petition regardless of the circulator's status Up for Democracy v. Secretary of State, 492 Mich. 588,
because they agreed with the petitions’ substance or that 601-602, 822 N.W.2d 159 (2012). This would cause serious
it concerned a topic worthy of statewide consideration. confusion for voters who have already signed the petitions
Prospective application of our decision allows signatures currently in circulation. A person may sign a petition only
obtained on petitions without a checkbox—some of which once, MCL 168.482(5); therefore, invalidating signatures
may nevertheless have been obtained on petitions with a already collected on checkbox-lacking petitions would make
checkbox—to remain valid. collecting them again difficult, as signatories may refuse to
engage with the circulator on the ground that they had already
*21 [30] Nonetheless, the remaining two factors outweigh signed the petition. This would infringe the electors’ rights to
the countervailing consideration under the first factor. As communicate and speak by petition.

2022 WL 211736
requirement violates Const. 1963, art. 2, § 9 and Const.

Under these unique circumstances, we conclude that our 1963, art. 12, § 2 as unduly burdening their direct-democracy
test for prospective-only application has been satisfied. We rights and that the checkbox and affidavit requirements
hold that our decision will not apply to direct-democracy violate their rights of free speech, association, and petition
signatures gathered before the effective date of this opinion. under the United States and Michigan Constitutions.1 The
That does not mean that the proponents may continue to Department of the Attorney General, intervening on behalf of
circulate defective petitions—any signature gathered after the Secretary of State, disagrees, arguing that plaintiffs have
January 24, 2022, must be on a petition that conforms to the failed to meet their heavy burden of establishing that these
requirements of MCL 168.482(7).26 provisions are facially unconstitutional.
Although I concur with the majority opinion that the

geographic-distribution requirement in 2018 PA 608 is
VI. CONCLUSION
unconstitutional as to initiatives and referendums under
*22 We affirm the Court of Appeals’ opinion. As to Const. 1963, art. 2, § 9, I respectfully dissent from the
the merits of 2018 PA 608, we hold that its geographic- majority's conclusion that this requirement is unconstitutional
distribution requirement for direct-democracy signatures (the as to voter-initiated constitutional amendments under Const.
15% cap) violates the Michigan Constitution. We also 1963, art. 12, § 2. Rather, the requirement that no more
hold that its precirculation affidavit requirement for paid than 15% of signatures on petitions seeking to amend
circulators is unconstitutional. The checkbox requirement, the Michigan Constitution, the supreme law of this state,
however, passes constitutional muster. Finally, in light of the be from any one congressional district is a matter of
chaos and injustice that would ensue were we to give this circulation left for the Legislature to prescribe. My conclusion
opinion retroactive effect, we hold that today's decision must is consistent with the ratifiers’ common understanding of
be given prospective effect only. Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2—that voter-initiated constitutional
amendments are reserved for substantial matters worthy of
constitutional elevation rather than routine policy matters
normally addressed through legislation and, therefore, it
Bridget M. McCormack, C.J., Richard H. Bernstein (except should be more difficult to amend the Constitution than to
as to Part IV(A)), Elizabeth T. Clement (except as to Parts propose, approve, or reject legislation—and does not conflict
IV(B) and V), Elizabeth M. Welch, JJ., concur and agree. with the self-executing nature of Article 12, § 2. Therefore,

I conclude that the geographic-distribution requirement is a
Zahra, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
valid legislative measure under Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2 and
In 2018, the Legislature enacted into law 2018 PA 608,
that plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the requirement
which imposed new requirements for gathering signatures
clearly conflicts with the text of Article 12, § 2 so as to render
on petitions for statewide ballot proposals, including
it constitutionally infirm.
initiatives, referendums, and constitutional amendments.
Three aspects of 2018 PA 608 are at issue in this appeal:
*23 Further, while I concur with the majority opinion that
(1) a provision allowing no more than 15% of petition
signatures for a statewide ballot proposal to be obtained the checkbox requirement is constitutional, I dissent from
the majority's conclusion that the affidavit requirement is
in any one congressional district (“geographic-distribution
facially unconstitutional. Like the checkbox requirement, the
requirement”), (2) a provision requiring that petitions include
affidavit requirement imposes minimal burdens on petition
checkboxes to indicate whether the petition circulator is a paid
circulators, it does not bar paid petition circulation altogether,
or volunteer signature gatherer (“checkbox requirement”);
and it does not chill or deter paid circulators from speaking.
and (3) a provision requiring that all paid signature gatherers
The affidavit requirement also serves the important state
file an affidavit with the Secretary of State indicating that
interests of preserving the integrity of the electoral process
the person is a paid signature gatherer before circulating
by detecting and deterring fraud, as well as assisting in
any petitions (“affidavit requirement”). PA 608 provides that
the discovery of invalid signatures. Therefore, I conclude
signatures collected in violation of any of these provisions
that both the checkbox and affidavit requirements pass
are invalid and may not be counted. Plaintiffs argue that
constitutional muster under the exacting-scrutiny standard of
these aspects of 2018 PA 608 are facially unconstitutional.
review.
Specifically, plaintiffs argue that the geographic-distribution

2022 WL 211736
only the judicial power.”9 However, because “the Legislature

Finally, I concur with the majority's decision to give our
cannot ... ‘trump’ the Michigan Constitution,”10 and “it is
opinion prospective effect. Relying on the imprimatur of the
unquestioned that the judiciary has the power to determine
Board of State Canvassers and following the Court of Claims’
opinion that the checkbox requirement was unconstitutional, whether a statute violates the constitution,”11 this Court can
two ballot-question committees began circulating petitions nullify statutes to the extent that they are unconstitutional.12
without checkboxes. After the Court of Appeals upheld the Nevertheless, the judiciary must exercise caution in striking
constitutionality of this requirement, these committees sought down statutes enacted by the representatives of the people
the Board's approval for updated petition forms that included and must do so only if it is clear that the statute violates the
checkboxes. The Director of Elections recommended that the Constitution.
Board approve the committees’ updated petition forms. But
the Board, after urging from plaintiffs’ counsel, inexplicably *24 We exercise the power to declare a law
declined to approve them. This created an untenable situation unconstitutional with extreme caution, and we never
for these committees, who have attempted to conform exercise it where serious doubt exists with regard to the
their conduct to the law at every stage of this litigation. conflict. Every reasonable presumption or intendment must
To now require their petitions to contain checkboxes—a be indulged in favor of the validity of an act, and it is
requirement that, at the time they initially obtained the Board's only when invalidity appears so clearly as to leave no
approval, was deemed by the judiciary to be unconstitutional room for reasonable doubt that it violates some provision
—is exactly the type of unique and limited circumstance of the Constitution that a court will refuse to sustain its
warranting prospective-only application. validity.[13]
This Court does not have the authority to strike down statutes
merely because it disagrees with their wisdom or prudence.
I. JUDICIAL REVIEW
Our task, under the Constitution, is the important, but yet
The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that
limited, duty to read and interpret what the Legislature has
this Court reviews de novo.2 “In analyzing constitutional actually made the law. We have observed many times in
challenges to statutes, this Court's ‘authority to invalidate the past that our Legislature is free to make policy choices
laws is limited and must be predicated on a clearly apparent that, especially in controversial matters, some observers
demonstration of unconstitutionality.’ ”3 “[T]he burden of will inevitably think unwise. This dispute over the wisdom

proving that a statute is unconstitutional rests with the party of a law, however, cannot give warrant to a court to overrule
challenging it.”4 Here, plaintiffs bring forth a facial challenge the people's Legislature.[14]
to various provisions of 2018 PA 608. “A party challenging
the facial constitutionality of a statute faces an extremely *25 Accordingly, it is a matter of significant constitutional
rigorous standard, and must show that no set of circumstances moment when the judiciary countermands, and renders null
exists under which the act would be valid.”5 “The fact that the and void, the considered enactments of the Legislature.
act might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable
set of circumstances is insufficient.”6
II. GEOGRAPHIC-DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENT
“We require these challenges to meet such a high standard
because ‘[s]tatutes are presumed to be constitutional, and we
A. DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN MICHIGAN
have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless its
unconstitutionality is clearly apparent.’ ”7 The “legislative Although Michigan primarily follows the republican form
power is the power to make laws,” and the “judicial power” of representative lawmaking,15 it also contains important
8 aspects of direct democracy; that is, the people's power to
is the power to “interpret[ ] the law ....” “In accordance
with the constitution's separation of powers, this Court cannot bring matters of public policy directly to the people for a
revise, amend, deconstruct, or ignore the Legislature's product vote. Three forms of direct democracy are at issue this appeal:
and still be true to our responsibilities that give our branch the initiative and the referendum, in the legislative context,

2022 WL 211736
and the ability to propose amendments to the Michigan election at which the proposed amendment is to be voted
16
Constitution. The people's power to propose new laws by upon.[18]
petition (the initiative) and to approve or reject laws enacted
by the Legislature (the referendum) is preserved in Const. *26 These rights have a long history in Michigan, and
1963, art. 2, § 9, which provides, in relevant part: “[t]his Court has a tradition of jealously guarding” them
against needless government encroachment.19 Yet they are
The people reserve to themselves the power to propose
not unfettered. The text of these constitutional provisions
laws and to enact and reject laws, called the initiative,
plainly requires a minimum number of signatures from the
and the power to approve or reject laws enacted by the
registered electors of the state to invoke the people's direct-
legislature, called the referendum. The power of initiative
democracy rights, and each provision contemplates a specific
extends only to laws which the legislature may enact under
role for the Legislature in regulating the processes. “Thus, just
this constitution. The power of referendum does not extend
as the people have enacted the former authority, so too have
to acts making appropriations for state institutions or to
meet deficiencies in state funds and must be invoked in they enacted the latter constraint.”20
the manner prescribed by law within 90 days following the
final adjournment of the legislative session at which the
law was enacted. To invoke the initiative or referendum, B. 2018 PA 608
petitions signed by a number of registered electors, not
less than eight percent for initiative and five percent for MCL 168.471 sets forth petition-filing deadlines for
referendum of the total vote cast for all candidates for initiatives, referendums, and voter-initiated constitutional
governor at the last preceding general election at which a amendments. 2018 PA 608 amended MCL 168.471 to
governor was elected shall be required. provide, in relevant part:
*** Not more than 15% of the signatures to be used to

determine the validity of a petition described in this section
The legislature shall implement the provisions of this shall be of registered electors from any 1 congressional
section.[17] district. Any signature submitted on a petition above the
limit described in this section must not be counted. When
The people's power to propose constitutional amendments filing a petition described in this section with the secretary
by petition (voter-initiated constitutional amendments) is of state, a person must sort the petition so that the petition

preserved in Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2, which provides, in signatures are categorized by congressional district. In
relevant part: addition, when filing a petition described in this section
with the secretary of state, the person who files the petition
Amendments may be proposed to this constitution by must state in writing a good-faith estimate of the number
petition of the registered electors of this state. Every
of petition signatures from each congressional district.[21]
petition shall include the full text of the proposed
amendment, and be signed by registered electors of the
Plaintiffs contend that this requirement violates Const. 1963,
state equal in number to at least 10 percent of the total vote
art. 2, § 9 and Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2 because it exceeds
cast for all candidates for governor at the last preceding
the Legislature's authority under the plain language of those
general election at which a governor was elected. Such
provisions and unduly burdens and restricts the people's
petitions shall be filed with the person authorized by law
ability to initiate change by way of initiatives, referendums,
to receive the same at least 120 days before the election
and voter-initiated constitutional amendments. Intervening
at which the proposed amendment is to be voted upon.
defendant argues that the geographic-distribution requirement
Any such petition shall be in the form, and shall be signed
falls squarely within the Legislature's authority to regulate the
and circulated in such manner, as prescribed by law. The
process of direct democracy and that plaintiffs have failed to
person authorized by law to receive such petition shall upon
carry their heavy burden of showing the requirement facially
its receipt determine, as provided by law, the validity and
violates Article 2, § 9 or Article 12, § 2. The Court of Claims
sufficiency of the signatures on the petition, and make an
granted summary disposition to plaintiffs, striking down
official announcement thereof at least 60 days prior to the
the geographic-distribution requirement as unconstitutional

2022 WL 211736
under both provisions. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Our “Where ‘provided by law’ is used, it is intended that the
task is to determine whether this requirement violates Article legislature shall do the entire job of implementation. Where
2, § 9, Article 12, § 2, or both. only the details were left to the legislature and not the over-
all planning, the committee used the words ‘prescribed by
law.’ ”27 According to the drafters’ intended meaning of
C. THE TEXT OF THE MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION “prescribed by law,” then, the Legislature must prescribe the
DEMONSTRATES THAT THE GEOGRAPHIC- details by which petitions for constitutional amendments are
DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENT IS CONSTITUTIONAL to be signed and circulated under Article 12, § 2.28
UNDER CONST. 1963, ART. 12, § 2 BUT NOT UNDER
CONST. 1963, ART. 2, § 9 *28 But while both Article 2, § 9 and Article 12, § 2
contemplate a set of rules being received by the Legislature,
“The primary objective in interpreting a constitutional it is important that only Article 12, § 2 expressly tasks the
provision is to determine the text's original meaning to the Legislature with prescribing the details by which petitions
ratifiers, the people, at the time of ratification.”22 “The proposing constitutional amendments are to be signed and
lodestar principle is that of ‘common understanding,’ the circulated. At the time the 1963 Michigan Constitution was
sense of the words used that would have been most obvious ratified and in the years that followed, to “circulate” meant,
to those who voted to adopt the constitution.”23 in relevant part, “to pass from person to person or place to
place: as ... to become well known or widespread [or] to come
*27 As the text of both Const. 1963, art. 2, § 9 and into the hands of readers; [specifically,] to become sold or
Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2 makes clear, the drafters sought distributed[.]”29 The constitutional text also uses the term
to differentiate between, on the one hand, the Legislature's “manner,” which was relevantly defined as the “mode of
role in the people's power to enact, approve, or reject procedure or way of acting[.]”30 Accordingly, Article 12, § 2
legislation, and on the other hand, the people's power to authorizes the Legislature to establish laws pertaining to the
propose constitutional amendments. Article 2, § 9 states that details and mode by which petitions proposing constitutional
the Legislature shall “implement” its provisions, while Article amendments come into the hands of their signatories, the
12, § 2 permits the Legislature to “prescribe[ ] by law” the people.
form of petitions seeking to amend our Constitution, as well
as the “manner” by which those petitions are “signed and The differences in language between Article 12, § 2 and
circulated.”

Article 2, § 9 are significant. Words matter; particularly words
chosen for inclusion in the Michigan Constitution. This Court
At the time the 1963 Michigan Constitution was ratified and has recognized that the call for legislative action in Article
in the years that followed, “implement” meant “to carry out” 12, § 2 is specific to the manner by which petitions proposing
or “to give practical effect to and ensure of actual fulfillment
constitutional amendments are to be signed and circulated.31
24
by concrete measures.” Given this definition, I have no No such specificity exists in Article 2, § 9 with respect to the
objection to the majority opinion's definition of “implement,” people's right to engage in direct democracy in the area of
as I agree the term carries with it “the connotation that some legislation. Unlike Article 12, § 2, Article 2, § 9 simply directs
received set of rules is being carried out, not that a new the Legislature to “implement” the provisions of that section
set of rules is to be created.”25 The term “prescribe,” on with no reference to the manner by which initiatives and
the other hand, does contemplate the Legislature's ability referendums are to be circulated. These textual differences
to make new rules and does not, by itself, contemplate a between Article 12, § 2 and Article 2, § 9 demonstrate the
set of rules being received. At the time of ratification, to validity of the geographic-distribution requirement in 2018
“prescribe” meant, in pertinent part, “to lay down as a guide, PA 608 under the former, but not the latter. The geographic-
direction, or rule of action” or “to specify with authority.”26 distribution requirement answers the call for legislative action
Notably, however, the drafters of our 1963 Constitution did in Article 12, § 2, setting forth the manner by which
not use the term “prescribe” in isolation. Instead, they used petitions proposing constitutional amendments are to be
the phrase “prescribed by law,” which does suggest some set signed and circulated. As applied to Article 2, § 9, however,
of rules being received by the Legislature. According to the the geographic-distribution requirement goes beyond the
official record of the 1961–1962 Constitutional Convention: Legislature's authority to implement the provisions of that

2022 WL 211736
section. Whereas Article 12, § 2 envisions a specific role for Further, I fail to see how the geographic-distribution
the Legislature to regulate petitions proposing constitutional requirement at issue here is any more substantive than other
amendments by establishing laws aimed at ensuring those requirements the Legislature has legitimately imposed. For
petitions are distributed among the people, no such role exists example, in Consumers Power Co, we upheld the predecessor
for the Legislature under Article 2, § 9.32 This is not to say statute to MCL 168.472a, which stated, “ ‘It shall be
that the Legislature lacks authority under Article 2, § 9 to rebuttably presumed that the signature on a petition which
provide functional detail. The question before us relates to proposes an amendment to the constitution or is to initiate
the type of detail. Certainly matters such as deadlines, form legislation, is stale and void if it was made more than 180 days
requirements, and font sizes are the type of detail left for the before the petition was filed with the office of the secretary
Legislature.33 But, significantly, nowhere in Article 2, § 9 of state.’ ”37 The timing requirement at issue in Consumers
does it leave to the Legislature the manner by which initiative Power Co. pertained to when the signatures must be collected,
and referendum petitions are to be circulated. while the geographic-distribution requirement at issue here
pertains to where the signatures must be collected. Both are
*29 The majority concludes that the geographic-distribution procedural in nature because they both impose a process that
requirement is not within the constitutional authority of the must be followed while not altering the substantive right
Legislature to prescribe, labeling it instead as a “substantive granted to the people to propose constitutional amendments
requirement” that does not advance any of the express by petition. Moreover, this Court in Consumers Power Co.
constitutional requirements—“unlike the law at issue in concluded that the purpose of the 180-day window for
signatures to be collected before the filing of the petition
Consumers Power Co. [v Attorney General].”34 I disagree.
“is to fulfill the constitutional directive of art. 12, § 2
that only the registered electors of this state may propose
As for the difference in substance versus procedure, a
majority of this Court recently labeled the 10% minimum a constitutional amendment.”38 Similarly, the geographic-
threshold in Article 12, § 2 as a “procedural requirement distribution requirement fulfills the directive in Article 12,
§ 2 that petitions proposing constitutional amendments “be
of obtaining a certain number of signatures.”35 In my
signed by registered electors of the state equal in number to
view, the geographic-distribution requirement is akin to that
at least 10 percent of the total vote cast” for Governor at the
procedural requirement and does not alter the minimum
number of signatures needed to place a voter-initiated last gubernatorial election.39 The statute specifies how the
constitutional amendment on the ballot. The minimum 10% petitions must be circulated to and signed by “electors of the
state”—that is, the whole state, not one specific locale.

threshold remains the same, while the geographic-distribution
requirement simply directs how petitions are to be signed and
circulated throughout the state in order to meet that threshold. *30 Put simply, the geographic-distribution requirement is
Although the former requirement is expressly contained a law that details the manner, i.e., the mode or way, by which
within the constitutional text while the latter is not, this Court petitions are to be signed and circulated. This requirement
has rejected the notion that the Legislature's prescribed details falls squarely within the Legislature's authority to prescribe
as to the form, signing, and circulation of petitions proposing under Article 12, § 2 but goes beyond implementing the
constitutional amendments are unconstitutional requirements provisions of Article 2, § 9.
under Article 12, § 2; instead, “those requirements, in essence,
are authorized by the constitution itself ....”36 Because Article
12, § 2 requires a minimum number of signatures for D. THE GEOGRAPHIC-DISTRIBUTION
petitions proposing constitutional amendments and leaves REQUIREMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
to the Legislature the details as to how those petitions are RATIFIERS’ COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF CONST.
signed and circulated, I disagree with the majority opinion's 1963, ART. 12, § 2
conclusion that the 15% maximum per congressional district
constitutes an impermissible substantive obligation. It is just The validity of the geographic-distribution requirement in
as much a procedural requirement as the 10% minimum 2018 PA 608 under Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2 but not under
signature threshold. Const. 1963, art. 2, § 9 is also demonstrated through the
history of direct democracy in Michigan, the 1961–1962

2022 WL 211736
Constitutional Convention record,40 and the textual clues most used of Michigan's direct-democracy devices. Since
within the 1963 Michigan Constitution itself. the ratification of the 1963 Michigan Constitution, 33 voter-
initiated constitutional amendments were presented to the
As a majority of this Court recently discussed in Citizens electorate, compared to 14 initiatives and 10 referendums.48
Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Secretary of State, the The inherent delays with initiatives first being sent to
process by which the people may propose constitutional the Legislature for approval, as well as the substantial
amendments through the exercise of direct democracy first interest generated from proposed constitutional amendments,
appeared in the 1908 Michigan Constitution.41 As ratified, are among the reasons why voter-initiated constitutional
Michigan's first voter-initiated constitutional amendment amendments have been the preferred direct-democracy
process required the total number of signatures on a petition device, despite the heightened signature requirement.49
to amend the Constitution to “exceed twenty per cent of Another reason is that there are no restrictions on the
the total number of electors voting for secretary of state subject matter of voter-initiated constitutional amendments;
at the preceding election of such officer.”42 The provision nothing prevents petition drives from proposing what
also permitted the Legislature to veto the people's proposed would otherwise be legislative matters as constitutional
amendment or submit an alternative or substitute proposal amendments.50 Further, proposed constitutional amendments
covering the same subject matter.43 In explaining the need that are ultimately passed by popular vote have the effect
for legislative oversight for voter-initiated constitutional of being elevated to the status of supreme constitutional law
amendments, the Address to the People in the 1908 of the state, making them difficult to remove once ratified.
Constitution stated: These procedural advantages of voter-initiated constitutional
amendments have been shown to outweigh the slightly more
The convention realized the far-reaching effect that each difficult signature requirement.51
amendment to the constitution may have beyond the
immediate purpose intended by it, and it was deemed The delegates discussed this preferred treatment toward
essential in so important a matter as changing the voter-initiated constitutional amendments at length during
fundamental law of the state that the very greatest care the 1961–1962 Constitutional Convention. A great deal of
should be required in both the form and substance of the debate surrounding initiatives, referendums, and voter-
amendments to it. Such care is secured by requiring initiated constitutional amendments focused on ensuring that
the amendments proposed to pass the scrutiny of the the Constitution could not be easily amended, as well as
legislature.[44]

encouraging the use of the initiative so that routine policy
matters normally addressed through legislation would not
These features of Michigan's first voter-initiated be elevated to the status of supreme constitutional law. One
constitutional amendment process proved too difficult, as example of these efforts was the delegates’ consideration
demonstrated by the fact that the procedure was never used. of an alternative to the minimum signature threshold for
Recognizing this, the Legislature proposed constitutional voter-initiated constitutional amendments that would have
amendments in 1913 that made voter-initiated constitutional changed the minimum number of signatures needed to
amendments more accessible.45 These amendments, which propose constitutional amendments by petition to either 10%
the voters ultimately approved, deleted the legislative veto, of the total votes cast for Governor at the last gubernatorial
lowered the requisite number of signatures for voter-initiated election “or 300,000 such registered electors, whichever shall
constitutional amendments to 10% of the total votes cast for be less.”52 Those in favor argued that a fixed-signature
Governor at the most recent gubernatorial election, and added alternative would ensure that voter-initiated constitutional
the initiative and referendum processes that exist today.46 amendments had sufficient support before being placed on the
ballot, while at the same time making the process accessible
*31 In the years that followed, petition drives demonstrated to more than just large, well-organized special-interest
not only that voter-initiated constitutional amendments were groups.53 Those opposed argued that as the population
more accessible, but also more attractive. From 1913 to increased, the minimum 8% of signatures needed to propose
1961, 35 voter-initiated constitutional amendments were new legislation by petition could surpass the 300,000
proposed, compared to only one initiative.47 Even today, signatures that would be needed to propose constitutional
voter-initiated constitutional amendments continue to be the amendments by petition; in turn, this meant the 300,000 fixed-

2022 WL 211736
signature alternative could make voter-initiated constitutional Read in light of this history and the surrounding context in the
amendments progressively easier to place on the ballot than Constitution itself, the Legislature's role in the constitutional
initiatives.54 The opponents eventually succeeded in striking amendment process under Article 12, § 2 is more robust
the fixed-signature alternative, the chief reasons being the than its role in the initiative and referendum processes under
significance of amending the Constitution and the overuse Article 2, § 9. The Legislature's authority under Article 12, § 2
of voter-initiated constitutional amendments for matters that to “prescribe[ ] by law” the way in which petitions proposing
constitutional amendments are “signed and circulated” gives
were better suited for legislation.55
it more control over the constitutional amendment process
and thus reflects the greater significance of a constitutional
*32 At the same time, the convention did not want to
amendment than legislation brought about by the direct-
make the task of amending the Constitution by petition
democracy provisions. Accordingly, this language in Article
insurmountable. For example, the delegates voted down
12, § 2—along with the differing signature requirements
a proposal that would have required a majority of
—reflects the convention's aim of encouraging the use
electors voting in the election (rather than a majority vote
of the initiative rather than voter-initiated constitutional
on the amendment) to pass voter-initiated constitutional
amendments in order to avoid the placement of routine
amendments; they also voted down a proposal that would
policymaking into the Constitution and to ensure that
have required voter-initiated constitutional amendments to
voter-initiated constitutional amendments are reserved for
pass by a 3/5 vote rather than by a simple majority.56
substantial matters worthy of constitutional elevation.58
Accordingly, the discussion of direct democracy during

*33 The validity of the geographic-distribution requirement
the 1961–1962 Constitutional Convention demonstrates a
under Article 12, § 2 but not Article 2, § 9 is ultimately
reverence for the Constitution as the supreme law of the land
“consistent with the underlying theme of the drafters,
and a recognition of the rightful impediments one should
expressed both during convention debate and in the difference
encounter when attempting to amend the Constitution. The
in signature requirements[:] that it should be more difficult
drafters deleted much of the detail previously contained
for the people to change the constitution than to pass or
in what are now Article 2, § 9 and Article 12, § 2. But
they also sought to ensure that amending the Constitution reject a law.”59 The requirement falls within the common
by petition remained a difficult task—particularly as it understanding of the ratifiers, the people, as to the meaning
compared to proposing new legislation, or approving or of Article 12, § 2. It prescribes the manner by which
rejecting the traditional legislation—while also ensuring that petitions proposing constitutional amendments are to be

the process remained accessible. As a majority of this signed and circulated throughout the state without altering
Court recently explained: “[T]he convention decided to keep the minimum number of signatures needed to place voter-
voter-initiated constitutional amendments difficult because initiated constitutional amendments on the ballot. It does not
amendments, like the Constitution itself, were intended to create an insurmountable hurdle for those seeking to place
deal with serious matters. The convention accomplished its constitutional amendments on the ballot by petition. Rather,
goal by imposing what it viewed as the clearest and most it ensures that such matters are worthy of constitutional
stringent limitation on initiative amendments: a signature elevation by securing some measure of statewide support.
requirement.”57 The heightened signature requirement for

voter-initiated constitutional amendments demonstrates the
drafters’ intent to make it more difficult to propose E. THE EFFECT OF THE 1961–1962 CONSTITUTIONAL
amendments to the Constitution (10%) than proposing CONVENTION'S VOTING DOWN A COUNTY-
legislation (8%) or approving or rejecting legislation (5%). DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENT
With the benefit of hindsight, however, we know that the
This is not the first time a geographic-distribution
10% minimum signature requirement in Article 12, § 2 has
requirement has been proposed for voter-initiated
not accomplished the convention's goal of encouraging the
constitutional amendments. The delegates at the 1961–1962
use of the initiative rather than voter-initiated constitutional
Constitutional Convention twice voted down a proposal that
amendments, particularly for matters that could be addressed
would have limited the number of signatures on petitions
through routine legislation.
proposing constitutional amendments per county, first at 10%

2022 WL 211736
and then at 25%.60 Although the majority opinion relies ballot, it should have support from a wide geographic base.67
on the Convention's refusal to adopt a county geographic- As mentioned, the geographic-distribution requirement in
distribution requirement as being indicative of an aspect of 2018 PA 608 is aimed at achieving broad and generalized
the voter-initiated constitutional amendment process that the support for a proposal before allowing it to appear on a
Convention intended to preclude from the Legislature, there statewide ballot.68
are a number of reasons for why the delegates’ decision
not to adopt a county-distribution requirement is not fatal Moreover, one aspect of the floor debate surrounding the
to the congressional-district-distribution requirement in 2018 county-distribution requirement was the removal of much of
PA 608. the detail from the predecessor of Article 12, § 2—Const.
1908, art. 17, § 2—that was statutory in nature. Part of
First and foremost, the geographic-distribution requirements the concern with the county-distribution requirement was
considered by the Convention and those in 2018 PA 608 are that its inclusion in Article 12, § 2 would run contrary
fundamentally distinct from each other. A county-distribution to the convention's objective of eliminating detail that the
requirement would have impermissibly classified citizens on
Legislature could prescribe at a later time.69 Indeed, if a
the basis of population, something the United States Supreme
county-distribution requirement had been included in Article
Court expressly rejected on equal-protection grounds just one
12, § 2, it would have been exceedingly difficult to near
year after the 1963 Michigan Constitution was ratified.61 impossible to remove it after the Constitution was ratified.
A congressional-district-distribution requirement, on the Again, one reoccurring theme in the debate surrounding
other hand, does not create impermissible classifications. voter-initiated constitutional amendments was ensuring that
Such a requirement sets out the percentage of signatures the Constitution could not be easily amended. Thus, it stands
that may be obtained for petitions on the basis of to reason that the delegates rejected the county-distribution
evenly divided congressional districts that are reapportioned requirement because it was detail better left to future
every 10 years.62 As the majority opinion notes, many legislative bodies. Regardless, the mere fact that the drafters
delegates opposed the county-distribution requirement as declined to make a geographic-distribution requirement a
“substantively unacceptable.”63 That opposition was due constitutional mandate does not mean that they wanted to
in large part to the concern that the county-distribution preclude the Legislature from crafting such a requirement or,
requirement would create discriminatory classifications more importantly, that the constitutional text (as commonly
among rural and urban populations, allowing the rural understood) precludes the Legislature from doing so.

minority to act as a check on the urban majority and thus
disproportionately affecting voters in highly populated areas, *35 Accordingly, even though the convention ultimately
voted down a county-distribution requirement, many factors
like Wayne County.64 Indeed, one delegate explicitly cited
and considerations went into that decision. While the
equal-protection concerns as one of the reasons for his
delegates understood the significance of amending the
opposition.65 Given the equal-protection concerns with a Constitution and its impact on the entire state rather than
county-distribution requirement, it is understandable that the particular locales, they also recognized the equal-protection
delegates voted it down. concerns arising from a county-distribution requirement.
Rather than include that type of statutory matter in the
*34 Further, in reviewing the convention record, it constitutional text, the ratifiers left it to the Legislature
appears that the delegates only considered adding a county- to decide whether to prescribe a geographic-distribution
distribution requirement to voter-initiated constitutional requirement as a manner by which petitions proposing
amendments, not initiatives or referendums. This constitutional amendments are signed and circulated—this
demonstrates that the delegates knew the significance of being consistent with the directive to the Legislature in Article
amending the Constitution and understood that in order
12, § 2.70
to have a sustainable constitution, it should not be easily
amended.66 The delegates also recognized that whereas
legislation might affect only a part of the state, a constitution
necessarily affects the entire state; therefore, before a
proposal to alter the state's fundamental law is placed on the

2022 WL 211736
in those provisions.75 Yet we have also recognized that those

F. THE GEOGRAPHIC-DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENT limits or restrictions may be expressly provided within the
IN 2018 PA 608 DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE SELF- text of the self-executing provisions.76 As this Court stated in
EXECUTING NATURE OF CONST. 1963, ART. 12, § 2 Scott v. Secretary of State:
Much of the opposition to the geographic-distribution Of the right of qualified voters of the State to propose
requirement in 2018 PA 608 is focused on the notion that amendments to the Constitution by petition it may be said,
Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2 and Const. 1963, art. 2, § 9 are self- generally, that it can be interfered with neither by the
executing; that is, the people need not wait for legislative legislature, the courts, nor the officers charged with any
enactment in order to invoke direct democracy.71 The aim duty in the premises. But the right is to be exercised in
of the drafters of the 1963 Constitution was to eliminate a certain way and according to certain conditions, the
much of the statutory detail that plagued the former direct- limitations upon its exercise, like the reservation of the
democracy provisions while, at the same time, leaving enough right itself, being found in the Constitution.[77]
guidance for the people to exercise their rights and allow the
Legislature to sort out the details. Any legislation, then, while Again, Article 12, § 2 reserves to the people the right
not necessary to invoke the direct-democracy provisions, to propose constitutional amendments by petition. But it
may supplement these self-executing provisions, but it may also provides a role for the Legislature to prescribe the
not unduly burden the people's right to participate in direct manner, i.e., the mode or way, by which that right is to be
democracy.72 exercised, including the manner by which petitions proposing
constitutional amendments are to be signed and circulated.
The practical effect of the 15% geographic-distribution Thus, to the extent the geographic-distribution requirement in
requirement is that petition drives would need to satisfy the 2018 PA 608 incidentally burdens the gathering of signatures
minimum threshold requirements for initiatives, referendums, for voter-initiated constitutional amendments, it does so with
and voter-initiated constitutional amendments by obtaining explicit authorization from Article 12, § 2.78 Because no such
signatures from at least 7 of Michigan's 14 congressional explicit authorization exists in Article 2, § 9, the geographic-
districts. This requirement would no longer permit petition distribution requirement does not withstand scrutiny under
drives to gather the requisite minimum number of signatures that provision.
from one specific geographic location. Although this
geographic-distribution requirement may burden petition *37 Ultimately, the presumption that statutes are

drives, there is no evidence proffered in the plaintiffs’ constitutional accords the Legislature a measure of deference.
facial challenge that the requirement will in fact unduly Every reasonable presumption must be resolved in favor of
burden petition drives. Significantly, many of Michigan's the statute's validity, and this Court will not strike down a
congressional districts are located in the southeast part validly enacted law absent “a clearly apparent demonstration
of the state. Thus, any additional obligation that the of unconstitutionality.”79 This Court exercises its power
geographic-distribution requirement places on petition drives to declare a law unconstitutional with extreme caution,
is not onerous. And although the geographic-distribution never exercising that authority “where serious doubt exists
requirement may not lead to petition drives circulating with regard to the conflict” between the statute and the
petitions from those congressional districts that cover a
constitutional provision under review.80 I conclude that
73
wider physical area, like districts in northern Michigan, the there is no conflict between the geographic-distribution
geographic-distribution requirement does, strictly speaking, requirement in 2018 PA 608 and Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2. The
ensure wider geographic support. In any event, “when requirement is a valid legislative measure under Article 12,
considering a claim that a statute is unconstitutional, the Court § 2 that prescribes the manner by which petitions proposing
does not inquire into the wisdom of the legislation.”74 constitutional amendments are to be signed and circulated.
Therefore, because plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the
*36 We have said that any supplemental legislation to geographic-distribution requirement clearly conflicts with the
self-executing provisions, including those “constitutional text of Article 12, § 2, they have not met the rigorous standard
provisions by which the people reserve to themselves a direct necessary to establish the requirement's unconstitutionality
legislative voice,” must not limit or restrict the rights set forth under that provision.

2022 WL 211736
obtained by that circulator on that petition is invalid and

must not be counted.
III. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS (4) If a petition under [MCL 168.482] is circulated and the
petition does not meet all of the requirements under [MCL
A. 2018 PA 608 168.482], any signature obtained on that petition is invalid
and must not be counted.
Under the new requirements of 2018 PA 608, the petition
signature sheets must indicate whether the circulator of the (5) Any signature obtained on a petition under [MCL
petition is a paid circulator or a volunteer circulator. The 168.482] that was not signed in the circulator's presence is
circulator must check a box on the signature sheet to so invalid and must not be counted.
indicate. These requirements are codified in MCL 168.482(7)
and (8), which provide: *38 Plaintiffs argue that both the checkbox and affidavit
requirements violate their rights of free speech, association,
(7) Each petition under this section must provide at the and petition under the United States and Michigan
top of the page check boxes and statements printed in 12- Constitutions by imposing undue burdens on paid petition
point type to clearly indicate whether the circulator of the circulators and failing to serve any compelling state interest.
petition is a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer signature Intervening defendant disagrees, arguing that the checkbox
gatherer. and affidavit requirements impose minimal burdens on
circulators’ speech and further the state's legitimate interest
(8) Each petition under this section must clearly indicate in transparency and accountability in the electoral process.
below the statement required under subsection (7) and be The Court of Claims struck down the checkbox requirement
printed in 12-point type that if the petition circulator does as unconstitutional, but upheld the affidavit requirement.
not comply with all of the requirements of this act for The Court of Appeals reached the opposite conclusion,
petition circulators, any signature obtained by that petition holding that the checkbox requirement satisfied “the more
circulator on that petition is invalid and will not be counted. exacting strict scrutiny test” while striking down the affidavit
requirement under that same standard.82 As explained below,
In addition, 2018 PA 608 requires paid petition circulators
I conclude that both requirements are constitutional.
or “paid signature gatherers,”81 as opposed to volunteer
signature gatherers, to file affidavits with the Secretary of

State indicating that the person has been paid to circulate a
petition and gather signatures. Signatures that are collected by B. FIRST-AMENDMENT PRINCIPLES AND THE
people who have not filed the required affidavit or have given EXACTING-SCRUTINY STANDARD
false information or omitted certain details are invalid. These
The First Amendment, made applicable to the states through
provisions were codified at MCL 168.482a, which states:
the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that Congress “shall
(1) If an individual who circulates a petition under [MCL make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or
168.482] is a paid signature gatherer, then that individual of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
must, before circulating any petition, file a signed affidavit assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
with the secretary of state that indicates he or she is a paid of grievances.83 “[T]he circulation of a petition involves
signature gatherer. the type of interactive communication concerning political
change that is appropriately described as ‘core political
(2) Any signature obtained on a petition under [MCL speech’ ” for which First Amendment protection is at its
168.482] by an individual who has not filed the required
“zenith.”84 However, “there must be a substantial regulation
affidavit under subsection (1) is invalid and must not be
of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if
counted.
some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany
(3) If the circulator of a petition under [MCL 168.482] the democratic processes.”85 Accordingly, “[s]tates allowing
provides or uses a false address or provides any fraudulent ballot initiatives have considerable leeway to protect the
information on the certificate of circulator, any signature integrity and reliability of the initiative process, as they have

2022 WL 211736
with respect to election processes generally.”86 Among the prohibition because ... we are not prepared to assume that
measurers states may implement to protect those interests a professional circulator—whose qualifications for similar
are disclosure requirements. Generally speaking, disclosure future assignments may well depend on a reputation for
requirements are aimed at promoting transparency and competence and integrity—is any more likely to accept false
accountability in the electoral process, as well as preserving signatures than a volunteer who is motivated entirely by an
the integrity of the process by combating fraud and assisting interest in having the proposition placed on the ballot.”95
in the detection of invalid signatures.87 Notably, disclosure
In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm, the Supreme Court
requirements do not “impose a ceiling on speech.”88
held that a statute prohibiting the distribution of anonymous
“Although they may burden the ability to speak, disclosure
campaign literature violated the First Amendment.96 The
requirements do not prevent anyone from speaking.”89
Court explained that the ban “indiscriminately outlaw[ed] a
“First Amendment challenges to disclosure requirements in category of speech”—i.e., anonymous political speech97—
the electoral context” are reviewed “under what has been and that it did not sufficiently advance the state's two asserted
interests: providing the electorate with relevant information
termed ‘exacting scrutiny.’ ”90 “ ‘Exacting scrutiny,’ despite
and preventing fraudulent and libelous statements. The Court
the name, does not necessarily require that kind of searching
first rejected the state's argument that a more informed
analysis that is normally called strict judicial scrutiny;
electorate justified the ban, explaining that “[t]he name and
although it may.”91 Rather, this standard requires a “sliding- address of the author add little, if anything, to the reader's
scale analysis,” in which “the strength of the governmental
ability to evaluate the document's message.”98 Next, although
interest must reflect the seriousness of the actual burden on
the Court recognized that the state's interest in preventing
First Amendment rights.”92 The Supreme Court of the United fraud and libel were legitimate and important interests, the
States has framed this “more flexible standard” of scrutiny as Court noted that other legislation already prohibited making
follows: or disseminating false statements during political campaigns
and that the ban at issue applied to documents that were not
*39 A court considering a challenge to a state election
even false or misleading. The Court ultimately concluded that
law must weigh “the character and magnitude of the
while the state's interest in preventing fraud and libel “might
asserted injury to the rights protected by the First
justify a more limited identification requirement,” there was
and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to
“scant cause” for the complete prohibition of anonymous
vindicate” against “the precise interests put forward by

the State as justifications for the burden imposed by campaign literature.99
its rule,” taking into consideration “the extent to which
those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff's In Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation,
[93] Inc.(ACLF), the Supreme Court held that a requirement
rights.”
that initiative-petition circulators be registered voters also
violates the First Amendment because it would “ ‘limit the
A few cases help illustrate how courts have applied the
number of voices who will convey the initiative proponents’
exacting-scrutiny standard. In Meyer v. Grant, the Supreme
message’ and, consequently, cut down ‘the size of the
Court held that a statute that prohibited paying petition
circulators violated the First Amendment, explaining that the audience proponents can reach.’ ”100 It also held that the
ban restricted political expression in two ways: requirement that circulators wear an identification badge
bearing the circulator's name violated the First Amendment
First, it limits the number of voices who will convey because it “inhibits participation in the petitioning process”
appellees’ message and the hours they can speak and, by “expos[ing] the circulator to the risk of ‘heat of the
therefore, limits the size of the audience they can reach. moment’ harassment.”101 Finally, the Court held that a
Second, it makes it less likely that appellees will garner requirement that proponents of an initiative report the names
the number of signatures necessary to place the matter on and addresses of all paid circulators and the amount paid
the ballot, thus limiting their ability to make the matter the to each violates the First Amendment because it “ ‘forces
focus of statewide discussion.[94] paid circulators to surrender the anonymity enjoyed by their
The Court held that the “State's interest in protecting volunteer counterparts[.]’ ”102 The Court distinguished this
the integrity of the initiative process does not justify the

2022 WL 211736
disclosure requirement from an affidavit requirement that First, the Court of Appeals erroneously and unnecessarily
required circulators to attach to each section of the petition analyzed the checkbox requirement under a strict-scrutiny
an affidavit containing the circulator's name and address,103 framework despite its recognition that the requirement
stating that “[b]ecause the disclosure provisions target only imposes “little to no burden on circulators.”109 “Regulations
paid circulators and require disclosure of the income from imposing severe burdens” on political speech in the electoral
circulation each receives, the disclosure reports are of course context warrant strict scrutiny, while “[l]esser burdens ...
distinguishable from the affidavit, which must be completed trigger less exacting review ....”110 Therefore, it was
by both paid and volunteer circulators, and does not require inappropriate for the Court of Appeals to hold the state to
disclosure of the amount paid individually to a circulator.”104 a higher level of scrutiny in its analysis of the checkbox
requirement. Instead, as the majority opinion concludes,
*40 Finally, in Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted, the checkbox requirement satisfies the exacting-scrutiny
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit standard. It imposes only a minimal burden on petition
held that a statute requiring circulators of candidacy or circulators and advances the important state interest of
nomination petitions to disclose the name and address of the affording the electorate information that may be helpful in
person employing them, if any, does not violate the First making an informed electoral decision.
Amendment.105 The court found it significant that
Second, the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied strict
the disclosure is not made by the circulator to the voter. scrutiny to the affidavit requirement. Under the exacting-
Rather, the disclosure is made by the circulator when the scrutiny standard, “the rigorousness of our inquiry into the
petition is filed, after the signatures are gathered. So while propriety of a state election law depends upon the extent to
the core First Amendment activity of communicating with which a challenged regulation burdens First and Fourteenth
voters is occurring, the disclosure requirement plays no Amendment rights.”111 That is, it is only once plaintiffs
part. The circulator does not directly lose anonymity with —as the parties challenging the statute's constitutionality—
the voter whose signature is being solicited.[106] have identified the extent to which the law burdens speech
that a reviewing court can then determine the “rigorousness”
Further, the court noted that although “seeking any of the scrutiny to be applied to the state's asserted
information about a circulator has some potential, however interest.112 This framework fits within our well-established
small, to reduce willingness to engage in circulating ..., little principles that legislation “is clothed in a presumption of
else suggests that [any] chill has occurred or is likely to occur

constitutionality” and that the challenger bears the burden of
as a result of the requirement.”107 On the other hand, the demonstrating the statute's constitutional infirmity.113 Here,
court recognized that “the employer disclosure requirement instead of concluding that the affidavit requirement “is not
serves substantial and legitimate state interests” because it an evenhanded restriction and the state has not shown how it
“helps deter fraud and also to detect it” by “enabl[ing] the
protects the integrity of the election process,”114 the Court of
Secretary of State's Office to cross-check [the disclosures]
Appeals should have recognized at the outset that the affidavit
with campaign expenditure reports and thus contributes to
requirement imposes only a minor burden on political speech,
overall reporting compliance.”108 and therefore, it is not subject to strict scrutiny. As a result,
the usual presumption of constitutionality afforded to the
legislation is still controlling, and the burden remains with the
C. THE CHECKBOX AND AFFIDAVIT REQUIREMENTS challengers to prove that the law is unconstitutional.115
IN 2018 PA 608 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL
*41 Although the majority opinion correctly recognizes that
Applying the aforementioned principles, I conclude that both the affidavit requirement is reviewed under the exacting-
the checkbox and affidavit requirements are constitutional. scrutiny standard, I disagree with its application of that
As an initial matter, although the Court of Appeals correctly standard to plaintiffs’ facial challenge of that requirement.
recognized that the exacting-scrutiny standard applies in this Plaintiffs have failed to show how filing an affidavit with
case, it misapplied that standard in a few critical ways. the Secretary of State imposes anything more than a de
minimis administrative burden on their ability to participate
in the direct-democracy process. It is clearly less of a burden

2022 WL 211736
than the absolute prohibition on paid petition circulators in *42 For the reasons stated above, I concur with the
Meyer and the ban on distributing anonymous campaign majority that the geographic-distribution requirement is
literature in McIntyre. While those requirements outlawed unconstitutional as to initiative and referendum petitions.
specific categories of speech, the affidavit requirement at I also concur with the majority that the checkbox
issue here neither imposes a ceiling on speech nor prevents requirement passes constitutional muster. And given the
paid circulators from speaking. Nor have plaintiffs shown that unique circumstances presented in this case involving the
the affidavit requirement has any chilling effect on speech rights of the people to exercise direct democracy, I also
or that it will deter paid circulators. Further, the affidavit concur that the Court's opinion should apply prospectively
requirement does not require disclosure directly to the voter at only. Nonetheless, I respectfully and vigorously dissent
the time petitions are circulated. The Court in ACLF observed from the majority's conclusion that the affidavit requirement
that an “affidavit is separated from the moment the circulator and the geographic-distribution requirement as to voter-
speaks,” and it therefore “does not expose the circulator to initiated constitutional amendments are unconstitutional. The
the risk of ‘heat of the moment’ harassment.”116 Given that challengers to these two legislative provisions have utterly
the affidavit must be filed before petitions are circulated, the failed to overcome the strong presumption of constitutionality
circulator does not lose anonymity with the voter and there is accorded all legislation duly passed through a bicameral
no risk of harassment. legislature and signed by the Governor. Because the will
of the people as clearly expressed through their elected
“Election laws will invariably impose some burden upon” representatives has been thwarted by this Court's improvident
exercise of raw judicial power, I dissent.
speech.117 But where plaintiffs “provide us scant evidence
or argument beyond the burdens they assert disclosure would
impose,” and indeed, where “only modest burdens attend the
disclosure ..., we must reject plaintiffs’ broad challenge” to David F. Viviano, J., concurs.
118
the law. At best, we are left to speculate about the extent
Bernstein, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
to which plaintiffs find the affidavit requirement unduly
I agree with the majority opinion in large part. I write
burdensome as to paid circulators and their speech. Such
solely to express my disagreement with Part IV(A) of the
speculation is insufficient to establish a facial challenge to a
opinion, as I would hold that the checkbox requirement is also
statute that is presumed constitutional.
unconstitutional.
At the same time, the state undoubtedly has a legitimate and

MCL 168.482(7) states, in relevant part, “Each petition under
important interest in preserving the integrity of the electoral
this section must provide at the top of the page check boxes
process. As the Supreme Court has recognized, this “interest
and statements printed in 12-point type to clearly indicate
in preserving electoral integrity is not limited to combating
whether the circulator of the petition is a paid signature
fraud. [It] extends to efforts to ferret out invalid signatures
gatherer or a volunteer signature gatherer.” As a disclosure
caused not by fraud but by simple mistake, such as duplicate
requirement that burdens political expression, I agree with the
signatures or signatures of individuals who are not registered
majority opinion that the checkbox requirement is subject to
to vote in the State.”119 Here, the affidavits can be cross- review under the exacting-scrutiny standard.
checked with the petitions themselves to ensure reporting
compliance. And it can hardly be disputed that the state has In order to survive the exacting-scrutiny standard, there must
a legitimate and important interest in detecting and rooting be “a substantial relation between the disclosure requirement
out fraud in order to preserve the integrity of, and promote and a sufficiently important governmental interest.” Doe
accountability in, the electoral process.120 Accordingly, I v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 196, 130 S.Ct. 2811, 177 L.Ed.2d
disagree with the majority that plaintiffs have satisfied their 493 (2010) (quotation marks and citations omitted). “To
heavy burden of showing that the affidavit requirement is withstand this scrutiny, the strength of the governmental
facially unconstitutional. interest must reflect the seriousness of the actual burden on
First Amendment rights.” Id. (quotation marks and citations
omitted). I agree with the majority that the alleged burden
IV. CONCLUSION imposed by the checkbox requirement is minimal.1

2022 WL 211736
However, I disagree that the strength of the governmental importantly, the state offers no explanation as to why this
interest is sufficient to overcome even the minimal burden might be the case.
imposed by the checkbox requirement. As noted by the Court
of Appeals: In sum, even if the burden posed by MCL 168.482(7) is
minimal, the state's failure to justify even that minimal burden
[T]he state has an interest in offering information regarding renders the checkbox requirement unconstitutional. In all
the paid status of a circulator to voters when they decide other respects, I join the majority opinion.
whether to sign an initiative petition.... Transparency in
the political process, especially transparency that permits
voters to “follow the money,” is a compelling state interest. Clement, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Giving voters knowledge of whether they are being asked I concur in full with the Court's analysis of why the “15%
to sign a petition by a volunteer or a paid circulator is cap” for direct-democracy signatures violates the Michigan
valuable in its own right, but so is knowing the extent to Constitution, as well as with its decision that the “checkbox
which the petition has the funds to pay circulators. requirement” for petition circulators to indicate whether they
League of Women Voters v. Secretary of State, ––– Mich.App. are paid or volunteer complies with the First Amendment of
––––, ––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––, 2021 WL 5048187 (2021); the United States Constitution. I dissent from its holding that
slip op. at 18. The majority opinion similarly notes that the “affidavit requirement” violates the First Amendment,
“increasing the amount of information available to the voters however, for the reasons stated by Justice Zahra in his dissent.
is a legitimate state interest.” 479 Mich. at 30, 740 N.W.2d
444. I also dissent from the Court's decision to give this opinion
prospective-only effect. First, I disagree that the factors from
This stands in stark contrast to the conclusion of the first Pohutski v. City of Allen Park, 465 Mich. 675, 641 N.W.2d
Court of Appeals panel to address the constitutionality of 219 (2002), have been satisfied. In particular, I disagree that
the checkbox requirement, as that panel noted that “no “the extent of the reliance on the old rule,” id. at 698, 641
real governmental interest has been asserted, let alone been N.W.2d 219, justifies prospective effect here. Neither petition
proven ....” League of Women Voters v. Secretary of State, sponsor that would be affected by retroactive effect of this
331 Mich.App. 156, 191, 952 N.W.2d 491 (2020). I agree. It decision has submitted its signatures yet, meaning that they
continues to be the case that the state does not even attempt both have time to adapt to this decision. Moreover, “there is a
to assert with any specificity an important governmental serious question as to whether it is constitutionally legitimate
interest advanced by MCL 168.482(7), other than “generally for this Court to render purely prospective opinions, as

stated interests in transparency and accountability.” League such rulings are, in essence, advisory opinions.” Wayne Co.
of Women Voters, 331 Mich.App. at 191, 952 N.W.2d 491. v. Hathcock, 471 Mich. 445, 485 n 98, 684 N.W.2d 765
But “[t]he simple interest in providing voters with additional (2004). This is because “to accord a holding only prospective
relevant information does not justify a state requirement that application is, essentially, an exercise of the legislative power
a writer make statements or disclosures she would otherwise to determine what the law shall be for all future cases, rather
omit.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm., 514 U.S. 334, 348, than an exercise of the judicial power to determine what the
115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995). existing law is and apply it to the case at hand.” Devillers v.
Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 473 Mich. 562, 587 n 57, 702 N.W.2d
*43 Although the burden imposed by the checkbox 539 (2005). While this Court has some limited authority to
requirement is admittedly minimal, the state has entirely issue advisory opinions under Const. 1963, art. 3, § 8, those
failed to identify a sufficiently important governmental circumstances are not satisfied here. I have previously written
interest that is advanced by this requirement. Central to my about my view of the importance of this Court's carefully
conclusion here is the fact that the state has not identified how observing the limitations on its authority to issue advisory
the presence of a checkbox would advance even its vaguely opinions. See In re House of Representatives Request for
stated interest in transparency. MCL 168.482(7) only requires Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2018 PA 368
that there be a checkbox that indicates whether a circulator & 369, 505 Mich. 884, 936 N.W.2d 241 (2019) (Clement,
is paid. I do not see how the presence of a single checkbox J., concurring). I would not evade those restrictions under
would permit voters to “follow the money,” given that the the guise of giving decisions prospective-only effect, and I
checkbox imparts no information as to who might be funding dissent from the Court's decision to do so in this matter.
an initiative petition or how much money they have; more

2022 WL 211736
All Citations
--- N.W.2d ----, 2022 WL 211736
Footnotes
1 The issues presented in the instant litigation are well known to this Court, see, e.g., League of Women Voters of Mich.
v. Secretary of State, 506 Mich. 561, 957 N.W.2d 731 (2020), and the parties agree that an expeditious response is
necessary to ensure that voters may be heard. Accordingly, we decide this case without oral argument.
2 For conformity with this geographic-distribution requirement, it also amended MCL 168.477 to forbid the Board of State
Canvassers from counting the signature of a registered elector from a congressional district above the 15% limit, and
it amended MCL 168.482(4) to change the required form of petitions to include a declaration about the congressional
district in which the signing electors reside.
3 It also added MCL 168.482c, which made it a misdemeanor for a petition circulator to “knowingly make[ ] a false statement
concerning his or her status as a paid signature gatherer or volunteer signature gatherer ....”
4 By statute, the Attorney General gives opinions on questions of law posed by state officers. MCL 14.32.
5 Specifically, the Attorney General's opinion was that the geographic-distribution requirement violated the direct-
democracy provisions of the Michigan Constitution and the paid-circulator requirements violated the free-speech
protections of the United States Constitution. The Attorney General did opine, however, that certain other provisions of
2018 PA 608—such as provisions in MCL 168.482a that invalidate signatures gathered when various defects occur in
the gathering process—were constitutional.
6 We note that the Department of the Attorney General is arguing both in favor of the constitutionality of the provisions in
its capacity as intervening defendant and against the constitutionality of the statutes in its capacity as counsel for the
Secretary of State.
7 Dictionaries that are more contemporaneous with the ratification of the Constitution give essentially identical definitions.
See Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (defining “implement” as “to carry out: fulfill; esp: to give practical effect
to and ensure of actual fulfillment by concrete measures”); Webster's Third New International Dictionary (“to carry out:

accomplish, fulfill”).
8 Intervening defendant relies heavily on a case from another jurisdiction: Utah Safe to Learn-Safe to Worship Coalition, Inc.
v. State, 94 P.3d 217, 2004 UT 32 (2004). However, the use of the word “implement” in our state Constitution significantly
distinguishes this case from that one. In Utah, the state constitution “grant[ed] the right to initiative,” but “simultaneously
circumscribe[d] that right by granting the legislature leave to regulate” the process. Id. at 226. The language and history
of our Constitution shows that it is the people circumscribing the Legislature, not vice versa. We also note that intervening
defendant's citation of state constitutions that do include a cap comparable to the one in MCL 168.471 is of no moment.
That the people of Massachusetts or Mississippi, see Mass. Const. 48, Gen. Prov., Pt. 2 and Miss. Const., art. 15, § 273,
ratified a particular geographic requirement for signature gathering into their respective constitutions bears no relation to
the way that the citizens of this state crafted our citizen-initiative and referendum provisions.
9 Intervening defendant suggests that MCL 168.471 constitutes wise public policy seeking to ensure that gathered
signatures are “more evenly spread” across the state's congressional districts. We agree with the Court of Appeals’
explanation for why this justification is suspect and further note that matters of public policy are of no concern to this Court
when reviewing the constitutionality of the provision at issue. The 15% cap is an additional requirement not included in
our Constitution that imposes “an obligation that restricts, rather than furthers, the initiative process.” League of Women
Voters, ––– Mich.App. at ––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––, slip op. at 11, citing Soutar, 334 Mich. at 265, 54 N.W.2d 425. Thus,
it is unconstitutional.
10 While it is true that a majority of this Court has previously referred to the 10% minimum signature requirement as a
“procedural requirement of obtaining a certain number of signatures,” Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution, 503

2022 WL 211736
Mich. at 73, 921 N.W.2d 247, Justice Zahra’s partial dissent takes this statement out of context. First, the issue before
the Court in Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution was whether a particular proposal to modify our Constitution was
an “amendment” under Article 12, § 2, or a “general revision” under Article 12, § 3. That is not at issue in this case.
Secondly, the 10% minimum signature language was part of an introduction to the Court's review of debates at the
constitutional convention in 1961–1962 about whether to change or eliminate a minimum signature requirement. The
discussion provided context for analyzing the substantive limitations to amendments proposed under Article 12, § 2.
See Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution, 503 Mich. at 73-75, 921 N.W.2d 247. Far from treating this as a mere
procedural limitation, the majority concluded that
the convention decided to keep voter-initiated amendments difficult because amendments, like the Constitution itself,
were intended to deal with serious matters. The convention accomplished its goal by imposing what it viewed as the
clearest and most stringent limitation on initiative amendments: a signature requirement. [Id. at 75, 921 N.W.2d 247
(second emphasis added).]
The debate in Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution was about the initial threshold required for a constitutional
amendment to be placed on the ballot in the first place. As discussed in more detail below, the 1963 drafters settled on
a stringent signature requirement. But at no time has this Court ever determined that a geographic limitation or cap on
that signature-gathering requirement was proper in any context.
11 See, e.g., id. at 2466 (“I believe this is another one of those amendments that is based on the theory that all people
are equal, except that people in Wayne county are less equal than other people.”); id. at 2468 (“[Y]ou could conceivably
have a minority, an extreme minority of the population in a large percentage of the thinly populated counties who would
have complete and absolute control over whether or not there would be any constitutional amendments submitted to the
people.”); id. at 2469 (“[W]e have seen various attempts ... to gerrymander this state but now we seem to be getting
some ‘garrybrowning’ [a reference to the sponsor of the proposal, Garry Brown] in terms of the question of petitions,
and I think that gerrymandering or ‘garrybrowning’ is all the same; that it is unjust and, therefore, we should defeat the
[proposal].”); id. at 3200 (“It seems to me that what you are saying here is that those of us who live in Wayne county,
merely because we do compose a third of the state's population, are not going to count as heavily as those in the rest of
the state. I think this is a distinctly unfair and prejudiced position to take and I object to it strongly.”); id. (“The one place
where we thought we had one man, one vote being equal was on getting petitions but now even this is being taken away
by limiting the number of petitions we can get. I think this is highly unreasonable and strenuously urge a no vote to the
amendment ....”). One delegate did note that “we are again trying to get into a statutory position when we should not”

and “urge[d] [the convention] strongly not to get into this particular trap of putting this type of statutory language in the
constitution,” but he also suggested that he disagreed with the concept of a geographic-distribution requirement because
“[w]hen the proper signatures have been obtained, all of the people of the state will have an opportunity, if they wish,
to exercise their franchise.” Id.
12 Intervening defendant urges the Court to ignore the historical record. While we recognize that the language of the
Constitution controls, the constitutional convention record may be particularly helpful and illuminating “when we find in
the debates a recurring thread of explanation binding together the whole of a constitutional concept.” House Speaker v.
Governor, 443 Mich. 560, 581, 506 N.W.2d 190 (1993) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
13 Given the language and history of this provision of our Constitution and its function as a limitation on the Legislature, we
conclude that our constitutional-amendment process is also distinguishable from that in Utah Safe to Learn.
14 As specifically noted in Consumers Power Co., 426 Mich. at 8, 392 N.W.2d 513, the statute at issue “does not set a 180-
day time limit for obtaining signatures,” and—prior to a more recent amendment of the statute, MCL 168.471a,—“the
presumption [that older signatures are invalid could] be rebutted.” Conversely, the enforcement mechanisms for the
geographic-distribution requirement at issue irrefutably invalidate signatures collected beyond the 15% cap, making it a
more onerous burden on the people's right to propose amendments to the state Constitution by obtaining support from at
least 10% of the requisite voting population. We reject Justice Zahra’s position that these mechanisms are similar because
it will “almost always be the case that some signatures affixed to a petition will be invalidated in one way or another.”
There is a significant difference between signatures no longer being needed because the committee's ballot drive has
successfully obtained the minimum threshold of signatures and signatures being completely disregarded because of the

2022 WL 211736
15% cap. Electors who sign petitions in excess of the minimum threshold will still have their voices heard by virtue of
the ballot issue being placed before the voters; whereas electors whose signatures are not counted because of the 15%
cap may not ultimately see their issues placed before the people. The latter are silenced by the 15% requirement in a
way that the former are not.
15 Because the 15% requirement in MCL 168.471 is unconstitutional, we agree with the Court of Appeals that its
accompanying provisions, MCL 168.477 and MCL 168.482(4), are also unconstitutional.
16 See Anderson, 460 U.S. 780, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 75 L.Ed.2d 547; Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 112 S.Ct. 2059, 119
L.Ed.2d 245 (1992).
17 Because the identification requirement alone rendered the statute unconstitutional, the circuit court expressed no opinion
on the constitutionality of the additional requirement that the badge disclose whether a circulator was paid or a volunteer.
Id. at 1104.
18 For example, the signature on a petition for a constitutional amendment or initiative for legislation will not be counted if it
was made more than 180 days before the petition is filed with the Secretary of State. MCL 168.472a.
19 It is unclear whether the Secretary of State would, or legally could, make these affidavits available to the general public.
20 To the extent that intervening defendant suggests that the Legislature could have rationally determined that paid
circulators are more likely to commit fraud as a result of financial incentive to produce signatures, we note that the United
States Supreme Court has stated:
[A]bsent evidence to the contrary, we are not prepared to assume that a professional circulator—whose qualifications
for similar future assignments may well depend on a reputation for competence and integrity—is any more likely to
accept false signatures than a volunteer who is motivated entirely by an interest in having the proposition placed on
the ballot. [Buckley, 525 U.S. at 203-204, 119 S.Ct. 636 (quotation marks and citation omitted).]
Additionally, “the risk of fraud or corruption, or the appearance thereof, is more remote at the petition stage of an initiative
than at the time of balloting.” Id. at 203, 119 S.Ct. 636 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
21 MCL 168.482a(3) and MCL 168.482e also provide separate penalties for when any circulator provides a false address

or false information on the certificate of circulator.
22 Accordingly, accompanying provision MCL 168.482c (making it a misdemeanor to provide a false statement on the
affidavit) is no longer valid.
23 Michigan derived its three-factor test from Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965).
24 This includes two Court of Claims opinions and a Court of Appeals decision. League of Women Voters v. Secretary
of State, 331 Mich.App. 156, 952 N.W.2d 491 (2020), vacated 506 Mich. 561, 957 N.W.2d 731 (2020). The Attorney
General also opined that the checkbox requirement was unconstitutional; however, “[t]hose formal opinions ... do not
bind the courts,” and “whether the formal opinions bind even other governmental agencies” is open to question. League
of Women Voters, 506 Mich. at 597 & n 57, 957 N.W.2d 731, citing Danse Corp. v. Madison Hts., 466 Mich. 175, 182
n 6, 644 N.W.2d 721 (2002).
25 In fact, after the Court of Appeals upheld the checkbox requirement as constitutional, these committees sought the Board's
approval for petitions that included checkboxes. At a meeting before the Board, the Director of Elections, on behalf of
the Bureau of Elections, recommended to the Board that it accept petition forms with or without checkboxes. The Board,
however, declined to approve these committees’ updated petition forms containing checkboxes. Thus, these committees
have been collecting signatures on petition forms that, while lacking checkboxes, were nevertheless approved by the
Board. These committees should not be faulted for relying on that approval, which, at the time it was given, was compliant
with then-existing law.

2022 WL 211736
26 The Court of Appeals’ October 29, 2021 opinion would generally be applied retroactively, rendering all the petitions
currently in circulation defective in relation to MCL 168.482(7). However, a decision by the Court of Appeals does not
ordinarily become effective until “after the expiration of the time for filing an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court, or, if such an application is filed, after the disposition of the case by the Supreme Court[.]” MCR 7.215(F)(1)(a).
Thus, by virtue of the applications for leave to appeal filed, until today the decision in the Court of Appeals remained
“pending.” Grievance Administrator v. Fieger, 476 Mich. 231, 248, 719 N.W.2d 123 (2006). We need not, therefore,
determine whether it would be appropriate to provide the Court of Appeals’ opinion with prospective effect; we need only
ensure that our decision today will be applied prospectively.
1 Plaintiffs include entities that, according to their verified complaint, intend to seek constitutional and statutory changes
through our Constitution's direct-democracy provisions, as well as voters who will either support or oppose such changes.
Thus, it appears plaintiffs have standing to bring the present challenge.
2 Taylor v. Gate Pharm., 468 Mich. 1, 5, 658 N.W.2d 127 (2003).
3 People v. Skinner, 502 Mich. 89, 99, 917 N.W.2d 292 (2018), quoting People v. Harris, 495 Mich. 120, 134, 845 N.W.2d
477 (2014).
4 In re Request for Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2005 PA 71, 479 Mich. 1, 11, 740 N.W.2d 444 (2007).
5 Id. (quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted).
6 Council of Organizations & Others for Ed. About Parochiaid, Inc. v. Governor, 455 Mich. 557, 568, 566 N.W.2d 208 (1997)
(quotation marks, citation, brackets, and ellipsis omitted).
7 Skinner, 502 Mich. at 100, 917 N.W.2d 292, quoting In re Sanders, 495 Mich. 394, 404, 852 N.W.2d 524 (2014), citing
Taylor, 468 Mich. at 6, 658 N.W.2d 127.
8 In re Complaint of Rovas Against SBC Mich., 482 Mich. 90, 98, 754 N.W.2d 259 (2008).
9 Id. (quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted). See also Const. 1963, art. 3, § 2 (“The powers of government are
divided into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. No person exercising powers of one branch shall exercise
powers properly belonging to another branch except as expressly provided in this constitution.”).

10 Sharp v. Lansing, 464 Mich. 792, 810, 629 N.W.2d 873 (2001).
11 North Ottawa Community Hosp. v. Kieft, 457 Mich. 394, 403 n 9, 578 N.W.2d 267 (1998).
12 See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.(1 Cranch) 137, 178, 2 L Ed. 60 (1803) (“If then the courts are to regard the constitution;
and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must
govern the case to which they both apply.”); The Federalist No. 78 (Hamilton) (Cooke ed., 1961), p. 524 (“By a limited
constitution I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such for instance
as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in
practice no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice; whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to
the manifest tenor of the constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount
to nothing.”); The Federalist No. 81 (Hamilton) (Cooke ed., 1961), p. 543 (“[T]he constitution ought to be the standard of
construction for the laws, and ... wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the constitution.”).
13 Phillips v. Mirac, Inc, 470 Mich. 415, 422-423, 685 N.W.2d 174 (2004) (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also
Sears v. Cottrell, 5 Mich. 251, 259 (1858) (opinion of Christiancy, J.) (“No rule of construction is better settled in this
country, both upon principle and authority, than that the Acts of a State Legislature are to be presumed constitutional
until the contrary is shown; and it is only when they manifestly infringe some provision of the Constitution that they can be
declared void for that reason. In cases of doubt, every possible presumption, not clearly inconsistent with the language
and the subject-matter, is to be made in favor of the constitutionality of the Act.”).

2022 WL 211736
14 Lansing Mayor v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 470 Mich. 154, 161, 680 N.W.2d 840 (2004).
15 Const. 1963, art. 4, § 1 (“[T]he legislative power of the State of Michigan is vested in a senate and a house of
representatives.”).
16 Twenty-five states currently have some degree of direct democracy, Michigan being 1 of 15 states to permit initiatives,
referendums, and voter-initiated constitutional amendments. See National Conference of State Legislatures, Initiative
and Referendum States <https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/chart-of-the-initiative-states.aspx>
(accessed January 11, 2022) [https://perma.cc/P7RT-B6SX]. Although not at issue in this appeal, our Constitution also
recognizes a constitutional referendum, see Const. 1963, art. 12, § 1, as well the people's power to recall elected officials,
see Const. 1963, art. 2, § 8. As used in this opinion, the term “referendum” will only be used in its legislative context.
17 Emphasis added.
18 Emphasis added.
19 Ferency v. Secretary of State, 409 Mich. 569, 593, 297 N.W.2d 544 (1980).
20 Protect Mich. Constitution v. Secretary of State, 492 Mich. 860, 861, 819 N.W.2d 428 (2012) (Markman, J., concurring).
21 Before 2018 PA 608 was enacted, petition signatures were gathered and sorted on a countywide basis; therefore, other
provisions of the Michigan Election Law had to be amended to comply with the geographic-distribution requirement in
2018 PA 608. See MCL 168.477(1) (“The board of state canvassers may not count toward the sufficiency of a petition
described in this section any valid signature of a registered elector from a congressional district submitted on that
petition that is above the 15% limit described in [MCL 168.471].”); MCL 168.482(4) (requiring petition forms to specify
the congressional district in which signatures are obtained).
22 Wayne Co. v. Hathcock, 471 Mich. 445, 468, 684 N.W.2d 765 (2004).
23 Straus v. Governor, 459 Mich. 526, 533, 592 N.W.2d 53 (1999).
24 Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1963) (defining “implement” as “to carry out” or “to give practical effect
to and ensure of actual fulfillment by concrete measures”). See also The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language (1969) (defining “implement” as “[t]o provide a definite plan or procedure to ensure the fulfillment of” or “carry

into effect”).
25 Ante at ––––.
26 Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1963).
27 Beech Grove Investment Co. v. Civil Rights Comm., 380 Mich. 405, 418-419, 157 N.W.2d 213 (1968), citing 2 Official
Record, Constitutional Convention 1961, pp. 2673-2674 (emphasis added).
28 During the 1961–1962 Constitutional Convention, one delegate described the drafters’ use of the phrase “prescribed by
law” as when “merely the details of some particular plan were left to the legislature and not the overall whole planning,
but merely the implementation of a plan ....” 2 Official Record, Constitutional Convention 1961, pp. 2673-2674 (statement
of Delegate Robert J. Danhof) (emphasis added). But while the convention record helps guide us toward ascertaining
the text's original meaning as commonly understood by the ratifiers, it cannot overcome the express language of the
Constitution. See Beech Grove Investment Co., 380 Mich. at 427, 157 N.W.2d 213 (“[I]t is the Constitution, not the
debates, that was finally submitted to the people. While the debates may assist in an interpretation of the Constitution,
neither they nor even the Address to the People is controlling.”). Therefore, it is significant that the word “implement” does
not appear in the text of Article 12, § 2. And given its absence, it is logical to conclude that the phrase “prescribed by law”
means simply that the drafters intended that “only the details were left to the legislature and not the over-all planning”—
nothing more. Beech Grove, 380 Mich. at 419, 157 N.W.2d 213.

2022 WL 211736
29 Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1963). See also The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
(1969) (defining “circulate” as “[t]o move around, as from person to person, or place to place”; “[t]o spread widely among
persons or places; disseminate” or “[t]o cause to move about or be distributed”).
30 Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1963).
31 Consumers Power Co. v. Attorney General, 426 Mich. 1, 6, 9, 392 N.W.2d 513 (1986) (“[Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2] clearly
authorizes the Legislature to prescribe by law for the manner of signing and circulating petitions to propose constitutional
amendments.... The Constitution of 1963, unlike that of 1908, does summon legislative aid in the area of the form of
these petitions as well as in the areas of circulation and signing.”).
32 The generic legislative directive in Article 2, § 9 regarding the referendum—that “[t]he power of referendum ... must be
invoked in the manner prescribed by law”—cannot be viewed as a call for the Legislature to prescribe how referendum
petitions are circulated throughout the state. Again, words matter. The drafters of our Constitution included the right to
direct democracy in the areas of legislation and amending the Constitution. We must presume that when language is
included in one provision but omitted in another, that omission is intentional; therefore, because the language in Article
12, § 2 expressly calls for legislative action regarding the manner of circulation and the same or similar language is
absent from of Article 2, § 9, we must presume the Legislature lacks the authority to impose geographic restrictions on the
manner of petition circulations for matters under Article 2, § 9. See People v. Peltola, 489 Mich. 174, 185, 803 N.W.2d 140
(2011) (“Generally, when language is included in one section of a statute but omitted from another section, it is presumed
that the drafters acted intentionally and purposely in their inclusion or exclusion.”). See also Scalia & Garner, Reading
Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (St. Paul: Thomson/West, 2012), p. 170 (explaining that words are “presumed
to bear the same meaning throughout a text” and that “a material variation in terms suggests a variation in meaning”)
(boldface omitted). While this canon is typically applied when interpreting statutory provisions, I see no reason why it
would not apply with equal force when interpreting the constitutional provisions at issue in this case.
33 See, e.g., MCL 168.471 (requiring initiative petitions to be filed with the Secretary of State “at least 160 days before the
election at which the proposed law would appear on the ballot”); MCL 168.472a (requiring signatures on constitutional
amendment petitions and initiative petitions to be made 180 days or fewer before the petition is filed with the Secretary
of State); MCL 168.473b (requiring signatures on constitutional amendment petitions and initiative petitions to be made
after the last November general election at which a Governor was elected); MCL 168.482(1) (requiring petitions to be
8½ inches by 14 inches in size); MCL 168.482(2) (requiring the heading of the petition to be printed in capital letters

in 14-point boldfaced type); MCL 168.482(3) (requiring a “summary in not more than 100 words of the purpose of the
proposed amendment or question proposed” to “be printed in 12-point type” on the petition); id. (requiring the full text of
the proposed amendment to be printed in 8-point type on the petition); id. (requiring the petition to indicate whether the
proposal would alter or abrogate an existing provision of the Constitution and, if so, to include the provisions to be altered
or abrogated); MCL 168.482(5) (requiring certain warnings to the electorate to appear on the petitions).
34 Ante at ––––.
35 Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Secretary of State, 503 Mich. 42, 73, 921 N.W.2d 247 (2018).
36 Citizens for Capital Punishment v. Secretary of State, 414 Mich. 913, 915 (1982).
37 Consumers Power Co, 426 Mich. at 2, 392 N.W.2d 513, quoting MCL 168.472a, as enacted by 1973 PA 112. The current
version of MCL 168.472a states, “The signature on a petition that proposes an amendment to the constitution or is to
initiate legislation shall not be counted if the signature was made more than 180 days before the petition is filed with the
office of the secretary of state.”
38 Consumers Power Co, 426 Mich. at 8, 392 N.W.2d 513.
39 Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2 (emphasis added).
40 The constitutional convention debates and the Address to the People are useful interpretive tools that aid in ascertaining
the common understanding of the ratifiers. Burdick v. Secretary of State, 373 Mich. 578, 584, 130 N.W.2d 380 (1964).

2022 WL 211736
Nonetheless, these records, while relevant, are not controlling. People v. Tanner, 496 Mich. 199, 226, 853 N.W.2d 653
(2014).
41 Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution v. Secretary of State, 503 Mich. at 71-75, 921 N.W.2d 247 (discussing the
history of Article 12, § 2).
42 Const. 1908, art. 17, § 2 (as ratified).
43 Id.
44 Journal of the Constitutional Convention 1907–1908, p. 1591.
45 McHargue, Direct Government in Michigan (Lansing: State of Michigan, 1961), p. 22 (“The legislative veto and the high
percentage required for petition qualification rendered the provision for popularly initiated constitutional amendments
ineffective. It was never used. Nevertheless, it served as a stepping stone to the more liberal provisions adopted in 1913.”).
46 Const. 1908, art. 17, § 2 (as amended); Const. 1908, art. 5, § 1 (as amended). See also Grossman, The Initiative
and Referendum Process: The Michigan Experience, 28 Wayne L Rev 77, 79 (1981), citing Pollock, The Initiative and
Referendum in Michigan (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1940), pp. 3-4.
47 Wolverine Golf Club v. Secretary of State, 24 Mich.App. 711, 717, 180 N.W.2d 820 (1970), aff'd 384 Mich. 461, 185
N.W.2d 392 (1971).
48 State of Michigan Bureau of Elections, Initiatives and Referendums Under the Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1963
(January 2019) <https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Initia_Ref_Under_Consti_12-08_339399_7.pdf> (accessed
January 13, 2022) [https://perma.cc/9ZFX-FHR5]. Of those 33 voter-initiated constitutional amendments, 12 were
approved. Of the 14 proposed initiatives placed on the ballot by petition, 8 were approved. And of the 10 referendums
placed on the ballot by petition, 1 was approved. Id.
49 Wolverine Golf Club, 24 Mich. App at 718, 180 N.W.2d 820 (“ ‘Why has the indirect statutory initiative been used so
seldom? It would seem that the delay inherent in the process (and delay occurs unless legislative acquiescence is
forthcoming and even then if opponents can gather sufficient signatures for a referendum petition) militates against the
chance of successful promotion of such a measure. Then, too, the direct constitutional initiative requires only a slightly

higher percentage of petition signatures and has the advantage of attracting more interest and receiving a direct popular
vote. Whatever the reasons, the indirect initiative has been one of the least used of Michigan's devices of direct legislation.’
”), quoting Direct Government, p. 30.
50 City of Jackson v. Comm'r. of Revenue, 316 Mich. 694, 710, 26 N.W.2d 569 (1947) (“Nowhere in [Const. 1908, art. 17,
§§ 1 to 3] or elsewhere in the Constitution do we find any limitation to the effect that what might otherwise be considered
as legislation cannot be initiated by petition, under said sections, as an amendment to the Constitution.”). See also The
Michigan Experience, 28 Wayne L Rev at 107 n 176.
51 Id. at 107 (“[T]he constitutional initiative has been the preferred method of direct legislation in Michigan. The greater
signature requirements are far outweighed by [the] procedural advantages: ... [the] lack of restriction as to subject matter,
immunity to legislative change[,] and stronger legal protection in case of court challenge, especially in state courts.”)
(citations omitted).
52 2 Official Record, Constitutional Convention 1961, p. 2459 (capitalization altered).
53 Id. at 2460-2465.
54 See, e.g., id. at 2462 (“[A]s the state grows in the future in population, it will become easier to put a constitutional
amendment on the ballot by the initiative than it is to put an ordinary statute on the ballot by use of the initiative.”)
(statement of Delegate J. Harold Stevens). Delegate Stevens also explained that his reasons for opposing the 300,000
fixed-signature alternative were similar to his committee proposal to increase the minimum number of signatures required

2022 WL 211736
for voter-initiated constitutional amendments from 10% to 15%—“discourag[ing] people from putting statutory matter into
the constitution.” Id.
55 Id. at 3199. The delegates also considered a proposal to lower the minimum number of required signatures needed for
initiatives from 8% to 5%, same as the referendum. Id. at 2392-2395. The proposal, if adopted, would have made voter-
initiated constitutional amendments twice as difficult as the initiative process. Supporters of the proposal acknowledged
that the initiative was seldom used and that the electorate frequently used voter-initiated constitutional amendments to
propose matters that were statutory in nature. Thus, they argued that lowering the minimum threshold would encourage
the use of the initiative, making it less likely that the electorate would place routine matters of public policy into the
Constitution through the use of voter-initiated constitutional amendments. Opponents of the proposal won the day,
however, arguing that it should also be hard for the people to initiate legislation and that the 8% minimum threshold
would ensure that the initiative process remained sufficiently difficult. Accordingly, while the delegates were concerned
with petition drives opting for voter-initiated constitutional amendments over initiatives, they were also concerned with
direct democracy supplanting traditional republican lawmaking. See, e.g., id. at 2394 (“[The initiative process is] tough.
We want to make it tough. It should not be easy. The people should not be writing the laws. That's what we have a senate
and house of representatives for.”) (statement of Delegate Richard D. Kuhn).
56 Id. at 2469-2472.
57 Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution, 503 Mich. at 75, 921 N.W.2d 247 (emphasis omitted).
58 See, e.g., 2 Official Record, Constitutional Convention 1961, p. 3199 (“Michigan for years has had a constitution which
is one of the easiest to amend of any of the states. My objection to this provision”—a 300,000 fixed-signature alternative
to the 10% threshold for voter-initiated constitutional amendments—“is simply to make it more difficult to amend the
constitution than to pass an ordinary statute.”) (statement of Delegate Stevens); id. at 2394 (“I think often when people
are trying to decide which to do, they may say: well, let's just get 2 per cent more and get a constitutional amendment.
And that may be one of the reasons that it's said we have much legislation in our constitution.”) (statement of Delegate
Tom Downs); id. at 2395 (“Very, very seldom has th[e] ... initiative been used, because with the requirement of 10 per
cent necessary to put a constitutional amendment on, most groups have taken the alternative of putting the constitutional
amendment on, and thereby writing into the constitution many, many things which are really legislative in detail, their
theory being, we'll put it in the constitution and the legislature can't change it.”) (statement of Delegate Clyne W. Durst, Jr.).
59

The Michigan Experience, 28 Wayne L Rev at 104.
60 2 Official Record, Constitutional Convention 1961, pp. 2465-2469, 3200-3201. It should be noted, however, that the 10%
county-distribution requirement was packaged together with other proposed revisions to Article 12, § 2 as a substitute.
Id. at 2465-2469. The delegates, therefore, did not vote down the 10% county-distribution requirement in isolation, but
voted down the substitute as a whole.
61 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 567-568, 579, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964) (holding that apportionment
of seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be done equally based on population, because “the
overriding objective must be substantial equality of population among the various districts, so that the vote of any citizen is
approximately equal in weight to that of any other citizen in the State”). A few years later, the Supreme Court struck down
on equal-protection grounds an Illinois statute requiring presidential candidates seeking a place on the ballot to obtain 200
petition signatures from at least 50 of the state's 102 counties. Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 815-819, 89 S.Ct. 1493,
23 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969). At the time, 93.4% of Illinois's registered voters resided in 49 counties, with the remaining 6.6%
spread over the remaining 53 counties. Because the statute effectively allowed the rural minority in 53 counties to place
a candidate on the ballot while the urban majority in 49 counties could not, the Court held that the statute “discriminate[d]
against the residents of the populous counties of the State in favor of rural sections.” Id. at 819, 89 S.Ct. 1493.
62 See Evenwel v. Abbott, 578 U.S. 54, 136 S.Ct. 1120, 1124, 194 L.Ed.2d 291 (2016) (explaining that “jurisdictions must
design both congressional and state-legislative districts with equal populations, and must regularly reapportion districts to
prevent malapportionment”); Utah Safe to Learn–Safe To Worship Coalition, Inc. v. State, 94 P.3d 217, 229, 2004 UT 32
(2004) (“By basing the signature requirement on evenly divided, population-based senate districts, the legislature has not
created a discriminatory classification or caused a disparate impact among classes or subclasses.”). See also Semple v.

2022 WL 211736
Williams, 290 F.Supp.3d 1187, 1193-1194 (D.Colo, 2018) (comparing courts that “have uniformly struck down geography-
based signature-gathering requirements when the relevant geographic subdivision was the county” with those courts that
“have uniformly upheld geography-based signature-gathering requirements when the relevant geographic subdivision
[was] a congressional district or state legislative district, given that such districts must (per Supreme Court precedent) be
of approximately equal population”), rev'd sub nom. Semple v. Griswold, 934 F.3d 1134, 1138-1139, 1141-1142 (CA 10,
2019) (holding that an amendment of the Colorado Constitution, which required petitions seeking to place voter-initiated
constitutional amendments on the ballot to be signed by at least 2% of total registered electors in each state senate
district, did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because senate districts were roughly equal in total population).
63 Ante at ––––, citing 2 Official Record, Constitutional Convention 1961, pp. 2466-2469, 3200.
64 See, e.g., 2 Official Record, Constitutional Convention 1961, p. 2468 (“I think everyone is well aware of what the substitute
means, what it is intended to do ... [.] [Y]ou could conceivably have a minority, an extreme minority of the population in
a large percentage of the thinly populated counties who would have complete and absolute control over whether or not
there would be any constitutional amendments submitted to the people.”) (statement of Delegate William Marshall); id. at
3200 (“[W]hat you are saying here is that those of us who live in Wayne county, merely because we do compose of a third
of the state's population, are not going to count as heavily as those in the rest of the state. I think this is a distinctly unfair
and prejudiced position to take ....”) (statement of Delegate Catherine Moore Cushman). See also Utah Safe to Learn., 94
P.3d at 229 (explaining that a distribution requirement based on geographically drawn counties “discriminate[s] against
urban voters by diluting the voting power of ... urban counties” and allows “the rural minority [to] act as a check and
a balance on the urban majority” whereas a geographic-distribution requirement based on evenly divided, population-
based districts “does not assign disproportionate power to any particular group of voters”).
65 Id. at 3200 (“I attack this particular amendment as being a violation of equal protection of the laws.”) (statement of
Delegate Melvin Nord).
66 3
A few delegates made this point when discussing whether to require a /5 vote to amend the Constitution by petition rather
than a simple majority, which was considered together with the 10% county-distribution requirement. See, e.g., id. at
2466 (“[I]f we are right in saying that we want to do away with statutory detail, that we want to write a good constitution, a
good fundamental law, let's not leave it so it is going to be changed in another year or two by everyone who has a little axe
to grind getting aboard a petition[,] putting it on the ballot[,] getting it to carry[,] and having our constitution sufficiently or
adequately detailed so that we will have to have another convention in another 10 years.”) (statement of Delegate Garry

Brown); id. at 2468 (“[W]hen we are dealing with something as fundamental as a constitution, which is a protection against
the imposition of the will of the state, that we should be very careful in the allowance of those particular guarantees to be
changed because the constitution is a compact with the people. It represents not only what the position of the people is
for the present day but also for the future, for those yet unborn children. I feel that it is very necessary to make it more
difficult to change and alter the basic law and constitution of the state.”) (statement of Delegate O. Lee Boothby).
67 See, e.g., id. at 2467 (“The whole purpose of requiring that you get not more than 10 per cent coming from any one county
is that this is a statewide provision, that it will have statewide effect, and that there should be more than a self starter
in one county insofar as any provision is concerned that is going to become part of our basic and fundamental law.”)
(statement of Delegate Brown); id. at 2467-2468 (“[A] law generally affects not a complete state but, generally speaking,
only a part of the state or a part of the whole. The constitution affects the whole and, for that reason, it should reflect
more of a general, all over policy rather than a policy of one particular area.”) (statement of Delegate Boothby).
68 See, e.g., Utah Safe to Learn., 94 P.3d at 229 (explaining that a geographic-distribution requirement based on state
senate districts “does not unduly burden the initiative right, but is a reasonable means of achieving the legitimate
legislative purpose of ensuring a modicum of support for an initiative throughout the statewide population”). See also
House Legislative Analysis, HB 6595 (December, 13, 2018), p. 2 (“A maximum percentage from each congressional
district would ensure that petitions destined for the ballot were supported by a more representative geographic cross-
section of Michiganders ....”).
69 In urging the convention to reject the 25% county-distribution requirement, one delegate stated:

2022 WL 211736
I think that we are again trying to get into a statutory position when we should not. I don't think that the amendment is
consistent with what we want in this constitution in this particular area. This amendment does not determine the course
of events. This merely creates an opportunity for the people to vote on an issue and it does not determine the issue
once the amendment is placed on the ballot. When the proper signatures have been obtained, all of the people of the
state will have an opportunity, if they wish, to exercise their franchise. I would like to urge you strongly not to get into
this particular trap of putting this type of statutory language in the constitution. I would like to urge that you defeat this
amendment and leave the language as we now have it. [2 Official Record, Constitutional Convention 1961, p. 3200
(statement of Delegate Arthur G. Elliott, Jr.) (emphasis added).]
70 Compare 2 Official Record, Constitutional Convention 1961, p. 3367 (“Matters of legislative detail contained in [Const.
1963, art. 2, § 9] are left to the legislature.”) with id. at 3407 (noting with regard to Const. 1963, art. 12, § 2 that “[d]etails
as to form of petitions, their circulation and other elections procedures are left to the determination of the legislature.”)
(emphasis added).
71 Thompson v. Secretary of State, 192 Mich. 512, 520, 159 N.W. 65 (1916) (“ ‘A constitutional provision may be said to be
self-executing, if it supplies a sufficient rule, by means of which the right given may be enjoyed and protected, or the duty
imposed may be enforced; and it is not self-executing when it merely indicates principles, without laying down rules by
means of which those principles may be given the force of law.’ ”), quoting Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (7th ed.),
p. 121. See also Wolverine Golf Club, 24 Mich.App. at 725, 180 N.W.2d 820 (“Whether a constitutional provision is self-
executing is largely determined by whether legislation is a necessary prerequisite to the operation of the provision.”).
72 Ferency, 409 Mich. at 591 n 10, 297 N.W.2d 544 (explaining that “the principle that the Legislature may not unduly burden
the self-executing constitutional procedure applies equally to both [Const. 1963, art. 2, § 9, and art. 12, § 2]” because
“both are procedures whereby the people reserved to themselves the power to directly change the law, constitutional or
statutory, under which they live”). See also Constitutional Limitations, p. 122 (explaining that supplemental legislation to
self-executing rights “may be desirable, ... but all such legislation must be subordinate to the constitutional provision, and
in furtherance of its purpose, and must not in any particular attempt to narrow or embarrass it”).
73 The legislators opposed to the geographic-distribution requirement in 2018 PA 608 pointed out that 7 of Michigan's 14
congressional districts touch Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties; therefore, they questioned how the requirement
would ensure greater geographic representation if petition drives could gather the requisite number of signatures without
leaving the tri-county area. See House Legislative Analysis, HB 6595 (December, 13, 2018), p. 2.

74 Taylor, 468 Mich. at 6, 658 N.W.2d 127.
75 Kuhn v. Dep't of Treasury, 384 Mich. 378, 385, 183 N.W.2d 796 (1971).
76 Hamilton v. Secretary of State, 227 Mich. 111, 125, 198 N.W. 843 (1924) (“The only limitation, unless otherwise expressly
indicated, on legislation supplementary to self-executing constitutional provisions is that the right guaranteed shall not
be curtailed or any undue burdens placed thereon.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted; emphasis added).
77 Scott v. Secretary of State, 202 Mich. 629, 643, 168 N.W. 709 (1918) (emphasis added).
78 The majority opinion fails to appreciate this point when it states that my position “significantly undervalues” the geographic-
distribution requirement as a substantive limitation on the people's right to propose constitutional amendments by petition.
468 Mich. at 18, 658 N.W.2d 127. As we held in Citizens for Capital Punishment, 414 Mich. at 915, 347 N.W.2d 694,
the Legislature's authority to prescribe the manner by which petitions proposing constitutional amendments are signed
and circulated is a textual limitation “authorized by the constitution itself” on that right. In any event, as discussed,
the geographic-distribution requirement does not unduly burden the people's right to engage in direct democracy. It
does not alter the minimum number of signatures needed to place a proposal on the ballot; it only specifies where
in the state those signatures must be collected. The majority opinion states that, unlike the rebuttable presumption
in Consumers Power, 425 Mich. 1, 385 N.W.2d 604, the geographic-distribution requirement “irrefutably invalidate[s]
signatures collected beyond the 15% cap, making it a more onerous burden on the people's right to propose amendments
to the state Constitution ....” 461 Mich. at 23, 597 N.W.2d 148 n 14 (emphasis omitted). Yet it will almost always be the
case that some signatures affixed to a petition will be invalidated in one way or another. Petition drives generally account

2022 WL 211736
for this by obtaining more than the minimum number of signatures needed to place a petition on the ballot. Therefore,
even after the 15% maximum per congressional district is met, the requirement does not prevent people from signing
the petitions. In keeping with MCL 168.476(1), the geographic-distribution requirement simply stops counting signatures
once the Board of State Canvassers has “canvass[ed] the petitions to ascertain if the petitions have been signed by the
requisite number of qualified and registered electors” in a single congressional district—just as the board does when
the 10% minimum signature threshold used to place a proposal on the ballot. And, contrary to the majority opinion's
position that electors whose signatures are collected after the 15% geographic-distribution requirement is satisfied are
“silenced” by its application, there is no indication that these electors are prohibited from signing the petition even after the
requirement is met, nor are they otherwise prevented from expressing their support (or opposition) to the ballot proposal.
79 Skinner, 502 Mich. at 99, 917 N.W.2d 292 (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Consumers Power Co., 426
Mich. at 10, 392 N.W.2d 513 (“A court will not declare a statute unconstitutional unless it is plain that it violates some
provisions of the constitution and the constitutionality of the act will be supported by all possible presumptions not clearly
inconsistent with the language and the subject matter.”).
80 Phillips, 470 Mich. at 422, 685 N.W.2d 174.
81 A “paid signature gather” is defined as “an individual who is compensated, directly or indirectly, through payments of
money or other valuable consideration to obtain signatures on a petition as described in [MCL 168.471].” MCL 168.482d.
82 League of Women Voters of Mich. v. Secretary of State, ––– Mich.App. ––––, ––––; ––– N.W.2d ––––, 2021 WL 5048187
(2021) (LWV) (Docket Nos. 357984 and 357986), slip op. at 16.
83 U.S. Const., Am. I; see also Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 420, 108 S.Ct. 1886, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988). “The individual
right to solicit signatures to qualify an initiative petition is protected by the rights of free expression, assembly, and petition,
guaranteed in [Const. 1963, art. 1, §§ 3, 5].” Woodland v. Mich. Citizens Lobby, 423 Mich. 188, 215, 378 N.W.2d 337
(1985). While “the Michigan Constitution may afford broader free expression and petition protections against government
infringements” than the United States Constitution, there is no contention here that it does. Id. at 202, 378 N.W.2d
337. Accordingly, it is appropriate to review the free-speech rights at issue under both the United States and Michigan
Constitutions as coterminous.
84 Meyer, 486 Mich. at 421-422, 108 S.Ct. 1886 (quotation marks and citations omitted).

85 Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc, 525 U.S. 182, 187, 119 S.Ct. 636, 142 L.Ed.2d 599 (1999)
(ACLF) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
86 Id. at 191, 119 S.Ct. 636.
87 Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 197-198, 130 S.Ct. 2811, 177 L.Ed.2d 493 (2010).
88 Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted, 751 F.3d 403, 413 (CA 6, 2014).
89 Id., citing Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm., 558 U.S. 310, 366, 130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010).
90 Reed, 561 U.S. at 196, 130 S.Ct. 2811.
91 Husted, 751 F.3d at 414.
92 Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted).
93 Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434, 112 S.Ct. 2059, 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992), quoting Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460
U.S. 780, 789, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 75 L.Ed.2d 547 (1983).
94 Meyer, 486 U.S. at 422-423, 108 S.Ct. 1886.
95 Id. at 426.

2022 WL 211736
96 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm., 514 U.S. 334, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995).
97 Id. at 357, 115 S.Ct. 1511.
98 Id. at 348-349, 115 S.Ct. 1511.
99 Id. at 353, 115 S.Ct. 1511.
100 ACLF, 525 U.S. at 194-195, 119 S.Ct. 636 (brackets omitted), quoting Meyer, 486 U.S. at 422-423, 108 S.Ct. 1886.
101 ACLF, 525 U.S. at 198, 199, 119 S.Ct. 636 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
102 Id. at 204, 119 S.Ct. 636 (citation and alteration omitted).
103 The lower courts in ACLF upheld the affidavit requirement, and those rulings were not challenged in the Supreme Court.
104 Id. at 204 n 24, 119 S.Ct. 636 (citation and alteration omitted).
105 Husted, 751 F.3d 403.
106 Id. at 417.
107 Id.
108 Id. at 417-418.
109 LWV, ––– Mich.App. ––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––, slip op at 18. Although the majority opinion assumes “for the sake of
argument” that the checkbox requirement “imposes some direct but minimal burden on core political speech,” 461 Mich.
at 30, 597 N.W.2d 148, I agree with the Court of Appeals’ assessment that the actual burden imposed by the checkbox
requirement is de minimis.
110 Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 358, 117 S.Ct. 1364, 137 L.Ed.2d 589 (1997) (emphasis added).
111 Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434, 112 S.Ct. 2059 (emphasis added).

112 See Anderson, 460 U.S. at 789, 103 S.Ct. 1564 (“[A reviewing court] must first consider the character and magnitude of
the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate.
It then must identify and evaluate the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed
by its rule.”) (emphasis added).
113 In re 2005 PA 71, 479 Mich. at 11, 740 N.W.2d 444 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
114 LWV, ––– Mich.App. at ––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––, slip op. at 20.
115 See Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U.S. 433, 444, 135 S.Ct. 1656, 191 L.Ed.2d 570 (2015) (noting that, when strict
scrutiny applies, the burden is on the state to show that a restriction on speech is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling
interest).
116 ACLF, 525 U.S. at 198-199, 119 S.Ct. 636.
117 Burdick, 504 U.S. at 433, 112 S.Ct. 2059.
118 Reed, 561 U.S. at 201, 130 S.Ct. 2811.
119 Id. at 198, 130 S.Ct. 2811.
120 Although Meyer and ACLF held that there was no evidence that paid circulators are more or less likely to commit fraud,
those cases were decided in 1988 and 1999, respectively. In 2010, the Supreme Court in Reed held that a statute that

2022 WL 211736
permits public disclosure of the names and addresses of the signers of petitions does not violate the First Amendment
because it helps preserve the integrity of the electoral process by combating fraud, detecting invalid signatures, and
fostering government transparency and accountability. Reed, 561 U.S. at 197, 130 S.Ct. 2811. In reaching that conclusion,
the Court noted the state's citation of “a number of cases of petition-related fraud across the country,” thus supporting the
notion that “[t]he threat of fraud in this context is not merely hypothetical.” Id. at 197-198, 130 S.Ct. 2811. Also, in Husted,
the circuit court in 2014 held that there was evidence that paid circulators were more apt to commit fraud than volunteer
circulators and, indeed, there was evidence in Husted that paid circulators had committed fraud. Even more recently, in
Unlock Mich. v. Bd. of State Canvassers, ––– Mich. ––––, 961 N.W.2d 211 (2021), intervening defendant Keep Michigan
Safe challenged the certification of the initiative petition at issue by alleging that signature-gathering efforts needed to
be investigated by the Board of State Canvassers for fraud. This Court ultimately ordered that the petition be certified to
the Legislature because the Board, lacking a majority willing to investigate further, had a clear legal duty to certify the
proposal. Our order did not address the merits of the challengers’ fraud allegations, but the episode illustrates the fact
that fraud remains a recurring accusation in the context of petition drives.
1 Although the majority merely assumes for the sake of argument that the checkbox minimally burdens core political
speech, I agree with the Court of Claims and the previous Court of Appeals panel that “[t]his type of compelled disclosure
discourages participation in the petition circulation process and inhibits core political speech.” League of Women Voters
v. Secretary of State, 331 Mich.App. 156, 191, 952 N.W.2d 491 (2020).
End of Document © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.

Government Works.

EXHIBIT 14
5/24/22, 1:28 AM Craig Mauger on Twitter: "The Bureau of Election says that Perry Johnson submitted "insufficient" petitions, according to documen…
Search Twitter
Craig Mauger @CraigDMauger · 6h

Explore According to a document reviewed by The Detroit News, the Bureau of
Elections says James Craig is "far below the minimum threshold for ballot
access."
Settings
Standby for news.
10 165 344

Tudor Dixon's petitions are sufficient, according to recommendation from
the Bureau of Elections viewed by The Detroit News.
Thread
2 23 62
Craig Mauger
@CraigDMauger New to Twitter?
Sign up now to get your own perso
The Bureau of Election says that Perry Johnson
submitted "insufficient" petitions, according to Sign up with G
document reviewed by The Detroit News.

Sign up with A
7:31 PM · May 23, 2022 · Twitter Web App
Sign up with phone o

26 Retweets 9 Quote Tweets 79 Likes
By signing up, you agree to the Te
Privacy Policy, including Cookie U
Perry Johnson’s Hair @perrys_hair · 5h

Relevant people
Replying to @CraigDMauger
oops.
Craig Mauger
6 @CraigDMauger
Covers state govern
dlfreoh @luvmymoose · 5h in Michigan for @de

Replying to @CraigDMauger from Edison County
@MichiganCFN + @
Whoopsie. So much for running a “quality” campaign.
is cmauger@detroit
3
Show more replies What’s happening
News · LIVE
More Tweets
Johnny Depp and Amber He
defamation trial enters sixt
CALL TO ACTIVISM @CalltoActivism · May 21 final week
BREAKING: Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance urges the January 6th
Committee to investigate and haul in Ginni Thomas for questioning over her
USA TODAY · 5 hours ago
Arizona election emails.
An emergency shipment of
Should they? formula arrived in the US
Sunday. Here's everything
2,526 7,455 42.1K need to know about the ba
formula shortage.
Rachel Vindman @natsechobbyist · 17h
My husband—on behalf of our entire family—would like a word. 60 Minutes · Yesterday
Students, parents from five
Senator Ted Cruz @SenTedCruz · May 22 Chicago schools will get co
for free
The reason we should support our Ukrainian allies is because it protects
American national security, it keeps America safer, and it prevents our
enemies from getting stronger.
WNBA · 1 hour ago

Sparks at Aces
Don’t miss what’s happening
cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press… Trending with Aces
Log in S
People on Twitter are the first to know.
226 2,335 23.7K
MLB
https://twitter.com/CraigDMauger/status/1528881377688657921?cxt=HHwWgoC9zefg1rcqAAAA 1/6
226 2,335 23.7K
MLB · LIVE
Brewers at Padres
Search Twitter
Joe Biden @JoeBiden · 12h Trending with Alfaro
United States government official
Explore I proposed a minimum tax for corporations that asks them to pay their fair Show more
share in taxes.
Settings Senator Scott’s plan lets them off scot-free. Terms of Service Privacy Policy
Accessibility Ads info More
3,305 4,473 21.2K © 2022 Twitter, Inc.
Amy Klobuchar @amyklobuchar · 5h

No matter what, women have a fundamental right to make their own
decisions about their bodies.
1,833 1,950 14.5K
Reverend Raphael Warnock @ReverendWarnock · 16h

Hey folks! Tomorrow's the primary election right here in GA! As a voice for
Georgians in the U.S. Senate, I'll continue the fight for voting rights
legislation, so every eligible voter can be heard.
261 2,895 12.2K
Marc E. Elias @marceelias · 7h

The irony of a Trump Republican now supporting the counting of mail
ballots without dates is beyond words.
David M. Drucker @DavidMDrucker · 7h

NEWS: @DaveMcCormickPA has filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania court to
compel counting of GOP mail-in ballots submitted ON TIME but w/out a
handwritten date on the outside envelope, in a bid to close #PASEN gap
w/ @DrOz. washingtonexaminer.com/news/mccormick… @dcexaminer
201 2,998 10.7K
Rep. Eric Swalwell @RepSwalwell · 14h

Sounds like the police are doing their job. Why don’t you do yours and fund
more police? @housegop voted against $300m in community funding.

GOP @GOP · May 22
11,007 pounds of methamphetamine was seized at the southern border
in April alone!
422 2,188 10.3K
Mehdi Hasan @mehdirhasan · 6h

Racism, pure and simple. Disgusting and unforgivable.
Acyn @Acyn · 7h
Perdue on Abrams: She’s not from here. My inclination is to say “you
don’t like it, go back to where you came from”
Don’t miss what’s805happening 1,926 8,868 Log in S

Alexander S. Vindman @AVindman · 2h
Let us pray. Search Twitter
VoteVets @votevets · 7h
Explore
Marjorie Traitor Greene could lose her primary tomorrow.
Settings 290 728 8,342
Gretchen Whitmer @gretchenwhitmer · 11h

Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for nearly my entire lifetime. I’m
fighting for my daughters — and for every generation after them — to have
the same rights I’ve had.
173 546 4,172
Marc E. Elias @marceelias · 3h

um...what?
talkingpointsmemo.com
Leading GOP Candidates For Michigan Guv Could Be Disqualified Ove…
A signature forgery scandal has turned the race for the GOP
nomination...
170 1,001 3,309
Mallory McMorrow @MalloryMcMorrow · 2h

HALF of the Michigan Republican candidates for governor (all of whom

have touted widely-discredited claims of election fraud) may not make the
ballot because of *checks notes* election fraud
Matt Grossmann @MattGrossmann · 2h

5 of 10 Michigan Republican candidates for Governor may not make the
ballot, including the polling & spending leaders, because too many of
their signatures came from a fraudulent signature gathering firm
bridgemi.com/michigan-gover…
51 740 2,490
Show this thread
Don’t miss what’s happening Log in S

Search Twitter
Explore
Settings

Search Twitter
Explore
Settings

Search Twitter
Explore
Settings

5/24/22, 1:26 AM Gongwer Michigan on Twitter: "Bureau of Elections recommends Republicans James Craig, Perry Johnson be disqualified from th…
Tweet Search Twitter
Gongwer Michigan
Explore @GongwerMichigan New to Twitter?
Settings Bureau of Elections recommends Republicans James
Craig, Perry Johnson be disqualified from the Sign up with G
gubernatorial primary ballot in August, clears Tudor

Sign up with A
Dixon for ballot access. Final decision up to Board of
State Canvassers this week.
Sign up with phone o

Relevant people
Gongwer Michigan
@GongwerMichigan
The premier source
information on Mich
and politics.
What’s happening
7:40 PM · May 23, 2022 · TweetDeck
News · LIVE
Johnny Depp and Amber He
11 Retweets 5 Quote Tweets 15 Likes defamation trial enters sixt
final week
USA TODAY · 5 hours ago

An emergency shipment of
Teku 7 @CapitalATwo · 5h
formula arrived in the US
Replying to @GongwerMichigan
Sunday. Here's everything
thank GOD need to know about the ba
formula shortage.

Washington Post Li… · Ye
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive Ukraine's prosecutor gener
Show
content Iryna Venediktova discusse
investigating and prosecuti
war crimes committed by
More Tweets Russian forces in Ukraine
Josh Shapiro @JoshShapiroPA · May 20 WNBA · 1 hour ago

Our next Governor will nominate a Secretary of State who’ll defend Sparks at Aces
democracy or undermine it.
Trending with Aces
Doug Mastriano promised to handpick a far-right nominee who’d help him

MLB · LIVE
decertify every voting machine in the state if he doesn't like the outcome of
the election.
Brewers at Padres
Trending with Alfaro
He’s said it himself.
262 3,208 8,934 Show more
Show this thread Terms of Service Privacy Policy

Mark Joseph Stern @mjs_DC · May 20 © 2022 Twitter, Inc.
In November 2020, Ginni Thomas emailed Arizona lawmakers urging them

to apply the "independent state legislature doctrine"—which Clarence
Thomas has endorsed—to overturn the results of the election.
washingtonpost.com/investigations…
https://twitter.com/GongwerMichigan/status/1528883724531679232?cxt=HHwWgICy-bTp17cqAAAA 1/7
Search Twitter
Explore
Settings
322 4,198 7,672
Show this thread
Gretchen Whitmer @gretchenwhitmer · 11h

Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for nearly my entire lifetime. I’m
fighting for my daughters — and for every generation after them — to have
the same rights I’ve had.
173 546 4,169

HALF of the Michigan Republican candidates for governor (all of whom
have touted widely-discredited claims of election fraud) may not make the
ballot because of *checks notes* election fraud
Matt Grossmann @MattGrossmann · 2h

5 of 10 Michigan Republican candidates for Governor may not make the
ballot, including the polling & spending leaders, because too many of
their signatures came from a fraudulent signature gathering firm
bridgemi.com/michigan-gover…
51 737 2,480
Show this thread

This is a five-alarm fire. 48% of Michigan legislative Republicans took steps
to discredit or overturn the 2020 election. And Trump wants to replace
them with those who WILL do what it takes to throw your vote out if they
don’t like the results. nytimes.com/interactive/20…
31 927 2,350
Show this thread
Marc E. Elias @marceelias · May 21

“A 400 percent increase in mail-ballot rejection rates in last year’s
municipal elections…[and[ the bill’s provision allowing any voter to
Don’t miss what’s challengehappening
registrations led to an attempt in Forsyth County to reject the
Log in S
registration
People on Twitter are the of 13,000 voters.”
first to know.
Search Twitter
Explore
Settings
washingtonpost.com
Voting is surging in Georgia despite controversial new election law
Tuesday’s primary is the first big test of new election legislation, which
was opposed by voting rights groups and Democrats.
75 1,132 2,328
The Associated Press @AP · May 20

Newly revealed emails between Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of Supreme
Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and Republican lawmakers in Arizona show
her involvement in trying to overturn 2020 presidential election results is
broader than originally known.
apnews.com

Ginni Thomas' emails deepen her involvement in 2020 election
WASHINGTON (AP) — Virginia “Ginni” Thomas , wife of Supreme Court
Justice Clarence Thomas and a conservative political activist, urged …
174 842 1,490
Show this thread

Search Twitter
Explore
Settings

Search Twitter
Explore
Settings

Search Twitter
Explore
Settings

Search Twitter
Explore
Settings

5/24/22, 1:27 AM David Eggert on Twitter: "BREAKING: State elections bureau says Craig and Johnson did NOT file enough valid signatures. It rec…
Tweet Search Twitter
David Eggert
Explore @DavidEggert00 New to Twitter?
Settings BREAKING: State elections bureau says Craig and
Johnson did NOT file enough valid signatures. It Sign up with G
recommends that they NOT make the GOP

Sign up with A
gubernatorial primary ballot.
7:31 PM · May 23, 2022 · TweetDeck Sign up with phone o

284 Retweets 95 Quote Tweets 1,423 Likes
Relevant people
Matt Riekens @MattRiekens · 5h
Replying to @DavidEggert00 David Eggert
Massive blow for the ego-driven sector of the party. Great day for the party @DavidEggert00
Michigan governme
3
correspondent for @
dad of 2 & @Northw
Michigan Voter #MI10 #VoteBlue @1MichiganVoter · 5h deggert@ap.org
Replying to @DavidEggert00
what about Dixon?
2 What’s happening
AP @bwaydiva1 · 5h News · LIVE

Her issue wasn’t the number of signatures. It was an administrative error. Johnny Depp and Amber He
defamation trial enters sixt
4 final week
Show more replies 60 Minutes · Yesterday

Students, parents from five
More Tweets Chicago schools will get co
for free

Rick Wilson @TheRickWilson · 18h
A sensible country would put the attendees of CPAC Hungary's
Washington Post Li… · Ye
fascistpalooza on a watch list. Ukraine's prosecutor gener
Iryna Venediktova discusse
489 6,068 30.4K investigating and prosecuti
war crimes committed by
Laurence Tribe @tribelaw · 17h Russian forces in Ukraine
Anyone tempted to vote for a Republican for Congress should know this: A
GOP-controlled House in January 2023 would be poised to count fake WNBA · 1 hour ago
slates of Trump presidential electors in December 2024. So think twice Sparks at Aces
before voting R in any House race this November. DON’T RISK IT! Trending with Aces
913 9,640 24.5K
MLB · LIVE
Rachel Vindman @natsechobbyist · 17h Brewers at Padres
My husband—on behalf of our entire family—would like a word. Trending with Alfaro
Senator Ted Cruz @SenTedCruz · May 22 Show more

The reason we should support our Ukrainian allies is because it protects
American national security, it keeps America safer, and it prevents our
Terms of Service Privacy Policy
enemies from getting stronger.

© 2022 Twitter, Inc.

cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press…
226 2,335 23.7K
Joyce Alene @JoyceWhiteVance · 10h

Don’t miss what’s happening in Johnny Depp & Amber Heard than the ongoing
If you’re more interested
Log in S
threat
People on Twitter are the first to
to American
know. democracy you may wake up one day to find you’re
living under a form of gov’t that’s not the one you’ve always taken for
https://twitter.com/DavidEggert00/status/1528881448106745862?cxt=HHwWjICzofTk1rcqAAAA 1/6
granted & doesn’t guarantee rights you always thought you’d have.
Search Twitter
1,100 5,276 22.6K
Explore Tristan Snell @TristanSnell · May 20

BREAKING: John Eastman reveals Trump personally wrote handwritten
notes to him on trying to overturn 2020 election.
Settings
Eastman is sharing this in a court filing to show some attorney-client
privilege. Instead the privilege won’t apply because it doesn’t cover
commission of crimes.
411 6,295 22.1K
Show this thread
Joe Biden @JoeBiden · 12h

United States government official
I proposed a minimum tax for corporations that asks them to pay their fair
share in taxes.
Senator Scott’s plan lets them off scot-free.
3,305 4,473 21.2K
Hugo Lowell @hugolowell · 11h

New: House Ethics opens investigation into House Republican Madison
Cawthorn over allegations he engaged in an inappropriate relationship with
a staffer and promoted a cryptocurrency in which he had an undisclosed
financial interest.
520 4,803 21.1K
Rachel Vindman @natsechobbyist · 5h

Mom and Dad have a night out @PENamerica
Don’t miss what’s474happening 562 20.8K

Log in S
Marcus Flowers @Marcus4Georgia · 16h
Marcus Flowers @Marcus4Georgia 16h
Marjorie Taylor Greene is more vulnerable than ever.
Search Twitter
Georgians are going to flip GA-14 BLUE in November!

Explore 439 2,278 16.4K
Show this thread

Settings
Barb McQuade @BarbMcQuade · 14h
As I have been saying since February…. And even if you can prove that
Trump incited the mob that attacked the Capitol, you don’t need to do so to
prove the case. Trump’s public pressure on Pence to abuse his power as VP
is enough.
justsecurity.org
Prosecuting Trump for the Insurrection: The Case for Optimism
As a former federal prosecutor who investigated and tried police abuse
cases under the onerous ‘willfulness’ standard for many years, here's …
506 4,850 15.4K

Search Twitter
Explore
Settings

Search Twitter
Explore
Settings

Search Twitter
Explore
Settings


Perry Johnson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perry Johnson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perry Johnson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

v COMPLAINT FOR MANDAMUS AND

Jonathan B. Koch (P80408) Jason B. Torchinsky*

RECEIVED by MCOA 5/27/2022 11:02:20 AM

*Licensed to practice in Virginia and the

***EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION BY JUNE 1, 2022 REQUESTED***

There is no other pending or resolved civil action arising out of the

1. This is an original action in which Perry Johnson seeks a writ of mandamus to

3. 15,000 signatures are needed to certify Perry Johnson’s nomination as a candidate

knowledge, and belief.

RECEIVED by MCOA 5/27/2022 11:02:20 AM

how many of the disqualified signatures could actually be fraudulent.

failed to declare the sufficiency of Mr. Johnson’s complaint.

Constitutions, the Michigan Election Law, and binding judicial precedent.

RECEIVED by MCOA 5/27/2022 11:02:20 AM

clause of the United States and Michigan Constitutions.

remainder of the signatures on the petition,” as well as binding judicial precedent.

RECEIVED by MCOA 5/27/2022 11:02:20 AM

respond to its allegations of invalidity, fraud, and forgery.

RECEIVED by MCOA 5/27/2022 11:02:20 AM

Governor of Michigan on the August 2, 2022 primary ballot.

act without the exercise of discretion or judgment.

August 2, 2022 primary ballot.

RECEIVED by MCOA 5/27/2022 11:02:20 AM

act.” MCL 168.21.

participation in this case is necessary for relief granted by the Court.

Jurisdiction and Venue

mandamus. MCL 600.217(3); MCL 600.310.

Court.” MCR 7.203, citing MCL 600.4401.

RECEIVED by MCOA 5/27/2022 11:02:20 AM

process in the supreme court.” MCL 168.552(12).

brought in the Court of Appeals or the Court of Claims.”).

RECEIVED by MCOA 5/27/2022 11:02:20 AM

signatures. And he filed those petitions on or before April 19, 2022.

34. Individuals seeking to challenge “the registration of or the genuineness of the

for filing the nominating petitions.” MCL 168.552(8).

RECEIVED by MCOA 5/27/2022 11:02:20 AM

RECEIVED by MCOA 5/27/2022 11:02:20 AM

l. Finally, without challenging any specific signature or providing any evidence of

RECEIVED by MCOA 5/27/2022 11:02:20 AM

40. In it, Mr. Johnson argued that:

g. Ms. Bray’s challenged based on allegedly damaged or mutilated sheets were

RECEIVED by MCOA 5/27/2022 11:02:20 AM

i. Many of Ms. Bray’s challenges based on incomplete omitted street addresses or

purported to “correct page references to 56 of the 66 challenged signatures included in Table 1 of

RECEIVED by MCOA 5/27/2022 11:02:20 AM

language of MCL 168.552(8).

signatures. Id. at 5-8.

C. The Bureau’s Staff Reports

(showing receipt of reports by news media before 7:30).

as a Republican gubernatorial candidate for the August 2, 2022 primary. Id. at 6.

RECEIVED by MCOA 5/27/2022 11:02:20 AM

a. 68 signatures were invalid because the signer was no registered to vote.

f. 15 signatures were invalid because of “[s]ignature errors (no signature or

single signature from any individual or entity whom it declared to be a “fraudulent-petition

Staff reviewed each petition sheet submitted by Mr. Johnson.

In total, staff’s review of Mr. Johnson’s petition sheets identified

RECEIVED by MCOA 5/27/2022 11:02:20 AM

EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION BY JUNE 1, 2022 REQUESTED