Staff Reports
Michigan is in the middle of a fight over whether ordinary voters will decide a proof-of-citizenship amendment, or whether a handful of bureaucrats will. Americans for Citizen Voting–Michigan (ACVM) took an emergency application to the U.S. Supreme Court (docket 26A275) asking the justices to put the amendment on the November ballot after the state Board of State Canvassers deadlocked. Michigan officials quickly asked the Court to stay out and let state courts handle it. The clock is ticking and the stakes are clear: ballot access versus bureaucratic gatekeeping.
Supreme Court asked to step in
ACVM filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court after the Board of State Canvassers failed to certify the petition. Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh ordered Michigan officials to respond quickly. In their filing, Michigan Solicitor General Ann Sherman and Attorney General Dana Nessel told the Court the application is “highly unusual” and “sorely lacking in factual bases and legal substance,” and asked the justices to decline to interfere in what they call a state administrative matter. ACVM says the state told them to collect sworn affidavits, got those affidavits, then ignored them — and that ignores both law and common sense.
The numbers and the deadlock that started it
The math that matters is simple and painful to anyone who believes in ballot access. ACVM submitted about 709,841 signatures — far above the 446,198 needed. Michigan uses a 1,000-signature random sample to estimate validity. Bureau staff first counted 612 valid signatures in that sample. After board review, the count rose to 626 — three short of the 629 threshold. The four-member board then deadlocked 2–2 along party lines, and a tie meant no certification. ACVM says nine sworn affidavits should have cured problems the Bureau itself flagged, but the agency rejected them because names didn’t match a secret internal database it won’t let outsiders see.
Political maneuver or proper process?
Call it what it is: a five-month delay followed by a party-line tie that happened just in time to run out the clock. Republican gubernatorial nominee John James accused Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s office of trying to keep the question off the ballot. That’s not wild rhetoric — when more than 700,000 people sign a petition and officials toss it over three signatures in a sample, voters have a right to be suspicious. ACVM warns that if this stands, hundreds of thousands of Michiganders will never have a chance to vote on the policy. For those who believe in putting big questions to the people, that should sound an alarm.
What comes next and why it matters
The Supreme Court can do several things: deny the application and leave the matter to Michigan courts, issue a short stay or injunction from a Circuit Justice, or take the case for full review. Any of those choices will change who gets the final say — the voters or state officials. With the ballot-finalization deadline looming, the Court’s decision will be fast and consequential. If the justices want to protect ballot access and stop state bureaucrats from becoming referees of democracy, they should act to let voters decide.
