Michigan is locked in a fight over a proposed constitutional amendment that would require proof of U.S. citizenship to vote, with more than 700,000 petition signatures rejected after a party-line canvass board vote and a contested sample review, and both sides now racing the September 4 ballot finalization deadline as they push the dispute toward the U.S. Supreme Court.
State officials urged the Supreme Court to reject an emergency petition from Americans for Citizen Voting Michigan after the Bureau of Elections refused to certify the group’s petition. Michigan Solicitor General Ann Sherman filed a response saying the emergency application is “sorely lacking in factual bases and legal substance.” She argued the dispute belongs in state court and is a state administrative matter, not a federal emergency.
The amendment would force voters to show proof of citizenship to be eligible for the ballot, and ACVM submitted more than 700,000 signatures, well above the 446,198 needed. The Bureau sampled 1,000 signatures and found 626 valid, three short of the 629 required, and then refused to certify the full submission. That statistical shortfall is the pivot for the entire controversy.
The Michigan Board of State Canvassers deadlocked 2-2 on the certification, with both Democratic members voting no and both Republicans voting yes, and a tie meant the petition failed to advance. That board vote came after more than five months of delay, leaving little time for judicial relief. ACVM first sought emergency relief from the Michigan Supreme Court and, after no action, took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court as case 26A275.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh ordered Michigan officials to file a response by noon Wednesday, and Sherman met that deadline with her brief dismissing the petition as procedurally improper and legally thin. She told the justices they should not “put its thumb on the scale in this manner, particularly in the case of a state administrative proceeding where a state court can provide more fulsome and comprehensive review.” That sentence anchors her position against federal intervention.
ACVM tells a different story: the Bureau allegedly asked the group to collect sworn affidavits from voters whose signatures were challenged, then refused to accept those affidavits. The group says the Bureau rejected the affidavits because they did not match an internal database no outside party can review, even though the Bureau itself directed the remedy. ACVM claims that approach left petitioners no usable fix and no ability to verify the state’s records.
“It cannot be the case that government officials demand proof of someone’s identity, receive it, and then refuse to recognize that proof because those officials have a secret historical database that no one else is allowed to review or because those same officials were delinquent in their processes and arbitrary in their rules.”
ACVM argues the rejection disenfranchises hundreds of thousands of signers, not just the nine voters who later submitted affidavits. Their filing warned that if the state’s decision stands, “Michigan voters will never have a chance to vote on the petition, regardless of whether it should or should not have been placed on the ballot.” That claim frames the dispute as a permanent denial of a public vote, not simply a technical dispute.
Republican gubernatorial nominee John James accused Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s office of trying to keep the question off the ballot, saying her staff rejected signatures even after notarized affidavits confirmed they had been signed. Anthony Forlini, a Republican seeking the secretary of state nomination, added that “The four-member board is playing party politics” and suggested the process was steered toward desired election outcomes. Those charges tie the procedural fight to partisan control.
The timing is stark: more than 700,000 signatures submitted, five months of delay, and then a rejection over three signatures in a 1,000-signature sample. ACVM reported 626 valid signatures in that sample, short of the 629 needed, and when the group tried the remedy suggested by officials — sworn, notarized affidavits — the Bureau still rejected them. That sequence makes the dispute about both numbers and the remedy’s denial.
Sherman called ACVM’s application “highly unusual” and noted the group asked the Supreme Court to be the first court to review their claims while providing limited legal citation. She said those factors “plainly weigh in favor denying relief,” arguing state courts can offer more thorough review. The practical effect is to push resolution back to state judicial processes, where time is scarce.
ACVM also raised constitutional due-process concerns tied to the state’s internal signature verification records, alleging there is a “secret” database that prevents outside verification. The group pressed the court to act by Thursday, one day before the ballot finalization deadline, saying the board’s delay left no other meaningful remedy. That compressed timeline is the engine driving the emergency petition to the high court.
The Supreme Court’s choice will decide whether this signature-verification fight stays a state administrative matter or becomes a federal question that could restore the petition to the ballot. If the justices see a federal issue in how Michigan verified and rejected signatures, voters may get to decide the citizenship requirement; if not, the board’s party-line denial will stand and the question will never reach the ballot this cycle.
