State Board of Canvassers certifies most statewide candidates amid disputes over sampling and alleged petition problems

The Board of State Canvassers on May 28 reviewed nominating petitions for the Aug. 4 primary and accepted staff recommendations to certify most statewide candidates after bureau staff applied a 750-signature random-sampling procedure to large petitions.

The board voted to find several petitions sufficient, including John James and Perry Johnson, and to find others insufficient, including Kim Thomas, Ralph Rebrandt and Bernardet Smith, following staff projections based on random samples and processing of challenges.

Director Brader told the board the sampling procedure was adopted after problems in 2022 and is intended to project the total number of valid signatures with statistical confidence. "We conduct random sampling of the statewide candidates similar to what has been done for decades with initiative petitions," Brader said while summarizing staff findings for multiple campaigns.

Kim Thomas, a Democratic candidate for governor, testified under oath after staff said a 750-signature sample of her 17,976-submission produced only 60 valid signatures and 690 invalid, giving the campaign far fewer valid signatures than the 15,000 required. Thomas accused the Bureau of Elections of leaking internal findings to media and said the staff report was "a product of a broken, biased, and thoroughly toxic process." She also said she had not received adequate time or access to the qualified voter file to verify signatures.

Director Brader disputed the claim that the bureau leaked the report, saying the bureau published and made the sampled sheets available as permitted and that potential FOIA requests can make scanned sheets public prior to the staff report. "It was not leaked. I I don't know what the candidate's talking about," Brader said.

After hearing Thomas and board questions about sampling and timing, the board moved and voted to accept staff recommendation and find Thomas's petition insufficient.

John James's campaign presented a different picture. Staff reported James submitted 28,581 signatures and, after processing a challenge to the 750-sample, found the campaign well above the in-sample threshold; counsel Charles Spees said the campaign had retained verification experts and had evidence to rebut the challenges. The board voted to certify James.

Perry Johnson's petitions produced the most contentious exchange. Staff reported a 750-sample that left the campaign comfortably above the in-sample threshold after processing challenges. But challenger Mission Michigan filed a large, exhibit-based challenge that its attorney Michael Patwell said included thousands of signatures the group flagged as invalid or fraudulent and referenced a whistleblower affidavit alleging petitions were altered or improperly handled. "If that affidavit is truthful, there is a huge problem and you have to consider whether to certify Mr. Johnson at all," Patwell told the board.

Johnson's team produced a forensic review and argued Mission Michigan's challenges were untimely or overstated; a forensic witness for the campaign said many of the challenger examples did not support wholesale forgery claims. Director Brader told the board staff reviewed the allegation reports and concluded that even if a small number of potentially scanned signatures were discounted the candidate would still meet the in-sample threshold. After extended testimony and debate the board voted to find Perry Johnson sufficient.

Ralph Rebrandt, who submitted ~18,214 signatures, fell short based on the sample: staff found 533 valid in the 750 sample and projected total valid signatures below the required 15,000. Rebrandt's counsel asked the board to refer a limited set of disputed entries to local clerks for verification and requested a brief delay to respond to staff spreadsheet comments provided to the campaign the night before the meeting. Board members raised concern that sending samples back to local clerks would fracture the centralized process that relies on the qualified voter file and could create inconsistent outcomes; the board voted to accept staff recommendation and find Rebrandt insufficient.

The board also found U.S. Senate candidate Bernardet Smith's petition insufficient after staff reported only 6,932 submitted signatures.

What happens next: board decisions on petition sufficiency are administrative determinations recorded in the minutes. Challengers or campaigns unhappy with a certification decision can seek judicial review. Director Brader said staff aim to publish reports in advance of meetings to allow candidate review and noted that courts will be the next forum if parties file legal challenges.

Votes at a glance (board verbal roll call, voice votes recorded during meeting): the board moved and accepted staff recommendations on each petition in turn; outcomes were recorded on the record as the board announced each motion's passage or failure.

Why it matters: The determinations decide which names will appear on the August primary ballot for statewide offices. The hearing underscored continuing tension between a practical, resource-limited sampling approach adopted after earlier fraud episodes and calls from some challengers for exhaustive, line-by-line reviews when large numeric or affidavit-based allegations arise.

The board paused only briefly before proceeding to other agenda items; several candidates and counsel said they were considering additional steps, including referrals to law enforcement or court review, but no new formal litigation was announced on the record during the meeting.