Article courtesy of MIRS for SBAM’s Lansing Watchdog newsletter
Michiganders for Money Out of Politics (MMOP) survived an extensive challenge to its petition signatures Friday, with the Board of State Canvassers voting 3-1 to find the initiative had enough valid signatures to move forward in its march to the Nov. 3 ballot after its sample finished just nine above the required threshold.
The board ultimately counted 645 valid signatures in the 1,000-signature sample. MMOP needed at least 636 for the petition to be considered sufficient.
Republican canvasser Paul Cordes cast the lone no vote, while Republican Chair Richard Houskamp joined the board’s two Democrats in approving the petitions. Cordes said the number of signatures knocked out through the challenge process, coupled with acknowledged errors by the Bureau of Elections, left him uncomfortable approving the petition by such a narrow margin.
“This was not well done. The number of duplicates, the sloppiness of this can’t be disputed. This is nowhere near giving confidence in this ballot initiative,” Cordes said.
Under MMOP, public utilities and large government contractors like Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan wouldn’t be able to make political contributions, a subject that has spurred great interest in Lansing. It’s expected to generate significant support if the Legislature declines to pass it and it’s placed on the November ballot.
Friday’s vote marks a significant step in MMOP’s march to the ballot in that opponents would now need a long-shot favorable opinion in the courts to keep the measure off the ballot.
It followed hours of arguments between attorneys for MMOP and Protect MI Free Speech, which challenged numerous signatures as duplicates, improperly addressed, connected to damaged petition sheets or otherwise invalid.
The proceedings also exposed an error in the Bureau of Elections’ processing of the petitions, with Elections Director Jonathan Brater acknowledging that one petition sheet had been scanned twice.
Brater said the duplication did not change the Bureau’s recommendation that MMOP had enough valid signatures, although he said the department would look at ways to prevent similar problems in the future.
“Obviously, we can’t rescan and redo the sampling process two days before the deadline,” Brater told reporters. “So, they didn’t decide what to do about that, but we’ll probably take that back and talk to the AG.”
Brater said the Bureau would also explore software capable of identifying duplicate petition sheets and other problems as part of its quality-control process.
Earlier in the meeting, Brater also acknowledged that several petition sheets submitted Wednesday by Protect MI Free Speech had not received a full review before the Bureau issued its staff report.
“It doesn’t affect our determination, because there’s only a handful of sheets that are really in question as it relates to errors that are only apparent from looking at the back of the sheet. It doesn’t affect our recommendation to you,” Brater said.
The Bureau had recommended that the MMOP petitions be found sufficient despite Protect MI Free Speech’s contention that additional signatures should be rejected.
As the challenges progressed, Houskamp sought to have attorneys for both sides address disputed signatures together, eventually bringing representatives from both camps to the podium at the same time.
“This is a very complicated, confusing piece, and I think we have to take it section by section,” Houskamp said.
Michael Brady, an attorney for MMOP, and Dykema associate attorney Olivia Flower, representing Protect MI Free Speech, then worked through individual challenges as Brater explained how Bureau staff reached their conclusions.
After an initial round of arguments, 652 sampled signatures remained valid. Additional challenges accepted later in the meeting reduced the number to 645, while the board deadlocked 2-2 on two challenges.
Flower’s challenges included duplicate signatures, damaged petition sheets, other errors and 12 signatures associated with incorrect or nonexistent addresses. Protect MI Free Speech had previously raised many of the same concerns when it filed its challenge.
The proceedings also served as the first major test of the board’s new petition-sampling system, which doubled the sample size from 500 signatures to 1,000.
Despite the duplicate-scanning problem, Brater said he believed the larger sample and revised challenge process worked well.
“I think we had a much more efficient process for everyone and a much more transparent process for everyone overall,” Brater said. “I think it went very well, but obviously we only get the chance to actually test this out in the real world every two years.”
Friday’s vote does not immediately place the proposal before voters. The board still must approve the language that would accompany the initiative when it is presented to the Legislature and, if lawmakers do not enact it, potentially on the ballot.
Brater said the board has 60 days to complete that process and expects to take up the language at its August meeting. Once the initiative is presented to the Legislature, lawmakers would have 40 days to enact it before it could proceed toward the ballot.
MMOP Co-Chair Christy McGillivray called Friday’s vote a “momentous victory” and another step toward putting the proposal before voters.
“Today is proof that a people-powered movement can stand up to some of the most powerful special interests in Michigan,” McGillivray said.
Protect MI Free Speech spokesperson John Sellek focused on the narrow nine-signature cushion and the problems uncovered during the challenge process.
“This process proved that MMOP is sloppy at best and deceptive at worst,” Sellek said. “Before our signature challenge, MMOP claimed its signatures were above reproach due to its own vetting.”
Sellek said the group also continues to have concerns about the Bureau’s procedures and is considering its options following the board’s decision.
“With the massive number of errors and questionable petition signatures exposed, paired with staff mistakes and the margin of error issues, we reserve the right to pursue all options available to us, including legal action,” Sellek said.
Click here for more News & Resources.