Background
Namita Sharma, an incumbent judge of Michigan’s 8th District Court, sought reelection in the November 2026 general election. Although she served in the Kalamazoo Circuit Court Family Division under a concurrent-jurisdiction plan, she continued to hold the office of district court judge.
Sharma filed an affidavit of identity certifying that she and her candidate committee had paid all required late filing fees. That statement was false because fees remained outstanding. The Bureau of Elections therefore disqualified her under MCL 168.558(4). After paying the fees, Sharma attempted to submit a new affidavit and nominating petitions, but the Bureau rejected them. Sharma and two district electors sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, and the Court of Claims granted summary disposition to the Bureau.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the Bureau was required to withhold certification because Sharma’s filed affidavit contained a false statement. MCL 168.558(4) demands strict compliance, and neither the election statutes nor the applicable administrative rule gave Sharma a right to cure the false statement by filing a second affidavit.
The court also rejected Sharma’s constitutional arguments. Const 1963, art 6, § 22 expressly addresses incumbent Court of Appeals, circuit court, and probate judges—not district court judges—and Sharma’s exercise of circuit-court authority did not transform her office. In any event, all Michigan candidates for elective office, apart from presidential and vice-presidential candidates, must file affidavits of identity. The requirement regulates ballot access rather than adding a qualification for judicial office.
Finally, the court held that Sharma’s removal from the ballot did not deny the elector plaintiffs their right to vote. They remained free to vote, and limiting the ballot to candidates who comply with election law imposed only a small burden justified by Michigan’s substantial interest in accurate candidate identification and election integrity.
Key Takeaways
- A candidate who files an affidavit of identity containing a false required statement must be denied certification under MCL 168.558(4).
- An incumbent district court judge is not covered by the constitutional candidacy provision applicable to Court of Appeals, circuit court, and probate judges, even when exercising circuit-court jurisdiction.
- Michigan law provides no right to cure a false affidavit of identity by submitting a replacement affidavit, and disqualifying a noncompliant candidate does not itself deny electors the right to vote.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the strict-compliance regime governing Michigan affidavits of identity: payment after filing does not cure a false certification, and a replacement filing cannot restore ballot eligibility where the statutes provide no amendment right.
It also confirms that ballot-access requirements are distinct from constitutional qualifications for holding judicial office and that voters’ preference for a disqualified candidate does not convert ordinary enforcement of election rules into a complete denial of voting rights.