Background
Namita Sharma, an incumbent judge of Michigan’s 8th District Court, sought reelection in the November 2026 general election. Her affidavit of identity certified that she and her candidate committee had paid all required late filing fees or fines, but outstanding fees remained. The Bureau of Elections therefore disqualified her under MCL 168.558(4), which prohibits certification of a candidate who files an affidavit of identity containing a false statement.
After paying the fees, Sharma attempted to submit a new affidavit of identity and nominating petitions, but election officials rejected them. Sharma and two district electors sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing principally that the Michigan Constitution did not require an incumbent district judge to file an affidavit of identity. The Court of Claims granted summary disposition to the Bureau and its director.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It first held that even if Sharma had not been required to file an affidavit of identity, she actually filed one containing an undisputedly false statement. Under the mandatory language of MCL 168.558(4) and the statute’s strict-compliance requirement, officials could not certify her candidacy.
The court also rejected the constitutional challenges. Const 1963, art 6, § 22 addresses incumbent Court of Appeals, circuit, and probate judges, not district judges, and Sharma’s performance of circuit-court duties under a concurrent-jurisdiction plan did not change her office. In any event, the affidavit requirement applies to the judicial officers named in that provision as well. The requirement regulates ballot access rather than adding a qualification for judicial office, and its evenhanded application did not violate the purity-of-elections clause.
Election officials had no duty to accept Sharma’s second affidavit because election statutes provide no right to cure a false affidavit through an amended filing, and the applicable administrative amendment rule does not cover false statements. Her petitions did not overcome the prior disqualification and were themselves alleged to contain defective headings. Finally, the electors remained able to vote, and the modest burden caused by excluding a noncompliant candidate was justified under the Anderson-Burdick framework by Michigan’s interest in accurate candidate identification and ballot integrity.
Key Takeaways
- A Michigan candidate who files an affidavit of identity containing a false required statement must be denied certification under MCL 168.558(4).
- An incumbent district judge is not treated as a circuit judge merely because the judge exercises circuit-court authority under a concurrent-jurisdiction plan.
- Michigan law provides no right to cure a false affidavit of identity by filing a second or amended affidavit.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Michigan’s affidavit-of-identity rules demand strict compliance and can remove an otherwise eligible candidate from the ballot even when the false statement was apparently made without the candidate’s knowledge and the underlying fees were later paid.
For judicial candidates and campaign committees, the ruling makes prefiling verification of committee fees, fines, and required disclosures critical. Once a false affidavit has been filed, later payment and an attempted corrected filing may not restore ballot eligibility.