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, but outstanding fees remained when she submitted it. 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. The Bureau rejected those filings, and Sharma and two district electors sued for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court of Claims granted summary disposition to the Bureau.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that MCL 168.558(4) required election officials not to certify Sharma because the affidavit she filed contained a false statement. Candidates must strictly comply with the affidavit requirements, 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 the constitutional challenges. The constitutional provision governing incumbent Court of Appeals, circuit court, and probate court judges did not cover Sharma, a district court judge, and her exercise of circuit-court jurisdiction under a concurrent-jurisdiction plan did not change her office. In any event, the affidavit requirement applies to the judges identified in that provision as well. The requirement regulates ballot access rather than adding a qualification for judicial office.
Finally, the court held that Sharma’s exclusion 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 a relatively small burden justified by Michigan’s interest in ballot accuracy and election integrity.
Key Takeaways
- A candidate who files an affidavit of identity containing a false required statement cannot be certified under MCL 168.558(4).
- Paying outstanding fees later and submitting a replacement affidavit does not cure the original false affidavit because Michigan law provides no right to amend it on that basis.
- Assigning a district judge to exercise circuit-court authority does not transform that judge into a circuit judge for constitutional ballot-access provisions.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces strict compliance with Michigan’s affidavit-of-identity requirements, even when a candidate says she was unaware of the unpaid fees and corrects the problem before the election. Election officials lack discretion to certify a candidate after a materially false affidavit has been filed.
It also confirms that removing a noncompliant candidate from the ballot ordinarily burdens voter choice rather than denying the right to vote, and that such a burden may be sustained by the state’s interests in accurate candidate information and election integrity.