Background
Namita Sharma, an incumbent judge of Michigan’s 8th District Court, sought reelection in the November 2026 general election. Although she had 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 incurred through her committee remained unpaid. The Bureau of Elections disqualified her under MCL 168.558(4). After paying the fees, Sharma submitted 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 Court of Appeals affirmed. It first held that because Sharma actually filed an affidavit containing a false statement, MCL 168.558(4) required election officials not to certify her candidacy. The statute demands strict compliance and provides no right to cure a false affidavit by filing a second or amended one. Her nominating petitions could not overcome the mandatory disqualification and, in any event, plaintiffs had not established that the petitions complied with applicable requirements.
The court also rejected plaintiffs’ constitutional theories. Const 1963, art 6, § 22 expressly addresses incumbent Court of Appeals, circuit, and probate judges—not district judges—and Sharma’s work under a concurrent-jurisdiction plan did not transform her into a circuit judge. Moreover, Michigan’s affidavit requirement applies evenly to candidates for elective office, including the judges listed in § 22, and regulates ballot access rather than adding qualifications for judicial office.
Finally, Sharma’s exclusion did not deny the elector plaintiffs their right to vote. They remained free to vote, and the burden caused by excluding a candidate who failed to comply with election law was relatively small under the Anderson-Burdick framework. That burden was justified by the state’s significant interest in ballot integrity and accurate candidate identification.
Key Takeaways
- Michigan election officials may not certify a candidate who files an affidavit of identity containing a false statement required by MCL 168.558.
- A candidate has no statutory right to cure a false affidavit of identity by submitting a replacement or amended affidavit.
- A district judge exercising circuit-court authority under a concurrent-jurisdiction plan does not thereby become a circuit judge for constitutional ballot-access purposes.
- Excluding a noncompliant candidate from the ballot does not itself deny electors the right to vote and is subject to Anderson-Burdick balancing.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Michigan’s affidavit-of-identity rules require strict compliance: even an apparently inadvertent false certification about unpaid campaign-finance fees can require removal from the ballot and cannot necessarily be corrected after filing.
It also confirms that statutory filing requirements regulate access to the ballot rather than establish additional constitutional qualifications for judicial office. Voter-rights claims based on a particular candidate’s exclusion will ordinarily be evaluated as ballot-access burdens, not as complete denials of the right to vote.