Nearly 4-Hour Petition Hearing Raises Question: Who Makes The Rules?
(Source: MIRS.news, Published 10/14/2026) Lawmakers managed to spend nearly four hours dissecting Michigan's ballot petition process Wednesday, ultimately leaving some to question who has the authority to promulgate rules for the state's random sampling of ballot petition signatures.
Bureau of Elections Director Jonathan Brater told the House Select Committee on the State Board of Canvassers and Bureau of Elections that the Board of State Canvassers has rulemaking authority over its internal procedures, but does not have express authority to promulgate rules governing how petitions are processed.
That includes the random sampling process used by the Bureau to determine whether petition drives have enough valid signatures.
When committee Chair Mike Harris (R-Clarkston) asked who does have the authority to make a change to random sampling through a rule, Brater replied, “That’s an interesting question. I don’t know.”
Brater said it is possible the Bureau itself could have rulemaking authority and suggested providing some express authority could be beneficial. In the meantime, he said the board has relied on its general authority under Michigan election law to canvass petitions, with random sampling used since around 1980.
The process has also faced legal challenges from groups arguing the board should not use random sampling without a promulgated rule, Brater said, but courts have not invalidated the practice on that basis.
“So we just don't know. It's kind of like, ‘We've always done it this way, so we're going to continue,’” Harris said.
The uncertainty stood out during a hearing that often turned to questioning whether Michigan's system — which currently projects the validity of hundreds of thousands of petition signatures from a random sample of 1,000 — should change after two close decisions this summer involving Money Out of Michigan Politics and Americans for Citizen Voting.
Rep. Ann Bollin (R-Brighton), a former clerk, repeatedly pressed officials on how the sampling standards were developed and whether they should be more formalized.
She also questioned why the Bureau couldn't begin with a sample of 2,000 rather than 1,000 and why the system uses a 90% confidence level rather than 95%.
Brater said a larger sample would slightly reduce the margin of error, but with diminishing returns as more signatures are added. Under the current system, he said, the sample carries a 90% confidence level and 2.5% margin of error.
Rep. Jason Woolford (R-Howell) was less restrained, arguing that judging a petition containing more than 700,000 signatures using only 1,000 of them “does not pass” the smell test.
“What concerns do you have about sample sizes for these larger petitions, and what can we do to make this process more fair?” Woolford asked.
Board Chair Richard Houskamp said reviewing every signature by hand would be “not humanly possible,” but suggested technology could allow the state to examine far more of them.
He floated using artificial intelligence to prescreen petition sheets and signatures and flag questionable ones for human review. Houskamp said he checked before Wednesday's hearing and was unaware of any state currently using AI that way.
“Michigan could be the first,” Houskamp said.
Rep. Mai Xiong (D-Warren), however, was not immediately on board.
“I'm a little concerned about the use of AI because I don't think it's 100% accurate,” Xiong said, adding that technology would still require trained staff and additional resources.
Harris, too, shared concerns with reporters afterward about using AI, though he did say he’s interested in learning more.
Technology was one of the few areas where officials themselves said the current system clearly falls short.
Board Vice Chair Mary Ellen Gurewitz said challengers to both recent ballot proposals hired vendors capable of identifying duplicate signatures the Bureau could not detect itself.
“The challengers ought not to have abilities that we don't have,” Gurewitz said. “The challengers are doing a better job.”
Discussing the board's rule barring new materials from being submitted within 48 hours of a hearing, Houskamp called its creation, “to some degree … a merciful thing” intended to prevent petitioners from repeatedly submitting evidence and potentially “gaming the system.”
But he said an administrative rule takes “second place” when weighed against testimony from a voter asserting that the state incorrectly rejected their signature.
Houskamp also pushed back on suggestions that mismatched signatures themselves demonstrated something nefarious, noting people often sign petitions outside stores, in bad weather or while distracted.
“That's not a dark conspiracy, and it's not a problem with the system,” Houskamp said. “Things happen and signatures get messy.”
Near the end of the hearing, Vice Chair Denise Mentzer (D-Mount Clemens) shifted scrutiny back toward ACV and the people it hired to collect signatures.
After questioning attorney Eric Doster about circulators who had previously appeared on Bureau lists related to suspected fraudulent petition activity, Mentzer said it was “disappointing” that the roughly 710,000 people who signed the proposal “weren't taken as important enough to hire petition circulators that hadn't already been accused of fraud.”
Doster stressed that appearing on such a list does not bar someone from circulating petitions, saying only two people have been formally prohibited from circulating in Michigan.
