Court Dismissed Lawsuit Against Judicial Candidate
A Michigan judge denied a request to remove William Burton, Jr. from the 36th District Court ballot.
Updated on Sept. 22, 2026 in Elections
Live Poll
Should courts have the final authority to decertify political candidates for campaign finance violations?
A court has dismissed with prejudice a lawsuit that sought to decertify judicial candidate William Burton, Jr. from the upcoming election. The court ruled in favor of the Michigan Secretary of State, noting that the plaintiff lacked the proper standing to pursue the action.
Why it matters
The ruling underscores the rigid procedural requirements for challenging ballot eligibility in Michigan elections. By dismissing the case, the court upheld the existing campaign and administrative protocols that govern candidate certification.
The court granted summary disposition in favor of the Secretary of State under MCR 2.116(C)(4) after finding the plaintiff failed to exhaust the exclusive administrative complaint process under the Michigan Campaign Finance Act.
The players
William Burton, Jr.
He is a judicial candidate seeking election to the 36th District Court.
Secretary of State
The official Michigan state office responsible for the administration of elections and the call of the election.
The details
The court ruled that the plaintiff is not an interested party and that the Michigan Campaign Finance Act provides no private right of action. Additionally, the judge determined the claims were barred by laches due to filing delays and denied the plaintiff's request for discovery subpoenas.
Timeline
April 20, 2026: William Burton, Jr. filed his affidavit of identity.
July 24, 2026: The plaintiff filed the election-related lawsuit.
September 4, 2026: The Secretary of State issued the call of the election.
September 19, 2026: Absent voter ballots were mailed overseas.
November 3, 2026: The General Election date for the 36th District Court.
Political Context
The lawsuit attempted to bypass the Michigan Campaign Finance Act by seeking direct court intervention for alleged campaign violations. Critics of such lawsuits argue that these actions often serve to harass candidates rather than resolve genuine administrative disputes within the established legal framework.
This decision ensures that the ballot for the 36th District Court remains unchanged as the general election cycle proceeds. Voters can expect the election to move forward as scheduled without further interference from this specific legal challenge.
The takeaway
This case demonstrates that Michigan courts will strictly enforce procedural deadlines and administrative exhaustion requirements in election disputes. Candidates and voters alike should rely on official administrative processes rather than late-stage litigation for resolving campaign grievances.
Further reading
For more information on the standards governing local races, visit the Elections section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Michigan Lawyers Weekly.
Live Poll
Should courts have the final authority to decertify political candidates for campaign finance violations?
