Supreme Court Candidates Lacked Valid Law Licenses

Two Michigan Supreme Court candidates remain on the ballot despite not currently holding valid law licenses.

Updated on Sept. 22, 2026 in Law

Bold flat-color editorial illustration depicting a single neoclassical pillar as a symbol of legal authority. — Two Michigan Supreme Court candidates for the U.S. Taxpayers Party remain on the ballot despite currently lacking valid law licenses required for office. AI Illustration. Upload story photo >

Live Poll

Should candidates for the state supreme court be required to hold a law license?

Michigan Supreme Court candidates Jody White and Tom Howe, who represent the U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan, currently lack valid law licenses in the state. State Bar records confirm the status of the two candidates.

Why it matters

State law mandates that individuals must hold a valid law license to serve on the Michigan Supreme Court. While these candidates currently remain on the ballot, their eligibility to take office if elected remains a point of legal contention.

Official State Bar records confirmed that 2 candidates lack the valid law licenses required by state law to serve on the Michigan Supreme Court. The Secretary of State maintains the current ballot status despite this licensing deficiency.

The players

Jody White

Jody White is a candidate for the Michigan Supreme Court representing the U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan.

Tom Howe

Tom Howe is a candidate for the Michigan Supreme Court representing the U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan.

Secretary of State

The Secretary of State is the Michigan official responsible for overseeing election administration and ballot access.

U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan

The U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan is a political organization that nominated these candidates for the court.

The details

Although Michigan law explicitly requires a valid license to hold a seat on the state supreme court, the Secretary of State has permitted both candidates to appear on the ballot. The licensing status of both individuals was verified through the official state database.

September 22, 2026: State Bar records confirmed the candidates did not hold valid law licenses.

Political Context

This situation highlights a conflict between the Secretary of State's administrative ballot procedures and the statutory qualifications for judicial office. Opponents often argue that administrative ballot placement should not override clear constitutional mandates regarding professional credentials.

Voters across Michigan must determine if they support candidates who may be unable to legally take their seats even if they receive the most votes. This situation forces taxpayers to consider the potential for costly legal challenges or special processes if an unqualified candidate wins.

The takeaway

The gap between appearing on a ballot and being legally qualified to serve creates significant uncertainty for the electoral process. Voters should research candidate credentials carefully to understand the long-term viability of their choices.