The facts
The court denied leave to appeal because it was not persuaded the questions required its review. This was a refusal to hear the case, rather than a new full merits opinion adopting every aspect of the lower court's reasoning. [1]
The case concerns comparison of a ballot's numbered stub with the return envelope under MCL 168.768. The guidance described in the order calls for tabulation as a challenged ballot and a record of the discrepancy. [1][2]
Justice Brian Zahra wrote a dissent favoring further briefing and argument. Justice Richard Bernstein also would have granted review, the original order states. [1]
The plaintiffs are the Republican National Committee, Michigan Republican Party and Cindy Berry. The challenged appeals-court judgment was issued on 26 June 2026. [1]
Still unconfirmed
- The checked record does not establish how many current ballots have missing or mismatched stubs.
Sources
References support the numbered facts above. Source checks: 30 Oct 2026, 15:30 UTC.
- RNC v Secretary of State, order in case 170494
Michigan Supreme Court · Primary source · 29 Oct 2026
Actual three-page PDF downloaded and read, including operative denial and both justices' positions. The refusal of review leaves the lower judgment in place; it is not a fresh merits holding or an election result.
- Michigan Supreme Court rejects Republican challenge on counting absentee ballots
Michigan Public Radio Network / Russ McNamara, via WEMU · Reporting · 30 Oct 2026
Actual radio report read. Independent of the court and parties. Its description of Zahra as the sole dissenter is not adopted: the original order also records Bernstein favoring review. The original document controls that detail.