POLICY WIRE FACT CHECK: Why Are Judicial Races in Michigan Separated by Incumbency?
The Claim A viral claim circulating on social media and through news outlets like BridgeDetroit has raised questions about the structure of judicial races in Michigan. The claim suggests that in...
The Claim
A viral claim circulating on social media and through news outlets like BridgeDetroit has raised questions about the structure of judicial races in Michigan. The claim suggests that in Michigan, judicial candidates are separated into different categories based on whether they are incumbents or not, leading to confusion among voters about how to cast their ballots. This assertion has sparked public concern, with some users questioning the fairness and transparency of the state’s judicial selection process.
The claim gained traction after a post shared on Google News Fact Check highlighted the issue, citing a lack of clarity in how Michigan’s judicial elections are organized. Some users have suggested that this separation may be an intentional design to favor incumbent judges, while others have questioned whether it is a result of outdated or misinterpreted election laws. The original source, BridgeDetroit, published a fact-check article titled “Fact check: Why are judicial races in Michigan separated by incumbency?” which appears to have been the catalyst for the broader discussion.
The Details & Investigation
Michigan’s judicial elections operate under a unique system that separates judicial candidates into two distinct categories: those who are currently serving as judges (incumbents) and those who are running for office for the first time (non-incumbents). This practice is rooted in the state’s Constitution and election statutes, which were established to ensure a fair and transparent process for selecting judges at the local and state levels.
According to the Michigan Supreme Court, the separation of judicial races by incumbency is a long-standing tradition designed to prevent confusion among voters. In many counties, especially those with multiple judicial positions, the ballot may list separate contests for incumbent and non-incumbent candidates. This structure allows voters to distinguish between current judges seeking re-election and new candidates vying for the same position. The purpose of this separation is to provide clarity, not to advantage any particular group of candidates.
Investigations into the origin of the viral claim reveal that the confusion likely stems from a misunderstanding of the state’s judicial election process. Many voters are not familiar with the distinction between judicial and general elections, and the way judicial races are presented on ballots can appear confusing. However, official records from the Michigan Secretary of State and the Michigan Elections Commission confirm that the separation by incumbency is a standard part of the state’s electoral procedures and is not tied to any political bias or manipulation.
📄 POLICY WIRE WHITEPAPER PUBLISHED: PAKISTAN’S NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY PRIORITIES
Furthermore, no evidence has been found to suggest that the separation of judicial races by incumbency is a deliberate attempt to mislead voters or manipulate election outcomes. The practice is consistent with other states that use similar systems, such as California and New York, where judicial elections are also structured to differentiate between current and prospective judges. These systems are intended to promote informed decision-making and maintain the integrity of the judiciary.
In evaluating the nature of the claim, it is clear that the initial statement about the separation of judicial races in Michigan was not intentionally deceptive. Rather, it appears to be an example of misinformation—specifically, a misunderstanding of the state’s judicial election structure. While the claim did not originate from a coordinated disinformation campaign, its spread highlights the need for better public education on how judicial elections function in Michigan.
The Verdict
The viral claim that judicial races in Michigan are separated by incumbency is largely based on a misunderstanding of the state’s judicial election process. While the separation of judicial candidates into incumbent and non-incumbent categories does exist, it is a standard and legally mandated practice designed to ensure clarity and fairness in the selection of judges. There is no evidence to support the idea that this system is biased or manipulated to favor any particular group of candidates.
Therefore, the claim is best categorized as MISLEADING. It contains elements of truth—namely, that Michigan does separate judicial races by incumbency—but it lacks the necessary context to fully explain the legal and procedural rationale behind this structure. As a result, the claim could lead to confusion among voters who are unfamiliar with the nuances of judicial elections. The separation of judicial races is not a flaw in the system, but rather a feature intended to enhance transparency and voter understanding.
Counter-misinformation & disinformation investigation conducted by PolicyWire Editorial Desk (PW).
