BELLAIRE — Michigan’s Board of State Canvassers rejected the petition, 2-2, to recall Antrim County Clerk Victoria Bishop because the language did not meet requirements.
The four-member board voted along party lines with two Democrats voting in support of the language and two Republicans voting against accepting the language that explained the reasons for the recall effort.
“Because the board split, the reasons for recall were not approved. The petition is not blessed. It does not move forward,” said Chair Richard Houskamp, a Republican.
The petition language being considered by the board read as follows: “On June 12, 2026, the Michigan Bureau of Elections suspended Victoria Bishop’s access to the state’s Qualified Voter File (QVF) stating that her actions fell outside the scope of her statutory authority.”
Bishop is still suspended from accessing the files after the Bureau of Elections alleged that she may have changed or removed some voter registrations. Jonathan Brater, Michigan Elections Director, said they are still in communication with Bishop, but she has not yet met the conditions to regain access to the file.
To regain access to the Qualified Voter File, Bishop must complete training courses, affirm her compliance with state laws and cooperate with the investigation by providing more information about her actions, officials have said.
Ashley Areeda, the recall sponsor, said she and others were not discouraged by the Board of Canvassers’ decision because that decision rested with the wording of the petition, not the underlying concerns.
“We listened carefully to the feedback and we are confident we can address it,” Areeda said.
The grassroots effort is bipartisan and led by Antrim County citizens who “believe voters deserve accountability and the opportunity to make the final decision,” she said.
Kevin Kijewski, Bishop’s attorney, said Michigan law requires a recall petition to define the actions of the officer in question and said the submitted language only described the actions of the Bureau of Elections, not the conduct of Bishop.
“The rule of law prevailed – and that is a good thing, no matter one’s political persuasion,” he said.
“The requirement at issue exists to protect voters, not officials. A petition that never says what an officer did asks people to sign blind,” Kijewski said.
Prior to the vote, Areeda said the petition did include that language.
“But those words are there,” she said. “They identify whose conduct caused the state’s response, the official consequence of that conduct, and the exact date that consequence occurred. Michigan voters do not need a law degree to understand a complete sentence.”
Member Paul Cordes, a Republican, disagreed and said that was why he voted against the language.
Cordes said the law is very clear that the reasoning must be based on the officer’s conduct, “and this is just the bureau taking an action, making an accusation.”
“If you had come in here and you had said that the Antrim County clerk has absconded on her responsibility or stepped outside of her scope by doing this and this and these are her actions, we would probably look at it differently,” Houskamp said to Areeda.
He said he also voted “no” because the issue is ongoing and “there’s no determination that’s been made here.”
Houskamp pointed out that Bishop could still take corrective action and have her access to the QVF reinstated.
“The fact that it might be remedied later on does not change the fact that it existed,” said the vice-chair of the canvassing board, Mary Ellen Gurewitz, a Democrat.
Gurewitz and board member Heather Cummings, also a Democrat, both agreed that they would have phrased the petition reasoning differently, but the important information was there: that Bishop’s access to the QVF was suspended and that she has been accused of taking actions outside of her authority.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that this clerk understands what’s being alleged, and the people in the county, again, would understand it,” Cummings said.
Areeda said they are preparing to resubmit a proposal and move forward immediately.
But, because of the time required for hearings, possible appeals, signature collection and election deadlines, they are expecting the recall question will likely appear on the May 2027 ballot.
“That has always been our working expectation and we will continue moving as quickly and carefully as the law allows,” she said.