Help us stay above the negativity. Chip in today to support a positive campaign committed to honesty and integrity.
Full Statement | Tues. May 7
LANSING, Mich. — In an effort to disqualify Bob Lorinser from the August ballot, his Democratic opponent, Callie Barr, filed a frivolous challenge against the validity of Lorinser's nomination petitions with the Michigan Bureau of Elections.
Barr based the vast majority of the challenge on her false assumption that circulators must collect all signatures in a 180-day window before filing. However, this requirement does not exist for partisan Congressional candidates.
The law is crystal clear. A 180-day statute applies to 'Nonpartisan Qualifying Petitions,' a completely different type of petition for another kind of candidacy, such as a justice without party affiliation. It does not pertain to 'Partisan Nominating Petitions' required for Democrats and Republicans running for federal office. Ms. Barr grossly misinterpreted an election code that is not applicable to the Democratic Congressional Primary.
Callie Barr's attempt to disqualify Bob Lorinser from the primary ballot is based on a "fundamental misunderstanding of the Michigan Election Law," it's "improper," "lacks any credibility," and should be "summarily rejected."
With other frivolous complaints listed in detail below, Barr also attempted to invalidate the signatures of many qualified registered electors.
The Lorinser campaign vigorously defended nearly every nomination that Barr challenged. This task was tedious but easy to complete because the law is abundantly clear. Barr filed hundreds of challenges to signatures without any legitimate cause. It appears her sole goal was to contest enough nominations to disqualify Lorinser, regardless of their merit.
Ms. Barr used extremely inaccurate data, a flawed unofficial database, and irresponsible misinterpretations of the election code in her effort to discard and disenfranchise voters.
Most egregiously, she falsely claimed that a signer was deceased at the time of signing. The Lorinser campaign proved to the Bureau of Elections that her allegation is patently untrue. These voters have active public voter files with the Secretary of State, and Barr has no discernible reason to challenge many of these signatures.
The challenge is not only a callous attack on Lorinser's integrity but also on the integrity of the Democratic process. This is something unexpected from a fellow Democrat.
Callie Barr's attempt to disqualify Lorinser is entirely frivolous.
Bob Lorinser is dedicated to running a positive campaign and remains committed to maintaining an open and honest dialogue with the public. He wants the political debate to focus solely on the issues that matter and each candidate's character. It is essential we allow voters to choose the candidate best suited to improve the lives of hardworking people in Michigan's 1st District.
This tactic is also being used against other Democratic front-runners across the state. In Michigan's 1st, the type of complaint calls into question Callie Barr's political judgment and legal competency. According to counsel, election officials should categorically dismiss the meritless claims.
Callie Barr poorly orchestrated an inept effort to remove Lorinser from the ballot but only highlighted her own malice, pettiness, and disregard for the will of the people. This is not the way to earn voters’ respect and trust.
Despite the interruption, Bob Lorinser will most assuredly appear on the August ballot. Voters will have the opportunity to vote for him in the Democratic primary. He intends to earn his spot on the November ballot — not manipulate one — so he can face the Republican nominee in the general election.
Lorinser will continue to uphold the dignity and integrity everyone should expect from all candidates seeking to represent Northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula.
# # #
Responding to this challenge has taken significant time, resources, and money away from Bob's ability to positively campaign on the issues. Beyond informing you about her doomed-to-fail attempt to boot Bob off the ballot, we are also asking you to help us replenish our efforts to stay above the negativity. Chip in today to support a positive campaign committed to honesty and integrity.
Callie Barr is challenging every signature the Lorinser campaign procured from Jan. 2023 to Oct. 2023.
There is no 180-day shelf life on Partisan Nominating Petitions. Barr incorrectly references a requirement for Nonpartisan Qualifying Petitions or candidacies without party affiliation. The statute does not apply to Democratic Congressional primaries.
Barr challenges a signer by claiming they are deceased.
The voter is alive and registered to vote. They recently voted in February. Their voter information is accurate and up-to-date with the Secretary of State. They are not deceased. Barr's claim is patently false.
Barr challenges a signature by claiming that Acme is a county, not a township.
Barr is incorrect. Acme is a township in Grand Traverse County, not a county.Â
Barr challenges an address using an election code that would claim Escanaba isn't a city in Delta County.
Barr is unequivocally wrong. Escanaba is in Delta County.
Barr mistakenly asserts that abbreviating location names is not permitted.
According to the election code, standard abbreviations, e.g., MQT and TC, are allowed.
Barr claims that residents who live on islands, e.g. Sugar Island, are "not registered" because their entries included the name of their island township.
Island townships are just as valid as inland townships.
Barr is challenging entire sheets because, according to her, the circulator's signature and printed name included different middle initials.
The printed name has a printed initial, and the signature uses a cursive version. The letters are identifiably the same.
Barr highlights minor date discrepancies, claiming some signers added "20" in front of "24" to correct the date-year to "2024". She's challenging these individual entries because they did not initial these alleged modifications.
According to petition instructions, circulators are encouraged to ask signers to fill in omissions. The election code does not instruct writing an initial.
Barr challenges every signer who included their township and city because the address field asks for the township or the city.
The corresponding election code instructs signers, "Do not write the county and the city/township." By including their city and township, signers offered more information about their address but did not provide prohibited information, such as their county.
Barr falsely claims some signers were not registered voters.
For most, Barr appears to be using an unofficial flawed database. To the best of its ability, the Lorinser campaign validated official registration statuses with the Secretary of State and discarded any known unregistered voters before filing. Most of these signatures have no discernible reason to be challenged.Â
Barr is challenging some signers for illegible handwriting.
Petition law states that an individual's unique signature does not need to be legible; only their information does. If the information had been illegible, the Lorinser campaign would not have been able to verify their registration, and it verified these nominators and their addresses.
Barr's challenge includes a complaint that Lorinser gathered over the maximum of 2,000 signatures.
The Lorinser campaign knowingly and willfully only gathered the maximum number of signatures. Lorinser discarded any received above that quantity, and records clearly show his total official submission was below the maximum.
Barr contends that circulators restarted writing their address lines after crossing out their own mistakes. She is challenging entire pages of signatures because the circulator didn't initial those strikethroughs.
These are not infractions. There isn't even an appropriate code to reference the claim. Initialing strikethroughs may be expected in contracts between two parties, but no code or law states that electors need to initial strikethroughs on nominating petitions.