Since then there has been much discussion, particularly by myself on these pages as to the ability for Justice Davis to be able to run, or at the very least be listed as an "incumbent" on the November Ballot.  I have referenced the Michigan Constitution, showing the particular sections that are relevant, and have argued the inclusion of the line:

"Any incumbent justice whose term is to expire may become a candidate for re-election by filing an affidavit of candidacy, in the form and manner prescribed by law, not less than 180 days prior to the expiration of his term."

My argument has been met with skepticism, from those who believe it is an either/or situation.  The argument that an affidavit OR a party nomination would be suitable.

I have disagreed, and still do.

My contention is that it is plain that the "incumbent" justice shall be placed on the ballot only if the incumbent has done as the constitution states, which is:

"Any incumbent justice whose term is to expire may become a candidate for re-election by filing an affidavit of candidacy, in the form and manner prescribed by law, not less than 180 days prior to the expiration of his term."

But apparently even that is too late.  According to the State of Michigan, Mr Alton Thomas Davis used the Affidavit process, and was NOT officially nominated by party.  His statement of organization(Click to enlarge):

Was signed 08-27-10.  The state of Michigan ALSO has him listed as Affidavit only on the General election list, and it would be assumed the possibility of his filing an affidavit several months prior to knowing he would be a sitting SC justice would be nil:
shows three candidates which are affidavit applied.

According to the LAW as it reads in our state's constitution, "incumbents must fil that pesky affidavit out "not less than 180 days prior to the expiration of his term."

Given my personal gratitude for Justice Davis on his correct vote along with 4 others with regard to the fake tea party inclusion on the ballot, I would have to argue this is no personal grudge or vendetta.  

But was this revelation to come AFTER an election that would be affected by the placement of a name in the preferred manner described in section 24 of that same section, is, it seems that we would then have a bit of a constitutional dilemma.

Justice Alton Thomas Davis cannot now be on the ballot at all, as he does not qualify under either a non incumbent status or an incumbent status per the constitution.