In the case of a Supreme Court candidacy, who might that be?  In Michigan, it would be any one of the candidates listed on the ballot come November.  Any one of those folks might have a reason to stand and challenge the legitimacy of another candidate based on what the law states.  Any one of those candidates might have a challenge if the law is designed to protect against cheating.  Any one of those candidates has standing to bring to effect a correction that would stop the cheating.

As I posted yesterday, its my opinion that Alton Davis cannot be nominated to be on the ballot for Michigan Supreme Court Justice.  The statutes might well provide a place that provides for his nomination by one of the parties, however the state constitution has a particular line of language that to a point seems to suggest the way in which he was brought on board was considered in 1963.

Article 6 Section 2 as I posted yesterday, describes the makeup of the Michigan Supreme Court bench, the tenure, and the frame work with which the justices are elected.  It provides a means which lawmakers can determine by statute for nominations and election process.  It ALSO curiously has an added line that would seem unnecessary..

§ 2 Justices of the supreme court; number, term, nomination, election.

Sec. 2. The supreme court shall consist of seven justices elected at non-partisan elections as provided by law. The term of office shall be eight years and not more than two terms of office
shall expire at the same time. Nominations for justices of the supreme court shall be in the manner prescribed by law. 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.

The italicized section was unnecessary.  UNLESS there was consideration of just such a case in which a short termed justice might not be sufficiently tenured to be called an incumbent for the sake of the ballot.  The language is specific to incumbents, and that they must file 180 days or more before that term is set to expire.

Particularly in light of section 24:

§ 24 Incumbent judges, ballot designation.
Sec. 24. There shall be printed upon the ballot under the name of each incumbent justice or judge who is a candidate for nomination or election to the same office the designation of that office.

BECAUSE of the listing as incumbents, it is clear that section 2 insisted upon a true incumbency for purposes of claiming one for election purposes.

However, as we have seen with some recent national cases, a consideration of "standing" requires a direct interest, and not one implied by end effect.  Alternately, the Attorney General can apply for relief on behalf of Michiganders.

Will any of the candidates for justice challenge this point of conflict with Michigan's constitution?  Will the Republicans consider it, or will they see it as something that might be viewed negatively by the public even if legitimate?  Will a third party candidate for MI SC make a name for himself and open the doors to non incumbents who are running?

Will we see the rule of law followed?