Ballot 'Curing' Emerges as New Tactic for Michigan Campaigns

Close mayoral election in Hamtramck highlights how campaigns are working to ensure every vote counts by reminding voters to fix issues with their absentee ballot signatures.

Apr. 1, 2026 at 3:23pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

In a close mayoral election in Hamtramck, Michigan, a large number of voters worked with the city clerk's office after the election to 'cure' or fix issues with the signatures on their absentee ballot envelopes. This was the result of effective outreach efforts by the campaigns, who wanted to ensure every vote counted. The ability to cure ballots with missing or mismatched signatures is relatively new in Michigan, and campaigns in the state are increasingly using this tactic to boost their vote totals, similar to efforts in other states like Arizona.

Why it matters

Ballot curing has become a new political strategy, as campaigns and parties work to squeeze out every last vote by reminding supporters to fix any issues with their absentee ballots. This raises questions about the fairness and integrity of elections, as some argue it allows voting to continue past Election Day and could be used to target certain voters. However, proponents say it's simply about ensuring every voice is heard in a free and fair election.

The details

In the Hamtramck mayoral election, which was decided by just 11 votes, 120 voters out of only 4,747 total ballots cast worked to cure issues with their signatures. This was a massive increase from previous elections in the city. Campaigns in Hamtramck and across Michigan have been actively reaching out to voters whose ballots need curing, knocking on doors and making phone calls to ensure they fix the problem. This is similar to efforts in other states like Arizona, where parties have been perfecting ballot curing operations for years.

  • In the Hamtramck mayoral election in November 2025, a large number of voters cured their ballots.
  • In elections from February 2024 through August 2025 in Hamtramck, just a single voter had cured their ballot, back in August 2024.

The players

Muhith Mahmood

Candidate in the Hamtramck mayoral election who said his campaign started calling people after the city released a list of voters whose ballots would be rejected unless they were cured.

Adam Alharbi

The now-mayor of Hamtramck, whose campaign benefited more from cured ballots than his opponent's campaign.

Abe Siblani

Hamtramck's deputy city clerk, who joked that the campaigns were "calling old ladies out of their beds" to get them to cure their ballots.

Charlene Fernandez

Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party, who said the party's ballot curing efforts can make the difference in close elections.

John Merrill

Former Alabama Secretary of State and Republican, who warned that ballot curing could be used to target certain voters.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We knocked doors, we called people. If somebody knows that person, they call them, they knock on their door.”

— Muhith Mahmood, Hamtramck mayoral candidate

“Every vote matters, and it can change an election.”

— Charlene Fernandez, Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party

“There is a perception that they use this opportunity to get those ballots turned in after the election for their candidate to either catch up or extend their lead.”

— John Merrill, Former Alabama Secretary of State

What’s next

It's likely that more Michigan voters will hear from outside groups urging them to cure their ballots going forward, as the lists of voters whose ballots need to be cured are public information. Both the Michigan Democratic Party and the Michigan Republican Party are expected to ramp up their ballot curing operations in future elections.

The takeaway

Ballot curing has emerged as a new political tactic in Michigan, with campaigns and parties working to ensure every vote counts by reminding supporters to fix any issues with their absentee ballots. While proponents say it's about ensuring a free and fair election, critics argue it allows voting to continue past Election Day and could be used to target certain voters. The practice raises questions about the integrity of the electoral process.