Michigan Endorsement Conventions: Lennox Request, State Response, and What Remains Unsettled

In advance of the 2026 election cycle, Michigan’s major political parties announced plans to hold pre-primary endorsement conventions for several statewide offices and boards. The approach raises questions about how these endorsement conventions interact with Michigan election law, particularly where statutory nominating conventions are already prescribed by law. Those questions prompted a formal request from political strategist Dennis Lennox to the Michigan Department of State, seeking clarification on the legal status and implications of the endorsement process. The Department issued a written response.

Lennox requested guidance on three questions:

1. Whether a pre-primary endorsement convention constitutes an “election” for purposes of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act.
2. Whether a candidate’s participation in the endorsement process triggers any campaign-finance reporting obligations.
3. Whether a political party may structure the subsequent statutory nominating convention to substantially depend on the outcome of an earlier endorsement vote.

The Department responded to the campaign-finance questions, concluding that an endorsement convention is not considered an “election” under the Act, and that endorsement activity does not—by itself—confer “candidate” status or trigger reporting duties; it did not resolve the broader constitutional and election-law questions concerning whether endorsements may lawfully constrain the later statutory nominating conventions.

What’s settled

• Both major parties are holding pre-primary endorsement conventions at which eligible delegates vote on party endorsements for certain statewide offices and boards, including Attorney General, Secretary of State, Michigan Supreme Court, State Board of Education, and university governing boards.
• The endorsement conventions do not formally select statutory nominees. Under Michigan election law, official nominees for these offices are chosen at the post-primary nominating conventions required by statute.
• Endorsement votes are treated as internal party activity, not elections, for purposes of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, according to an interpretive statement issued by the Michigan Department of State in response to a request from Dennis Lennox.
• Individuals seeking endorsement at these conventions are not automatically considered “candidates” under campaign finance law solely by virtue of seeking or receiving an endorsement, and endorsement votes do not themselves trigger campaign finance reporting obligations.

What’s not settled

• Whether party endorsements are legally binding, or functionally binding, on subsequent nominating conventions has not been resolved by statute, administrative ruling, or court decision.
• Whether a political party may lawfully structure its nomination process so that overcoming an endorsement requires a supermajority or heightened voting threshold at the post-primary convention remains an open legal question.
• Whether an endorsement process that effectively determines nominees conflicts with Michigan’s Constitution or election statutes has not been addressed by the Michigan Department of State or the Attorney General and would likely require judicial review.
• The Department of State’s response to the Lennox request expressly declined to rule on these constitutional and statutory questions beyond the campaign finance implications, noting that they fall outside the scope of its authority under the Campaign Finance Act.
• Any definitive resolution would likely require a legal challenge by an affected candidate. A candidate’s standing to challenge the endorsement process would be strongest after an actual denial of nomination at the statutorily required nominating convention. While a challenge immediately following an endorsement convention may be possible in limited circumstances, courts generally require a concrete injury—such as the loss of a nomination—rather than a speculative or anticipatory harm.