Off the Ballot, Still Running: Susan Hubbard, the Petition Fight and the Wayne County Probate Race

Wayne County threw out Judge Susan L. Hubbard’s nominating petitions for Probate Judge, and the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. The county’s own documents give three different signature counts, a circulator slated for a fraud referral, and a challenger her response ties to a rival campaign. Behind her platform sits an estate case in which the appellate court vacated the fee orders.

What I Set Out to Write

I started this piece expecting a campaign story. A sitting circuit judge running for Probate Judge on a platform of transparency, fiduciary accountability and open courthouse doors is a story Clutch Justice would want to tell. Then I pulled the county’s petition-challenge files, and the subject changed. This is first a story about how a candidate’s name comes off a ballot, what the paper record says about it, and what the record cannot say.

I have no campaign or financial relationship with Susan Hubbard. Everything below comes from county documents, court opinions and the campaigns’ own public materials, which I attribute when I use them. Where a claim could not be tied to a record, I say so.

The Ballot Fight

The county lists April 21, 2026 as the petition filing date for the three candidates now on the ballot. The requirement was 4,000 valid signatures, with a cap of 8,000. Hubbard filed 5,494. A facial review by county staff removed a handful for incomplete headers and dates, leaving 5,461 reviewable signatures and a cushion of 1,461 over the requirement.

Two people challenged her petitions. Matthew Wilk, of Northville, hired a data-verification firm, Victory Field Operations, whose affidavit estimated that 3,451 signatures matched a registered voter. He also named two circulators from a 2024 State Bureau of Elections fraud memo. County staff did not accept that part of his argument. On May 26 staff recommended the petitions be found insufficient anyway, reporting 3,650 valid signatures, after noticing handwriting patterns on sheets circulated by a different person, Maliek Phillips. Wilk also challenged Suzanne Fanning’s petitions, and the clerk found hers sufficient.

The clerk adopted the staff recommendation in a May 29 letter. Hubbard’s response, as the clerk recounts it, called the allegations false and offered an affidavit from political consultant Mark Grebner, who concluded her signatures were sufficient.

The second challenge came from John M. Chase III, a Grosse Pointe Farms attorney. It put 1,592 signatures at issue and named 75 sheets Chase called fraudulent. Hubbard answered on May 5 that Chase was the campaign fundraiser for Sarah Colegrove, a candidate for the same office, and that his challenge leaned on Wilk’s “flawed” automated review. Staff’s June 12 report reviewed the entire filing and identified about 104 sheets with 973 signatures that appeared forged, most tied to Phillips. It listed same and similar handwriting, repeated last names such as King, Walker and Smith, and petitions where the signer’s last name was left off. Staff disqualified all 973 and recommended that Phillips be referred to the Secretary of State or the Attorney General’s Office of Investigative Services for forgery and fraud.

Three Counts Below the Line

The May 26 staff report reported 3,650 valid signatures. In the June 12 report, staff took 5,461 reviewable signatures, subtracted the 973 disqualified, leaving 4,488, then removed 339 signers not registered in the district, 114 duplicates, and 176 signature errors or identifying issues. It reported 3,859 valid, 141 short. The clerk’s June 17 final determination adopts the staff recommendation but states that “the regular validation review outside of the challenge” found 3,432 valid signatures, 568 short. The Court of Appeals pointed out the discrepancy in its opinion, noting that the clerk found fewer valid signatures than either staff report. The county’s documents do not reconcile the three numbers. Every one of them is below 4,000.

The arithmetic that matters is the 973. It is far larger than the 141-signature shortfall in the June 12 staff count. That does not mean the Phillips sheets would have survived review. Staff found patterns it considered forgery. It does show that the disqualification of those 973 signatures was decisive to Hubbard’s falling short of 4,000 under the June 12 calculation. The county documents do not say who engaged Phillips, whether Hubbard or her campaign knew of the patterns, or whether the referral led to any investigation. Hubbard’s campaign says the circulator was employed by Colegrove’s campaign consultant and that the matter is under investigation. I found nothing in the public record to confirm either statement.

What the Court of Appeals Did

Hubbard sued the clerk in Wayne Circuit Court (LC No. 26-009853-AW) after the Wilk determination, seeking declaratory relief and a writ of mandamus to put her on the ballot. After argument and some testimony, the trial court denied both on July 9, 2026. The Court of Appeals expedited her appeal and, on August 28, 2026, issued an unpublished per curiam opinion in Hubbard v. Wayne County Clerk, COA No. 381666, affirming. Judges Lievense, Mariani and Bazzi decided it without oral argument, citing the election deadline and Hubbard’s own request for an immediate decision.

The opinion explains why she lost, and the reasoning is narrow. The court held that Hubbard abandoned her declaratory-judgment claim by not briefing it, which left mandamus. Mandamus is a discretionary, extraordinary writ that compels a clear legal duty and will not issue where the dispute turns on contested facts. The court said the Clerk has significant discretion over how to investigate petition signatures under MCL 168.552, including whether to compare each signature against the qualified voter file. Hubbard argued that the Clerk bypassed the voter-file comparison and relied on an unsubstantiated staff report. The court disagreed with that description: both staff reports said staff reviewed the entire filing, used the voter file for signature comparison, and attached spreadsheets with a recommendation for each signature. Her belief that the review may not have happened as described was, in the court’s word, speculative.

The court also addressed two of her points directly. She stressed that 527 of the 973 invalidated signatures matched the voter file, and the court said that alone does not show the signatures were valid or that the review did not occur. She confirmed with one signer that the signature was genuine, and the court said that shows at most a factual dispute, not that the review was skipped. It found her dispute with the Clerk’s findings to be, in the trial court’s phrase, inherently fact-based, which mandamus cannot resolve. It distinguished the cases she cited: the 104 sheets were not thrown out on a bare accusation against a circulator but were individually reviewed, and the officials in the earlier case she relied on had failed to issue a timely official declaration, which Hubbard did not allege here. The court said she identified no clear legal duty the Clerk failed to perform, including a duty to give her voter-file access for her own expert review.

In a footnote the court pointed to Drissman v Michigan Department of State, a 2026 case in which a putative candidate for the Oakland County Probate Court was also denied mandamus. Michigan Supreme Court Justice Welch, concurring in denying leave in that case, suggested the Legislature might consider giving candidates more ways to rehabilitate challenged signatures. The opinion awards no costs because questions of public significance are involved. It does not decide whether the Clerk’s counts were right. It decides that mandamus was the wrong tool to dispute them.

My own view, offered as opinion and not as a finding, is that Welch’s suggestion is unlikely to go anywhere. Petition challenges are a tool campaigns use against opponents, and the people who would write a fix are the same people who benefit from keeping it available. This race shows how much one challenge can decide.

Law360 reported on August 31 that the court issued two probate-ballot rulings that Friday, the other letting Moss stay on the ballot over a campaign-finance challenge. I have only Law360’s summary of that one.

The Estate Case Behind the Platform

Hubbard’s campaign rests on a fight she lived. After her mother, Joanna L. Hubbard, died, Susan’s brother John was removed as personal representative of the estate because of “acrimony between the interested parties,” in the Court of Appeals’ words. The Wayne County Probate Court appointed attorney Sarah W. Colegrove as special fiduciary. In August 2021 Colegrove petitioned for approval of her first annual account, including attorney fees. Susan Hubbard objected and asked for an evidentiary hearing on whether the hours were reasonable. On October 13, 2021 the probate court approved the account and the fees, $51,159.55, without one, and later assessed the fees against Susan as a sanction for her litigation conduct.

The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion on November 9, 2023 (Nos. 359608 and 362757), vacated both. It held that the probate court had to hold an evidentiary hearing where the reasonableness of the hours was disputed, and had to apply the reasonable-fee framework from Smith v Khouri. It also held that the case the probate court relied on to shift the fees to Susan, In re Hammond Estate, did not supply “an independent basis” for doing so, so the court had to find authority in a statute, court rule or common law before assessing fees against her. It remanded.

The opinion also cuts the other way on points that matter. It noted that no one disputed Colegrove was entitled to reasonable fees, and vacating an approval is not a finding that the fees were unreasonable. The court affirmed the chief judge’s denial of Susan’s motion to disqualify Judge Terrance Keith, which rested on an encounter in a courthouse elevator on May 9, 2022 and on a claimed history of friction. It found part of that motion untimely and the rest insufficient to show bias. It also declined to reassign the case on remand. I did not find a public record of what happened after the remand.

A reader should keep one fact in view. Hubbard is the personal litigant behind the issues she campaigns on. That gives her firsthand knowledge. It also means her account of the case is an interested party’s account.

What the Campaign Says That the Record Does Not Show

Hubbard’s campaign site says a formal complaint has been filed against the firm Briggs Colegrove PC, that the firm billed a single estate $265,000, and that its lawyers engaged judges in “illicit ex parte conduct” while seeking approval of fees. It also says Todd E. Briggs, the firm’s other named attorney, is now a probate judge. A campaign message signed by Hubbard describes the fee petitions approved without a hearing as about $100,000, says supporters of Colegrove spent thousands of dollars attacking her petitions, and says the circulator whose signatures were challenged was employed by Colegrove’s campaign consultant. I could not match any of this to a public record. The court record documents $51,159.55 in approved fees on the first annual account, and the campaign’s larger totals are its own accounting of the firm’s work, which I could not verify. I found no public filing of the complaint the site describes. The campaign’s site blocks automated access, so I relied on its search-indexed text and the message supplied to me, and I attribute every claim to the campaign.

Attorney discipline and judicial-conduct complaints are often confidential until a formal stage, so absence from the public record does not show the claims are false. It does mean a reader cannot yet rely on them from public documents.

The Field Voters Will See

The county’s candidate list, run September 10, 2026, shows Colegrove, Fanning and Moss for the three non-incumbent Probate Judge positions. With three seats and three names, the printed ballot offers no contest for those positions. I found limited verified public information on the candidates’ positions on the issues Hubbard raises, and I describe only what I could confirm.

Sarah Colegrove

Colegrove, of Grosse Pointe, is the special fiduciary whose fees the Court of Appeals vacated in the Hubbard estate case. Her campaign says she brings 30 years of legal experience and is a lifelong Wayne County resident, and it carries an endorsement from Wayne County Probate Judge Lawrence J. Paolucci. Hubbard’s filing says challenger Chase was Colegrove’s campaign fundraiser. The county did not rule on that statement and I could not verify it. I found no record that Colegrove directed or knew of either challenge, and no statement from her responding to Hubbard’s claims. Hubbard’s campaign names Colegrove in its ex parte allegation and says her supporters funded the challenge. Those are the campaign’s allegations and not court findings. The opinion’s own account is that the probate court approved her fees without an evidentiary hearing and the Court of Appeals vacated that approval.

Suzanne Fanning

Fanning, of Redford, filed petitions on April 21 that survived Wilk’s challenge. The clerk’s May 29 determination found them sufficient. I did not find a public record of her position on fiduciary fees, appointments or ex parte communications.

Vanessa M. Moss

Moss lives in Detroit. Per Law360, the Court of Appeals allowed her to stay on the ballot on August 28 over a challenge based on campaign finance filings. I could not retrieve the opinion, so I cannot say what the filings issue was. I found no public record of her positions on Hubbard’s issues.

Legacy, Entitlement and Access

A race with three names for three seats raises a question the petition fight only sharpens: who gets to a judicial ballot, and what do they bring with them besides a résumé. Family name, money and proximity to the court all shorten the path. I looked for documented examples, and the documentation is uneven. I describe what I could confirm and what I could not.

The Candidate Who Is Also a Legacy

Hubbard’s own campaign says she is the third generation of her family to serve in public office. Michigan Public reported in 2020 that her grandfather, Orville Hubbard, was mayor of Dearborn from 1942 to 1978, and that she was elected to the Dearborn council in 1985, the Wayne County Commission in 1989 and became a judge in 2010. The same report notes that Orville Hubbard was a segregationist, and that she told the station she did not know him that way. A name that opens doors is one of the things she brings to this race, and it belongs in any fair account of who is asking voters to look past the ballot.

The Hathaway Example, Next Door

The clearest documented case of a judicial family in Wayne County is in the Circuit Court, not Probate. Metro Times reports that at least six Hathaways are current or retired Wayne County Circuit judges. It reports that Judge Dana Hathaway’s father, Richard Hathaway, is a retired Wayne County Circuit judge, and that her husband legally changed his surname to Hathaway before running for the bench in 2020. That reporting documents a family with many members on one bench. It does not show that any seat was handed down, and it concerns a different court from the one in this race.

What I Found on the Probate Field

I found no documented family judicial lineage for Colegrove, Fanning or Moss. The Legal News profile of Fanning describes a 25-year probate practice in Ann Arbor, a husband who is an attorney, and two daughters pursuing law, and says nothing about a judge in the family. Ballotpedia shows Moss running for the 36th District Court as a write-in in 2024, for state Senate in 2018 and for Congress in 2016, and contains no background on family or employment. Colegrove’s site gives 30 years of experience and an endorsement from a sitting probate judge, Lawrence J. Paolucci. I do not claim more than that. Absence of a documented legacy in a few searches is not proof that none exists.

The Access Question Is About the Firm

The documented pattern closest to the question I set out to ask is professional, not familial. Hubbard’s campaign describes Briggs Colegrove PC as a firm that received hundreds of assignments from Wayne County probate judges, and as a firm whose named attorneys are Colegrove and Todd E. Briggs. Ballotpedia confirms Briggs was elected to the Wayne County Probate Court in November 2024 and took office January 1, 2025, with a term through 2031. If Colegrove wins, the court would hold two judges associated with the same firm name. I could not confirm whether Briggs has left the firm, how many appointments the firm received, or what recusal practices govern it, and the public record does not answer them. They are open questions, not conclusions.

Money enters through the petition fight. Wilk’s challenge used a paid data-verification firm whose chief executive signed an affidavit. Hubbard’s campaign says supporters of Colegrove spent thousands of dollars. I could not confirm who paid for either challenge. The 4,000-signature requirement and the cost of defending against challenges to it favor candidates who can pay for circulators, lawyers and consultants, and the record here shows professional help on both sides of the fight.

Why the Issues Are Not Hypothetical

Hubbard’s themes, transparency, fiduciary appointments and fees, and ex parte contact, have a documented setting. On January 30, 2026 the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan announced an indictment of four people, including 36th District Judge Andrea Bradley-Baskin, who is suspended. Prosecutors allege a scheme to embezzle money from people under guardianship and conservatorship. The indictment names Nancy Williams, whose company Guardian and Associates was appointed as fiduciary by the Wayne County Probate Court in more than 1,000 cases. None of the records I reviewed connects that case to Colegrove, Briggs, Fanning or Moss. It shows that how a probate court appoints and pays fiduciaries is a live public-integrity question in Wayne County. It does not show what any candidate did or would do.

The Write-In Question

Hubbard says she is continuing her campaign as a write-in candidate. Her message states that “voters will now be denied the opportunity to choose between candidates” with three names for three positions, and it asks supporters to write in her name under Wayne County Probate Judge on the November ballot and to share the message. That is the campaign’s own public statement, and I report it as such.

Michigan’s write-in rule adds one step. Under MCL 168.737a, election inspectors may not count a write-in vote for a person who has not filed a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate with the filing official. The filing is due by 4 p.m. on the second Friday before the election. For the November 3 election that is October 23, 2026.

The campaign message does not say whether Hubbard has filed. The county’s candidate list does not include write-ins, and I found no public list of filed declarations. Her campaign site continues to solicit contributions, but the indexed text available to me does not say whether a declaration was filed. Whether a candidate removed from the ballot before the election may file one is a separate question, and I found no authority on it. Wayne County Elections can answer both. Readers who plan to write her in should confirm the declaration with Wayne County Elections before October 23, because a write-in vote for a person with no declaration on file will not be counted.

What I Could Not Establish

Where This Leaves Me

The record supports a few things. A candidate with a real filing, 5,494 signatures, was removed after county staff concluded that about 973 signatures from one circulator appeared forged. The county’s own documents give three different valid-signature counts. The Court of Appeals has twice ruled against Hubbard in matters that touch this campaign, once on the judge she sought to disqualify and once on her ballot access, and once in her favor on the fee orders. The estate case establishes that the approval of a special fiduciary’s fees in Wayne County Probate Court was vacated for want of an evidentiary hearing. That is a procedural fact with public consequences. It is not proof of the larger claims her campaign makes, and those larger claims remain unmatched to any public record.

Hubbard says she is running as a write-in, and that is now on the record in her own words. What the record does not yet show is a filed declaration, which is what makes a write-in vote count. Clutch Justice will update this article when Wayne County Elections confirms whether she filed.