Maurice Houston, also in the 8th, was successfully removed by a Cindy Bass challenge. He, along with Sanford, Bailey, Brown & Marshall Blake were removed for inadequate valid signatures. Warren Bloom, who filed for the Commissioners race, was removed for improper notarization of petitions.

The only successful SFI challenge was against Whaumbush, who was removed for a pretty egregious omission regarding creditors who had secured judgments against him.

I disagree with Aardhart that it is the judicial role to be anal or not. The law, which came from the legislature, is fairly clear and quite anal: here's the information that you need to provide, and if you don't provide it fully and within the given timeframe, you're off the ballot. I think that's not a good law to have, but it's up to the legislature to fix it. Judges weakening the law through selective enforcement disincentivizes the legislature from fixing the broken law. By the judges trying to fix the law from the bench to make it more fair to candidates and voters, we get horrible precedents like the one that says positions on boards of non-profit organizations don't have to be disclosed, or the Supreme Court saying one year that payments received from the government in the normal course of a governmental employment relationship are not "governmentally mandated payments" and then lower courts ignoring that precedent in future years. And it keeps alive the absurd practice of SFI challenges, which prevents candidates on both sides of those challenges from campaigning on the issues. We can't rely on candidate/voter restraint not to seek to exploit the law in undemocratic ways, and the judiciary is reacting by refusing to enforce not only the law, but sometimes their own previous interpretations of it. It's a big stupid mess.