No, but it would be reasonable for the teacher to turn down my assignment if I didn't have sufficient attendance in her class.
Your argument is sound. The problems is that you don't address what is complicating this question....the Teacher accepted the homework early and then affirmatively confirmed that the submission was acceptable.
This would be totally different had Duggan gone to the Clerk's office and lied about his residency date. Or if head gone to the Clerk's office and had his filing rejected with instructions to return in 14 days.
If teacher tells you not to turn it in until 15 days after the homework was assigned, and you show up on day 14, what do you do when teacher accepts the submission and then affirms that it will be ok?
This "teacher" analogy is ultimately a bad one because in his/her post "artds" turned the teacher into the decision-maker as to whether the student graduates. Teachers don't ultimately make that decision. Registrars do. And they do that based on rules made by some other external policy-making entity that determines the requirements. The registrar doesn't make the rules his/herself.
In the election certification process, the Clerk [[the registrar) makes the decision. The people, through the Charter Commission, made the rules. And in this real life case, the Clerk made the wrong decision because she didn't use the rules provided to her to make her decision.
And when the Clerk is wrong and re-affirms her wrongness, that doesn't negate the ability for her wrong decisions to be overturned by an entity empowered to do so. If the Duggan campaign doesn't like it, that's between them & the Clerk. Maybe they could use all that leftover mayoral campaign money to start a recall campaign against her. I bet she'd be a real stickler about making sure all the I's were dotted and T's crossed when checking THOSE petitions and filing dates.
Ah, but the Clerk WAS taking Petitions at the time Duggan filed his. That's what makes this so silly. He DID follow the rules. In fact, he MORE THAN followed the rules by being punctual and turning in his signatures early.
By accepting this judge's interpretation of the charter, you're essentially saying that you would have been satisfied if Duggan had gone back down to the Clerk's office on April 14th, asked the Clerk to hand him the signatures he already turned in, then literally handed them right back to the Clerk. Surely you see the absurdity of all this. I'm still waiting for you or anyone else to identify a single conceivable public policy that would be served by such a rule. If there isn't one, then it's likely that this wasn't what was meant by the language of the charter, and that the residency requirement need only be fulfilled by the deadline for filing, rather than the day you happen to send a staffer down to the Clerk's office to turn in your paperwork.
That seems like a poor analogy to me.
The issue, in this case, is establishment of minimum duration of residency, as a proxy for qualification to represent Detroiters. The minimum wasn't met, so the judge threw Duggan off the ballot.
I'm no lawyer, but the legal commentators I've heard [[Charlie Langston et al) see to indicate that they agree with the decision. The intent appears to be a minimum required commitment to Detroit, determined by a specific minimum time period.
It seems to me that the judge who ruled this decision based Duggan's start of residency as April 2nd when he registered to vote, rather than when he actually moved into his house which was in March, 2012. When does actual residency start seems to be the question that needs clarification. I don't know about most folks, but every time I've moved into a new city, I moved into my house before going to the Clerk's office to register to vote in that city. That has been a few days or even a week before I did register. Yeah, it's one of the things you do when you move, but it's not usually the very first thing you do.
Unfortunately, this thread is going to be subtly laced with positioning; the front-running, yet most polarizing, candidate is now off the ballot.
Let's all be honest: if the same thing happened to Barrow, how many of us would be clamoring for the decision to be overturned? Or Crittendon? Or Joann Watson?
No, per the ruling, he did not meet the residency requuirement, due to the filing date. He was two weeks short.
It's like applying for a job that requires a Masters, and being two weeks away from receiving one's degree. You haven't yet qualified for the job opportunity.
Per a news radio 950 report this morning, apparently there's a conflict in the City charter. In one place it says the clock starts to run when you move into the City, which Duggan did in March, 2012. In another place it says the clock starts to run when you register to vote, which Duggan did on April 16th, 2012. He turned in his paperwork on April 2nd, 2013, so he's right in between those two dates.
However, none of that should matter given that the deadline to turn in your paperwork isn't until May 14th. He met both residency requirements well before then. His "filing for candidacy" should be deemed continuing from the time he turns in his paperwork up to the deadline for filing. There's no need to make him go down to the Clerk's office on April 16th, ask for his signatures back, then hand them right back to the Clerk. That's absurd and could not possibly be what the drafters of the residency requirement intended.
Suddenly, everyone wants to follow the rules.
Why just yesterday, everyone wanted to toss out the EFM rules because they limit democracy.
Today, they want to limit democracy because of rules.
This whole argument reminds me of a neighborhood card game I was in years ago.
We were playing dealers choice and the dealer called Jacks or better to open, trips to win.
Someone opened and I stayed in with 4 clubs. In the draw I hit on the flush.
When I reveled the hand the dealer said : No I said you had to have three of a kind to win. WHAT?
The whole table was in an uproar but he stood his ground. Everything is open to interpretation.
Fine. Let's modify it. The job posting reads: "Masters degree required. Applications due on May 15th."
You graduate on April 16th, but being the punctual person that you are, you turn in your application on April 2nd. Should the company exclude you from consideration when they begin interviewing candidates in the fall?
That analogy is not apt because the job listing does not say by when the masters degree must have been obtained. In contrast, the law here clearly states that the "filing" date is the relevant date.
As an aside, students submit resumes in situations like the above all the time. The typical convention is to state something like "B.A., expected April 2013," so as not to mislead the reader into thinking that the individual already obtained the degree when he/she has not.
I dislike Tom Barrow's political race card war against Mike Duggan. When I heard about this from my idiot box, I started to pound my apartment wall. It seems to me that Detroit [[which is a big black ghetto) wants a black leader. Barrow wants to keep white folks away from Detroit city government. Doesn't matter how Barrow tries to be political glamourous, he will never be mayor of Detroit? Barrow's dirty tricks of distraction to eliminate his opponents will be his own destruction. Duggan will be back, packing heat and will be mayor of Detroit. I dislike this BLACKS ONLY race for Detroit mayor.