Is this it for Duggan's Mayoral bid? [UPDATE: Election Commission Certifies Duggan]

**bailey** · May-22-13, 08:51 AM

Not that Barrow should be taken seriously on most anything, however, I don't see how he doesn't have a point here.

The new city charter, which took effect Jan. 1, 2012, says candidates for elected office must be city residents and registered voters for one year before they file for office.

“As Mr. Duggan is not in compliance with the Detroit charter’s residency requirement, he is ineligible for elective office on the Aug. 6, 2013, primary ballot,” Barrow’s complaint says. “This is a routine matter in failing to comply with the Detroit city charter’s residency requirement and non-certification is mandated.”

http://www.freep.com/article/2013052...-Detroit-mayor

The defense Duggan's team is claiming is that the meaning of the provision is that they must be a resident for a year prior to the filing deadline and NOT the date of filing. Is it just me or is that a stretch? The provision reads as follows:

ARTICLE 2. GENERAL PROVISIONSSec. 2-101. Qualifications for Elective Officers and Appointive Officers.
A person seeking elective office must be a citizen of the United States, a resident and a qualified and registered voter of the City of Detroit for one [[1) year at the time of filing for office, and retain that status throughout their tenure in any such elective office. In addition, any person seeking office from a non at-large district must be a resident and qualified, registered voter in such district for one [[1) year at the time of filing for office, and retain such status throughout their tenure.
For any appointive city office, a person must be qualified to perform the duties of the office at the time of assuming the office and at all times while holding the office. The person’s citizenship, residence and voter registration status shall be as required or permitted by this Charter or applicable law.

COMMENTARY: The 1997 Charter has no stated durational residency requirement for elected officials. In contrast, consistent with state and federal law, this Charter imposes a one [[1) year residency requirement for persons seeking elective office. An additional qualification for candidates seeking election from a non at-large district is that they reside in that district for at least one [[1) year prior to filing for office. Requiring that candidates for elective office reside for a specified period of time in the community they seek to serve makes it more likely that elected officials will be intimately familiar with the unique issues impacting their communities.
Lastly, the residency requirement for appointed officers has been eliminated as inconsistent with state law and modified to reflect the City of Detroit‟s right to establish residency requirements for employees as currently provided by law. MCL 15.601, et al.. This section now requires that appointed officers be qualified to perform the duties of the office at the time of appointment and throughout their tenure

How can any of that be interpreted as Duggan claims? Also...how could they be so stupid as to even make it an issue?

**JBMcB** · May-22-13, 09:36 AM

I interpret it as one year from the date of the filling, as that's what it says. If they meant the deadline, they could have put "from the date of the filing deadline" instead of "at the time of filing for office."

Isn't this SOP for Detroit mayoral elections? A few months before filing, buy a house or a condo in Rivertown, then start talking about how much you love living in Detroit?

**Wesley Mouch** · May-22-13, 09:43 AM

Date of filing means date of filing. Date that he filed.

If it meant deadline, it would say filing deadline.

This is a plain-english structure that is quite clear. And anyone reading this who just gained residency would file their forms on the deadline if that what it took to get the one year.

I do hope Duggan does run. It would be interesting to see if enough Detroit voters are liberal enough to vote in a white guy. And from candidate interviews on WDET, he seems to be the only candidate who has actually thought about the issues. All the others seemed only interested in getting elected. I don't like Duggan, but he was so clearly the only bright bulb in the pack. I hope he gets a fair chance.

**bailey** · May-22-13, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Date of filing means date of filing. Date that he filed.

If it meant deadline, it would say filing deadline.

This is a plain-english structure that is quite clear. And anyone reading this who just gained residency would file their forms on the deadline if that what it took to get the one year.

I do hope Duggan does run. It would be interesting to see if enough Detroit voters are liberal enough to vote in a white guy. And from candidate interviews on WDET, he seems to be the only candidate who has actually thought about the issues. All the others seemed only interested in getting elected. I don't like Duggan, but he was so clearly the only bright bulb in the pack. I hope he gets a fair chance.

Well, if he was allowed to stay in the race while clearly in violation of the charter, it wouldn't be "fair chance" would it?

**Wesley Mouch** · May-22-13, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by bailey

Well, if he was allowed to stay in the race while clearly in violation of the charter, it wouldn't be "fair chance" would it?

No, you are completely right, Bailey. If he didn't file 1 year before the date he filed his papers [[that's called a filing date), too bad for him -- and probably too bad for us. [[If the text we've seen is truly the controlling text.)

I'm not a fan of residency rules for much of anything. Great idea in principle, but terrible in practice. The field should be open to the best candidate as determined by the voters. But the rule is clear, reasonable, and quite easy to follow.

**Danny** · May-22-13, 12:29 PM

This is Tom Barrow's way to eliminate white folks from Detroit mayoral election; by using the City charter law. Duggan already become a Detroit resident before April 16th. The paperwork hasn't went to the City-County Building Clerk's desk until those days before April 16th, 2012.

That complaint will be overturned within a couple weeks and Duggan is back in mayoral race.

Stop playing the race card, Barrow! You have some dirty little secrets, too. Want me to bring it out?

**bailey** · May-22-13, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

I interpret it as one year from the date of the filling, as that's what it says. If they meant the deadline, they could have put "from the date of the filing deadline" instead of "at the time of filing for office."

I agree... I don't see how it can be interpreted as Duggan is claiming. Which will make it interesting to see how his continued presence in the race gets justified [[as we all know it will be.)

**downtownguy** · May-22-13, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

I interpret it as one year from the date of the filling, as that's what it says. If they meant the deadline, they could have put "from the date of the filing deadline" instead of "at the time of filing for office."

I've got to agree with JBMcB. I don't see any ambiguity at all. "Date of filing" and "filing deadline" seem to describe specific dates, and they are not necessarily one and the same.

I find some disturbing things in the Freep article the OP linked. Once again, the MSM is making it a two horse race, and we are still more than two months from the primary. Two quotes they use against Barrow's complaint come from the "establishment." One of those quoted, WSU Law School Dean Jocelyn Benson is a member of the City's Board of Ethics which precludes her from being involved in campaigns or supporting a candidate. One would think she would also refrain from speculating until those with the authority to make a decision have spoken. Also in the article, Krystal Crittendon says she was not invited to attend the Booker T. Washington Business Association's candidate's forum. Why? She seems as legitimate a candidate as Fred Durhal, Jr. and Liza Howze. As a voter in this election, I want to hear all views, not just the front runners.

Baily and poobert, I'm curious. Why no love for Tom Barrow? I've heard him interviewed and, while I don't agree with everything he has said, I still think of him as a very articulate person with some interesting ideas. As for Barrow's conviction, the U.S. Tax Court has subsequently ruled in Barrow's favor, and if I'm not mistaken, Barrow is taking measures to have it expunged from his record.

**bailey** · May-22-13, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by downtownguy

Baily and poobert, I'm curious. Why no love for Tom Barrow? I've heard him interviewed and, while I don't agree with everything he has said, I still think of him as a very articulate person with some interesting ideas. As for Barrow's conviction, the U.S. Tax Court has subsequently ruled in Barrow's favor, and if I'm not mistaken, Barrow is taking measures to have it expunged from his record.

He's a local version of Ron Paul. Interesting ideas, few actually based in reality [[solar farms? CoD investing in R&D into alternative energy? residency requirements for employment...etc), not chance of getting elected.

He lost his bid to have it expunged.

“Barrow has not made a sufficient showing of compelling circumstances to warrant issuance of a writ,” a three-member panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals said in a decision Tuesday that was posted today.

http://www.freep.com/article/2012011...ate-Tom-Barrow

**Zug** · May-22-13, 10:03 AM

Not that this isn't an issue...but until someone other than an opponent actually does something to nullify Duggan's candidacy, then it's no big deal to me. If it was done incorrectly, could Duggan simply withdraw his filing & then "re-file" at the deadline? I don't really know. But even if he had to start over to re-file, it seems more like creating a hurdle for Duggan & not eliminating his candidacy.

**Eber Brock Ward** · May-22-13, 01:30 PM

I can't imagine he'll be kicked out for this. The charter clause is ambiguous. Any court that hears the issue will have broad discretion to rule as it sees fit [[http://www.michbar.org/publicpolicy/...tat_Interp.pdf).

It would take quite a bit of logical gymnastics for a judge to choose one reasonable interpretation [[boot Duggan, "time of filing" refers to candidate) over another [[keep Duggan, "time of filing" refers to time of filing set forth by the clerk), when the latter has the weight of the historical treatment of similar residency clauses in Michigan, and the history of Detroit residency requirements specifically, on its side.

**getmoore** · May-22-13, 02:00 PM

What about Barrow being able to run for Mayor? Isn't there some language in the Charter about convicted felons being able to run?

**bailey** · May-22-13, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by getmoore

What about Barrow being able to run for Mayor? Isn't there some language in the Charter about convicted felons being able to run?

That was a State constitutional amendment. Individuals are ineligible if they have been:

“convicted of a felony involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or a breach of the public trust … and the conviction was related to the person’s official capacity.”

None of his felonies would be disqualifiers.

**SWMAP** · May-22-13, 03:42 PM

I read the article on this topic to include both Freman Hendrix and Jocelyn Benson - both members of the Charter-writing Commission - to say that, in their educated and experienced opinion, Duggan met the Charter stipulations.

Any judge hearing this is going to interview the Chairman of the Charter Commission [[who happens to be still alive and accessible) to determine the intent of the language. No one normal is, while the framers are still living and accessible, going to try to guess at the intended meaning.

This discussion is sort of like the extreme parsing of bible phrases in English when you probably have to go back to Greek and St. Jerome in latin to really understand what Jerome was conveying as he translated from original languages. Extreme parsing is not a substitute for wise reading.
Yes, parse - but don't hang your hat on parsing. look for the meaning - that's justice.

It's creating a tempest in a teapot. I don't think you have to worry about Duggan.

As to howze - she is becoming just as much of a joke as Barrow.

**Zug** · May-22-13, 04:15 PM

Is it supposed to be a "good" thing to win by trying to eliminate the competition through technicalities?

Will it become a race of write-in candidates? lol...

**sumas** · May-22-13, 05:08 PM

Honestly, I am confused. I will be disappointed if Duggan gets tossed. Duggan has proved that he can do turn arounds. He has huge support among Detroit voters who are 50 plus. We remember when the city operated properly.

**Danny** · May-24-13, 01:50 PM

No more race cards Detroit Mayoral candidates! I want to hear your principles and plans to turn Detroit around.

**Junkin4Life** · May-22-13, 06:05 PM

I am having faith that Duggan does not get DQ'd over something minor. He was only 2 weeks early

**evergreen** · May-22-13, 08:37 PM

Actually, the language looks pretty unambiguous to me. Seems that the charter commission wanted both actual residence and some evidence of civic involvement and commitment of at least one year's duration prior to formally seeking elective office.

Sorry for Duggan if he gets kicked over this. I also think that if a court keeps him on the ballot in the face of what is pretty straightforward language, it will just be one more institution trampling over the choices made by the Detroit electorate. I can see an opponent making a lot of hay with this mess either way.

Duggan claims to be running a major league type campaign and claims to be ready for the most difficult job in Michigan politics. This type of mistake - and it is real mistake - is going to consume a lot of his staff's time and energy. Very amateurish.

**corktownyuppie** · May-22-13, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by evergreen

Actually, the language looks pretty unambiguous to me. Seems that the charter commission wanted both actual residence and some evidence of civic involvement and commitment of at least one year's duration prior to formally seeking elective office.

But here's my thing on this.

Let's Duggan goes to the Clerk's office and says, hey look...I've got my signatures, my 1-year anniversary is two weeks from now. Should I turn the papers in now? Or wait two weeks and then come back? Either way, I'm formally announcing my candidacy tomorrow.

And I guess the bigger question is why is this question even relevant? If the Clerk turned around and said, yes, you can come back in two weeks once you hit your anniversary, but it will be past the deadline. Then we've got a problem.

Either way his actions seem to consistent with the intent of the language, and along with the stamp of approval he got from the Clerk's office, I'd say he's got a leg to stand on.

And by the way....

of at least one year's duration prior to formally seeking elective office.

It may seem clear to you, and that was the way I interpreted it. But that's not what the charter says either.

**mam2009** · May-23-13, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by SWMAP

I read the article on this topic to include both Freman Hendrix and Jocelyn Benson - both members of the Charter-writing Commission - to say that, in their educated and experienced opinion, Duggan met the Charter stipulations.

Any judge hearing this is going to interview the Chairman of the Charter Commission [[who happens to be still alive and accessible) to determine the intent of the language. No one normal is, while the framers are still living and accessible, going to try to guess at the intended meaning.

This discussion is sort of like the extreme parsing of bible phrases in English when you probably have to go back to Greek and St. Jerome in latin to really understand what Jerome was conveying as he translated from original languages. Extreme parsing is not a substitute for wise reading.
Yes, parse - but don't hang your hat on parsing. look for the meaning - that's justice.

It's creating a tempest in a teapot. I don't think you have to worry about Duggan.

As to howze - she is becoming just as much of a joke as Barrow.

I don't think Ms. Benson was a member of the Charter Commission [[I'm assuming that's what you meant) & Freeman Hendrix resigned from the Commission early on to be on the Greektown Casino Board. I would be far more interested in what Chairman Jenice Mitchell Ford believes is the correct interpretation of the provision given the very long & thorough revision process.

**bailey** · May-23-13, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by mam2009

I don't think Ms. Benson was a member of the Charter Commission [[I'm assuming that's what you meant) & Freeman Hendrix resigned from the Commission early on to be on the Greektown Casino Board. I would be far more interested in what Chairman Jenice Mitchell Ford believes is the correct interpretation of the provision given the very long & thorough revision process.

According to Hollowell on WDET this morning, the charter commission testimony and discussion will bear out that they "meant" last day of filing.

If that is what they meant, seems like they should have just said it...instead of the somewhat ambiguous language.

Re: Howze's complaint. Would be hilarious to see Barrow hoisted on his own "technical violation" petard.

**Eber Brock Ward** · May-23-13, 11:11 AM

For the people in here typing "it's not ambiguous to me",

"It's not ambiguous to me" and ""it's not ambiguous" are two totally different things. Neither interpretation is contextually superior to the other in any way other than "I feel that way."

With that in mind, the result has to be inclusion of the candidate. Shame on Barrow, too. I wouldn't have voted for him, but I believe it's better to get people on the ballot to let the people decide, even if I disagree with them.

**mam2009** · May-23-13, 12:42 PM

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/[[S[[ak4...e=mcl-168-322a

This statute seems to suggest that once a candidate submits his/her paperwork, that candidate has "filed" since that candidate can only withdraw from consideration AFTER the deadline for filing has passed. If one could withdraw prior to the deadline, that would suggest a candidate had not yet legally filed.

I'm not leaning towards any of the candidates yet but I do enjoy a good legal debate!

**corktownyuppie** · May-23-13, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by mam2009

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/[[S[[ak4...e=mcl-168-322a

This statute seems to suggest that once a candidate submits his/her paperwork, that candidate has "filed" since that candidate can only withdraw from consideration AFTER the deadline for filing has passed. If one could withdraw prior to the deadline, that would suggest a candidate had not yet legally filed.

I'm not leaning towards any of the candidates yet but I do enjoy a good legal debate!

I'd say that's one of the better legal arguments presented thusfar.

My opinion is that the ability for the candidate to pull out of the race is significant only in that demonstrates that filing is not permanent, but the date you are able pull out is less relevant in my opinion.

Of greater concern to me is whether or not Duggan received any constructive benefit for having filed 2 weeks earlier than his 52 week requirement. Did doing so offer him any political advantage or financial advantage? Obviously, if the 52-week requirement was past the filing deadline, there would be a major advantage. It would be the difference between filing and not filing. But since that point is no longer in question, what, if any, benefit does one get for simply turning his papers in 2 weeks early?

I can't imagine that there is any, which begs the question of why the charter commission chose to make that distinction to begin with. Or whether they even meant to.

Second is that my general predisposition is to make a ruling more inclusive rather than exclusive, knowing that the eventual decision will be made by the voters.

This comes up, for example, when a contract says, you must respond/pay "within 7 days." Is it within 7 days of proven receipt of the invoice? Is it within 7 days of when the invoice was issued/sent? Is it 7 business days? If I received it on Monday at 8pm, does Monday count as a day? So many possible ways to count something so simple.

My inclination when there are any unintended ambiguities like this is to err toward the side of the broadest and most lenient interpretation to the person who is being asked to perform...in this case, the recipient.

This inclination is only reinforced by the fact that the positive decision to put someone on the ballot will have zero consequence if the public does not want to see him/her in office. They have recourse by simply refusing to vote for him/her.

Lastly, from the pragmatic/utilitarian point of view, when given a decision point that will result in either more options vs. fewer options, it seems counterintuitive to choose fewer options unless there is some greater benefit to the end goal of the democratic process.

If tl;dr, then as they say in baseball, "Tie goes to the runner". Duggan stays on the ballot.