Duggan Ends Candidacy for Mayor - Will NOT Appeal To Supreme Court

**313WX** · June-12-13, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by artds

Mam2009:

You completely missed the point. Assume you would fall short of the required number of credits to graduate if you fail to pass this particular teacher's class. Would it be reasonable for the teacher to fail you because you turned your paper in before May 15th, and not ON May 15th like the teacher instructed?

No, but it would be reasonable for the teacher to turn down my assignment if I didn't have sufficient attendance in her class.

**313WX** · June-12-13, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by sumas

Howze has some interest from me but if Duggan is out of the race I am not sure I will bother to vote. That would be a first for me.

Neighborhoods get ignored. I can't support racism, sexism or gender issues.

As mentioned on a different thread I think the the EFM is making the hard decisions. Mostly agree with his plans but strongly disagree regarding our museums. This is legacy, we have been been beat down by a bad economy, lousy schools etc. do not touch our inherited culture.

Sumas

What makes you think the neighborhoods won't get ignored with Duggan?

**corktownyuppie** · June-12-13, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by mam2009

The point is that there are rules that must be followed to run for mayor. I have had teachers tell my class not to turn in something early because it makes it more difficult for the teacher to keep up with & the teacher doesn't want to lose it. Sooooo...if that is the teacher's rule then that's that. The Clerk has a date on which she begins taking petitions & she won't take them before that if she's not yet prepared to accept them. PERIOD.

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?

**mam2009** · June-12-13, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

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.

**Smirnoff** · June-12-13, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Relax. The new mayor will sell the artwork and we'll be back on track. Latte anyone?

I'll take a cold Pfeiffer.

**artds** · June-12-13, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by mam2009

The point is that there are rules that must be followed to run for mayor. I have had teachers tell my class not to turn in something early because it makes it more difficult for the teacher to keep up with & the teacher doesn't want to lose it. Sooooo...if that is the teacher's rule then that's that. The Clerk has a date on which she begins taking petitions & she won't take them before that if she's not yet prepared to accept them. PERIOD.

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.

**Bham1982** · June-12-13, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by artds

To mam2009:

Your high school analogy doesn't quite track the facts here. A better analogy would be as follows: your teacher gives you a take-home test and tells you that you need to turn it in on May 15th if you want to participate in the graduation cermony on May 30th.

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.

Originally Posted by artds

Bottom line: this decision should be overturned, and there's a very good chance it will be.

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.

**Bham1982** · June-12-13, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by artds

I'm still waiting for you or anyone else to identify a single conceivable public policy that would be served by such a rule.

Minimum residency is the obvious public policy interest. Duggan didn't meet it.

**jackie5275** · June-12-13, 08:40 AM

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.

**Wesley Mouch** · June-12-13, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Minimum residency is the obvious public policy interest. Duggan didn't meet it.

Maybe its time we try competence instead.

**artds** · June-12-13, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

The intent appears to be a minimum required commitment to Detroit, determined by a specific minimum time period.

And he met that minimum residency requirement well in advance of the deadline to submit your candidacy for Mayor during this election cycle.

**michimoby** · June-12-13, 08:48 AM

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?

**Bham1982** · June-12-13, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by artds

And he met that minimum residency requirement well in advance of the deadline to submit your candidacy for Mayor during this election cycle.

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.

**artds** · June-12-13, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by jackie5275

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.

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.

**artds** · June-12-13, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

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.

No, it's more like a job posting that says "Applications due on May 15th" and you turning your application in on April 2nd.

**Bham1982** · June-12-13, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by artds

That's absurd and could not possibly be what the drafters of the residency requirement intended.

Why is it "absurd" to have a specific minimum duration of residency, and to then enforce that minimum duration?

Duggan didn't meet it; I guess he was too busy measuring the curtains for the Manoogian.

**Wesley Mouch** · June-12-13, 08:58 AM

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.

**Bham1982** · June-12-13, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by artds

No, it's more like a job posting that says "Applications due on May 15th" and you turning your application in on April 2nd.

It's absolutely nothing like that.

The issue isn't getting your application in by a predetermined date; it's establishing a qualification of a predetermined length.

**artds** · June-12-13, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

Why is it "absurd" to have a specific minimum duration of residency, and to then enforce that minimum duration?

Duggan didn't meet it; I guess he was too busy measuring the curtains for the Manoogian.

Having a minimum residency requirement is perfectly fine. If Duggan hadn't been a resident for 1 year prior to the deadline to run for mayor during this election cycle [[May 15th), then his candidacy should not be considered valid.

**Wheels** · June-12-13, 09:01 AM

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.

**Honky Tonk** · June-12-13, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by michimoby

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?

[[ crickets )

**artds** · June-12-13, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

It's absolutely nothing like that.

The issue isn't getting your application in by a predetermined date; it's establishing a qualification of a predetermined length.

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?

**cman710** · June-12-13, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by artds

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.

**Honky Tonk** · June-12-13, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by artds

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?

You missed "Must have Masters Degree One Year To Qualify".

**Danny** · June-12-13, 09:13 AM

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.