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

[artds]

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.

And where does it say that the "filing" is a momentary event consisting of the actual moment you hand your signatures to the Clerk? It's perfectly reasonable to interpret the language to intend that a candidate's "filing" be deemed continuing from the date they submit their paperwork up to the deadline for filing.

It's unreasonable to think that the language of the charter intended to make someone in Duggan's situation go back down to the Clerk's office on April 16th, ask them to hand him the signatures that he already turned in, then him hand them right back to the Clerk. That's absurd and furthers no public purpose whatsoever. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that this is not what was meant by the language of the charter.

[artds]

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

Duggan met the 1-year requirement on April 16th, almost an entire month before the deadline to file for candidacy during this election cycle.

[Honky Tonk]

Duggan met the 1-year requirement on April 16th, almost an entire month before the deadline to file for candidacy during this election cycle.

I'm just referring to your scenario. IF the job posting required you have a Masters Degree for a year prior to application, then no, you do not qualify. As far as Mr. Duggan goes, it does seem there are several fine points @ play here, and IF he decides to pursue this, it's going to be a legal matter to be decided in the courts. The first round doesn't seem too promising.

[Scottathew]

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 agree with you, the rules are absurd.

If this candidate wasn't white and rich, people might be screaming racism and conspiracy theories.

However, it does bring into question, if the rules are what they are, don't we have to follow him?

The only thing I can see an appeals judge doing is saying that the clerk should have rejected him. This would have given him a chance to send everything back at the proper time.

So if the clerk had been following the law, Duggan would have had an opportunity to correct his error.

Isn't it that Davis guy that filed this lawsuit? He seems like he doesn't contribute much to society, he's just a professional obstructionist.

[mam2009]

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.

It is against my better judgment to engage this, but...how is this a "political race card war"?

[artds]

I agree with you, the rules are absurd.

If this candidate wasn't white and rich, people might be screaming racism and conspiracy theories.

However, it does bring into question, if the rules are what they are, don't we have to follow him?

The only thing I can see an appeals judge doing is saying that the clerk should have rejected him. This would have given him a chance to send everything back at the proper time.

So if the clerk had been following the law, Duggan would have had an opportunity to correct his error.

Isn't it that Davis guy that filed this lawsuit? He seems like he doesn't contribute much to society, he's just a professional obstructionist.

Alternatively, a court could rule that "filing for office" isn't simply a momentary event consisting of the actual moment you hand in your signatures. They could rule that a candidate's "filing for office" is to be deemed continuing from the moment they turn in their signatures up to the deadline for filing. It's absurd to interpret the charter in a way that requires Duggan to go back down to the Clerk's office on April 16th and re-turn-in the signatures that the Clerk's office already had.

[SWMAP]

Look, for all you strict constructionists out there - if every word of a law [[or measley city ordinance) has to be as strictly observed as Kosher dietary laws with no room at all for interpretation, why was the judicial branch of government even conceived? It was so that laws and even measly stupid ordinances can be officially interpreted and even, such as in the legislation of centuries ago that for example didn't allow women to vote, discarded and nullified.
The language parsers on this site don't seem to understnad something Jesus observed: that laws are made for made for man - not man for the law. Law changes, grows and bends to fit society. That's a good thing.

[Honky Tonk]

I agree with you, the rules are absurd.

If this candidate wasn't white and rich, people might be screaming racism and conspiracy theories.

However, it does bring into question, if the rules are what they are, don't we have to follow him?

The only thing I can see an appeals judge doing is saying that the clerk should have rejected him. This would have given him a chance to send everything back at the proper time.

So if the clerk had been following the law, Duggan would have had an opportunity to correct his error.

Isn't it that Davis guy that filed this lawsuit? He seems like he doesn't contribute much to society, he's just a professional obstructionist.

Well put and my point too. I don't buy into the statement "it's between the clerk and Duggan". The clerk represents a department. If they're not responsible for upholding decorum, then why not just put in a drop box and save $25K a year?

[Bham1982]

Look, for all you strict constructionists out there - if every word of a law [[or measley city ordinance) has to be as strictly observed as Kosher dietary laws with no room at all for interpretation, why was the judicial branch of government even conceived?

I see no "strict constructionists" out there. And, yes, laws are supposed to be followed.

And, yes, the judiciary rules on the meaning of these laws, which is exactly what happened here.

So what's the debate?

[Bham1982]

Alternatively, a court could rule that "filing for office" isn't simply a momentary event consisting of the actual moment you hand in your signatures. They could rule that a candidate's "filing for office" is to be deemed continuing from the moment they turn in their signatures up to the deadline for filing.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but that would be a very creative definition for "filing for office". I think the layperson would think it refers to the act, not some specific point in time in the future following an act.

I could apply for a job, and not have the qualification, but at some point in the future I will have the qualification, therefore I am qualified based on my initial application? Not buying it.

[Zacha341]

Yeah... ummm, as I have said before why create such a problem? I would have given more than ample cushion for my residency. Duh...

Why play things so close, so as to be inspected and 'corrected'??!

...If this candidate wasn't white and rich, people might be screaming racism and conspiracy theories.

However, it does bring into question, if the rules are what they are, don't we have to follow him?

[swingline]

Look, for all you strict constructionists out there - if every word of a law [[or measley city ordinance) has to be as strictly observed as Kosher dietary laws with no room at all for interpretation, why was the judicial branch of government even conceived? It was so that laws and even measly stupid ordinances can be officially interpreted and even, such as in the legislation of centuries ago that for example didn't allow women to vote, discarded and nullified.
The language parsers on this site don't seem to understnad something Jesus observed: that laws are made for made for man - not man for the law. Law changes, grows and bends to fit society. That's a good thing.

If the strict constructionists want to be consistent with their arguments, then every candidate for mayor should be disqualified. Here is why. First take a look at the charter language:

Section 2-101: “A person seeking elective office must be a citizen of the United States, a resident and a qualified registered voter of the city of Detroit for one year at the time of filing for office and retain that status throughout their tenure in any such elective office.”

See that. Unless you are a both a resident and a qualified registered voter for one year [[365 days, not a day less or a day more), apparently you cannot seek elective office. The provision does not say for "at least one year." Apparently the only people eligible to run for elective office in Detroit are those who have lived here for exactly one year and who file to run for office on that same day.

Everybody should get thrown off the ballot, right? Wrong. All state and federal law adheres to rules of statutory construction and doesn't allow for applications of statutory language that would result in absurdities. When that happens, the policy behind the adoption of the law is examined. The application of that policy in this case would not disqualify any of the candidates, including Mr. Duggan. Judge Popke's ruling should get overturned.

This whole kerfluffle has been caused by terrible drafting by the Charter Commission. The race baiting by Mr. Barrow, who in most cases has been a reasonable, albeit usually dissenting, political voice in Detroit has been shameful.

[Bham1982]

If the strict constructionists want to be consistent with their arguments, then every candidate for mayor should be disqualified. Here is why. First take a look at the charter language:

Section 2-101: “A person seeking elective office must be a citizen of the United States, a resident and a qualified registered voter of the city of Detroit for one year at the time of filing for office and retain that status throughout their tenure in any such elective office.”

See that. Unless you are a both a resident and a qualified registered voter for one year [[365 days, not a day less or a day more), apparently you cannot seek elective office. .

Except it doesn't say this.

It says "must be registered voter for one year". If you were a registered voter for two years, obviously you have also been a registered voter for one year.

There's no language saying that one cannot be eligible if they were registered for longer than one year, which you seem to be implying.

[corktownyuppie]

Except it doesn't say this.

It says "must be registered voter for one year". If you were a registered voter for two years, obviously you have also been a registered voter for one year.

If they wanted "for one year" to be inclusive in the manner you mention, then the language should have read, "must have been a registeredvoter for one year" or "for at least one year."

A more interesting question is this....let's say I was born in the City of Detroit and lived there my whole life. On the eve of my 19th birthday, am I eligible to run for Mayor? I've lived in the city for 18 years and 364 days. I registered to vote on my birthday. But I haven't met the "1 year requirement"? This seems absurd.

And I could even buy that argument of the deadline to file was on the eve of my 19th birthday. It's simple; I haven't met the requirement. But if the deadline was one week after my birthday, and the clerk told me to go ahead and submit my filing the day before my birthday, is this really what the law means?

What purpose would the law have of excluding an-almost 19-year resident from running for office via its "residency requirement"? And even if the law was meant to do so, does the Clerk's office have no responsibility in giving me the opportunity to cure the defect by waiting 24 hours before filing?

The charter is fully worded. Duggan should've just waited. The Clerk shouldn't have accepted the filing. There's all sorts of things wrong here.

In which case...let the oversight of the people reign. If this was Tom Barrow in Livonia, I guarantee people wouldn't be trying to use the courts to exclude is eligibility. They would just be happy to see him lose 99.9% of the vote on election day.

[Bham1982]

If they wanted "for one year" to be inclusive in the manner you mention, then the language should have read, "must have been a registeredvoter for one year" or "for at least one year."

I don't see why this language would be needed.

Again, if you are a registered voter for two years, then you have met the qualification to be a registered votor for one year. You aren't disqualified from a job requiring a Masters if you also have a PhD.

[Wesley Mouch]

It is against my better judgment to engage this, but...how is this a "political race card war"?

Barrow, Davis, and Co. are a political race card machine it would seem.

Stepping back though, its not so much an argument about strict constructionism as it is an application of affirmative action. Give a leg up to the black candidates.

Of course the goal has nothing to do with color -- and everything to do with the fact that Duggan was a leader. His Irishness is irrelevant. His elimination is nothing but good ol' politics By Any Means Necessary. Don't worry. This sort of rule obsessiveness won't be applied unless candidates are of the wrong... um, kind.

[JBMcB]

OK, if you want to interpret the intent of the law, what exactly is it? It's basically a residency requirement. It's designed to prevent people from moving in to Detroit just to run for office.

Isn't this exactly what Duggan did, more or less? Why did he pick that exact time to move to Detroit?

I don't really care one way or another [[I think residency requirements are stupid) but if you are FOR residency requirements, I think it's a valid legal argument.

[swingline]

Except it doesn't say this.

It says "must be registered voter for one year". If you were a registered voter for two years, obviously you have also been a registered voter for one year.

There's no language saying that one cannot be eligible if they were registered for longer than one year, which you seem to be implying.

No implication necessary. That is what I'm saying because that is what a literal interpretation requires. But a literal interpretation would obviously defeat the purpose of the residency requirement so the court must attempt to interpret the intent of the Charter Commission. Nobody truthfully thinks that the Charter Commission intended to disqualify people who are residents for more than one year preceding the filing deadline from running for public office if they filed their petitions too early. That would seem to raise a huge equal protection constitutional issue.

[Bham1982]

This sort of rule obsessiveness won't be applied unless candidates are of the wrong... um, kind.

So you're claiming the white judge, who has served for decades, doesn't live in Detroit, and has many such residency determinations to her credit, is actually a secret tool for anti-white interests.

It's all a big race conspiracy, right?

[Bham1982]

Nobody truthfully thinks that the Charter Commission intended to disqualify people who are residents for more than one year preceding the filing deadline from running for public office if they filed their petitions too early.

I would imagine that was exactly their intent. They wanted a minimum one year, not a minimum 11 months and change, and then let's see what happens.

The issue was not that Duggan filed too early, it was that Duggan didn't live in the city long enough at the time of filing.

[artds]

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but that would be a very creative definition for "filing for office". I think the layperson would think it refers to the act, not some specific point in time in the future following an act.

I could apply for a job, and not have the qualification, but at some point in the future I will have the qualification, therefore I am qualified based on my initial application? Not buying it.

As long as you earn the qualification before your start date, then yes, you are qualified. Since we keep talking about lawyers, let's use them as an example. Large law firms hire law students AS LAWYERS after their second year of law school, with their start date to begin after their bar results come in over a year later.

[swingline]

I would imagine that was exactly their intent. They wanted a minimum one year, not a minimum 11 months and change, and then let's see what happens.

The issue was not that Duggan filed too early, it was that Duggan didn't live in the city long enough at the time of filing.

Under your interpretation, the City Clerk should approve a candidate who moved to Detroit on May 13, 2012, registered to vote that same day and filed for candidacy on the May 14, 2013 deadline, right? But the Clerk should have also rejected Mr. Duggan who moved to Detroit and registered to vote a month earlier than this other candidate but who also filed to run in early April 2013, right again?

Well, the constitutional lawyers would know better than me but the way I understand it from government class is that any law requiring such a strange result would have to have at least a "rational basis" and perhaps even be required to serve a "compelling state interest." Can't imagine what either of those would be in this circumstance.

[bailey]

If they wanted "for one year" to be inclusive in the manner you mention, then the language should have read, "must have been a registered voter for one year" or "for at least one year."

They don't need that language it's assumed. I mean let's go to the US constitution, it doesn't say "at least 25 yrs old" or "at least a citizen for 7 years" to be elected to congress. It says "Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States" That, to my knowledge, has never been interpreted to mean people running for congress can only be 25 yrs old and only citizens of the US for 7 years.

A more interesting question is this....let's say I was born in the City of Detroit and lived there my whole life. On the eve of my 19th birthday, am I eligible to run for Mayor?

No. you're not. I don't understand why this is a question. You've not been a registered voter for the required year.

I've lived in the city for 18 years and 364 days. I registered to vote on my birthday. But I haven't met the "1 year requirement"? This seems absurd.

Many people find many minimum requirements to be absurd. Especially those people trying to get in just over them. I find it absurd that 18 yrs olds can die in war but can't legally drink. I mean a 20 yr old, 11 months,and 20 day old Soldier is still going to get an MIP if he's caught with booze. IF people don't like the charter's residency rule and minimum qualifications, they are free to change them. Duggan is not free to ignore them.

And even if the law was meant to do so, does the Clerk's office have no responsibility in giving me the opportunity to cure the defect by waiting 24 hours before filing?

Duggan signed the affidavit that the qualifications were met. Why is it the clerk's job to voire dire him on those facts? Duggan has the duty to show he's qualified.

The charter is fully worded. Duggan should've just waited. The Clerk shouldn't have accepted the filing. There's all sorts of things wrong here.

agreed.

However, one thing "wrong" you failed to mention is the fact that this is even an issue in the campaign of the guy who is supposed to have been the competent one. This is akin to a EM not paying his taxes... Should it be a death blow? probably not, however, it sure makes one wonder what the hell makes this guy any better of a choice if there is a mistake this huge over something so stupid.

I would guess this gets tossed because of the "absurdity of the result" argument could have some legs. HAD he waited, he'd have been fine and he would have been able to be compliant well ahead of the filing deadline. However, I'm not sure that is guaranteed.

[rex]

The right decision was made.

dnt worry. We all know why your really feel like this.

[downtownguy]

Duggan signed the affidavit that the qualifications were met. Why is it the clerk's job to voire dire him on those facts? Duggan has the duty to show he's qualified.

I agree with this statement. Just accepting the application does not imply it's valid. Say, after checking, the clerk finds so many petition signatures were invalid that the candidate no longer has enough valid signatures to meet the requirement. I believe the onus is on the candidate to make sure they meet all the requirements, or risk having their application rejected after review.