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

**bailey** · June-18-13, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by jaytheory

Not the same thing. when turning 21 there is only one event to mark that event. in this case there are two dates, his filing and the deadline. Michigan law does not state by the age of 21 it states any minor cannot purchase or posses alcohol so that is different from the charter and residency requirements.

Well, you're taking that out of context. The issue I was responding to was the position that minimum standards are not bright lines and he was really close...so no harm no foul. I was simply stating we have lots of things where"almost" or "close enough" is not a defense.

On the issue you raised; that is the debate ins't it? the Charter says for Detroit office it's, " at time of filing" . State election law says "by the filing deadline". The charter could have used the state law language, they didn't- which created the "confusion" over reading literal terms literally.

**artds** · June-18-13, 10:56 AM

LOL, I just read Duggan's Supreme Court brief that mam2009 posted, and I can't help but wonder if the good lawyers at Honigman who are representing Duggan might have read this thread and "borrowed" the analogy I used to illustrate the absurdity of the trial Judge's ruling.

Here's my post dated June 11th:

Originally Posted by artds

To mam2009:

Think about how ridiculous the cure for such a defect would be: had this issue became known prior to the deadline for filing, Duggan could have cured it by having the election office give him his signatures back two weeks after he filed them, then literally hand them right back to the election officials two seconds later in order to comply with this arbitrary requirement to not turn in your paperwork too early.

And here I reiterated this point on June 12th:

Originally Posted by artds

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.

Now here's an excerpt from Duggan's Supreme Court brief dated June 14th:

**artds** · June-18-13, 11:03 AM

As a follow up to my post above, I have to give the lawyers at Honigman credit for their second hypothetical, which is a scenario that had not occurred to me, and one which I think illustrates the absurdity of the trial Judge's ruling even better than the first hypothetical:

**SWMAP** · June-18-13, 11:12 AM

artds - you may not be an attorney - but I bet you studied logic somewhere.

**bailey** · June-18-13, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by artds

As a follow up to my post above, I have to give the lawyers at Honigman credit for their second hypothetical, which is a scenario that had not occurred to me, and one which I think illustrates the absurdity of the trial Judge's ruling even better than the first hypothetical:

Well, again, and only for the sake of argument [[ I fully expect the court to put him back on the ballot regardless of the literal language of the charter) if we follow Duggan's logic, he could have walked out of the clerk's office the day he registered, got 500 signatures, and walked right back in and filed for his run all on the same day because he'd have lived in detroit a year before the filing deadline. absurd, yes? Does anyone think THAT scenario was in any way contemplated or in keeping with the "spirit" of the residency restriction? His logic subsumes the entire reason behind having a residency requirement.

If we are to believe his logic, the question not answered is why did he sit on his signatures and petition until April? He had DOUBLE the number of signatures when he filed so he clearly had the required number of signatures WELL ahead of the day he filed. As he's claiming the date of filing doesn't matter...why wait at all?

I think we all know why he filed when he did. They thought they needed to be there for a year from registering, really wanted to be first to make the biggest splash, and botched the date. Someone should have caught it, and yes, he should have been given a chance to cure the defect. The fact that his defective filing should have been caught and was curable is the easiest way for the court to qualify him.

**artds** · June-18-13, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by SWMAP

artds - you may not be an attorney - but I bet you studied logic somewhere.

Actually, I am an attorney, just not an election lawyer. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...

**48205to24** · June-18-13, 11:34 AM

The courts should just let everyone who wants to be on the ballot and be done with whole matter. If this happened to a candidate the majority people on this board didnt like, you all wouldnt care anyway.

**Honky Tonk** · June-18-13, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by artds

Actually, I am an attorney, just not an election lawyer. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...

I KNEW it!!!!!

**mam2009** · June-18-13, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

So he is a convicted fellon. This still doesn't explain why he is allowed to run fo office, and if he should be elected, why he would be allowed to serve.

This was discussed on another thread, I think. I believe the state law passed in the last year or so only prohibits an elected official actually in office from remaining in his/her position if they get a felony while in office. And I think it may only be for certain types of crimes. I believe there were some constitutionality problems with a blanket prohibition of all felons no matter when the felony was gotten or for what reason.

**mam2009** · June-18-13, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

Well, again, and only for the sake of argument [[ I fully expect the court to put him back on the ballot regardless of the literal language of the charter) if we follow Duggan's logic, he could have walked out of the clerk's office the day he registered, got 500 signatures, and walked right back in and filed for his run all on the same day because he'd have lived in detroit a year before the filing deadline. absurd, yes? Does anyone think THAT scenario was in any way contemplated or in keeping with the "spirit" of the residency restriction? His logic subsumes the entire reason behind having a residency requirement.

If we are to believe his logic, the question not answered is why did he sit on his signatures and petition until April? He had DOUBLE the number of signatures when he filed so he clearly had the required number of signatures WELL ahead of the day he filed. As he's claiming the date of filing doesn't matter...why wait at all?

I think we all know why he filed when he did. They thought they needed to be there for a year from registering, really wanted to be first to make the biggest splash, and botched the date. Someone should have caught it, and yes, he should have been given a chance to cure the defect. The fact that his defective filing should have been caught and was curable is the easiest way for the court to qualify him.

TWO THUMBS UP!!!

I can't wait to see the opinion the MCA comes up for why they will order Duggan on to the ballot anyway.

**mam2009** · June-18-13, 02:38 PM

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/c...q/-/index.html

Wow! I wasn't expecting that. Can't wait to find out why...

**TexasT** · June-18-13, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by mam2009

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/c...q/-/index.html

Wow! I wasn't expecting that. Can't wait to find out why...

Supreme Court up next?

**313WX** · June-18-13, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by mam2009

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/c...q/-/index.html

Wow! I wasn't expecting that. Can't wait to find out why...

Well excuse me...

**rb336** · June-18-13, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by mam2009

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/c...q/-/index.html

Wow! I wasn't expecting that. Can't wait to find out why...

because he failed to follow the rule

**artds** · June-18-13, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

Well, again, and only for the sake of argument [[ I fully expect the court to put him back on the ballot regardless of the literal language of the charter) if we follow Duggan's logic, he could have walked out of the clerk's office the day he registered, got 500 signatures, and walked right back in and filed for his run all on the same day because he'd have lived in detroit a year before the filing deadline. absurd, yes? Does anyone think THAT scenario was in any way contemplated or in keeping with the "spirit" of the residency restriction? His logic subsumes the entire reason behind having a residency requirement.

It absolutely does not subsume the residency requirement, since, using your example, the election cycle he's registering for involves an election that will not take place until AFTER he's been a resident for over a year.

One can argue that actually HOLDING office or even BEING ELECTED TO office prior to fulfilling the residency requirement subsumes the requirement. But that's not the case here.

**jackie5275** · June-18-13, 03:16 PM

It seems that Barrow's efforts have cleared the way for Napoleon to have the best shot at winning this one.

**bailey** · June-18-13, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by artds

It absolutely does not subsume the residency requirement, since, using your example, the election cycle he's registering for involves an election that will not take place until AFTER he's been a resident for over a year.

One can argue that actually HOLDING office or even BEING ELECTED TO office prior to fulfilling the residency requirement subsumes the requirement. But that's not the case here.

It absolutely does. Look, Duggan is saying one doesnt have to be a qualified elector for one year prior to going to the clerk's office and filing, he is a saying all one needs be is a qualified elector for one year prior to the filing deadline. Meaning, by his own logic, WHEN one files is irrelevant so long as they became a qualified elector one year prior to when the filing deadline is.

There is no way THAT definition is what anyone drafting a residency requirement to RUN FOR OFFICE would say they contemplated when they drafted the rule. Again, what Duggan is saying is that he could have registered, got his petitions signed, and filed for office all on the same day. The residency requirement isn't about when one can HOLD office, but to RUN [[or be appointed) for office. His logic makes a residency requirement of one year qualified residence before one can run for office totally irrelevant.

**mam2009** · June-18-13, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

because he failed to follow the rule

Well, I guess you have a point there

... But as one who does enjoy a good legal debate, I can't wait to see in writing the court opinions that refute the assertions made by the Duggan campaign [[and the Detroit News and Free Press, editorialists) and others who insisted the Charter language was "ambiguous" and/or the residency requirements were unreasonable, unconstitutional and otherwise ill-conceived by the Charter Revision Commission.

And to be clear, there are revisions to the Charter that I disagree with and question the wisdom of, so much so that I voted against the Charter on principle. On this provision, though, the Charter Commission got it right in my book. Even though I didn't vote for it, it is THE LAW of my city and those of us who reside, work and/or do business in it should be obligated to obey it even when we don't agree with it.

**Cincinnati_Kid** · June-18-13, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by jackie5275

It seems that Barrow's efforts have cleared the way for Napoleon to have the best shot at winning this one.

Barrow started this, and he probably has the least chance of winning IMO. He did everyone else that's running a favor.

**TexasT** · June-18-13, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid

Barrow started this, and he probably has the least chance of winning IMO. He did everyone else that's running a favor.

He was Napoleon's attack dog, if nothing else. I'm sure he'll get a comfy position in Benny's administration.

**poobert** · June-18-13, 03:59 PM

Well who the heck am I supposed to vote for now?

Napoleon, Crittendon, Durhal, and Barrow, combined, still have room temperature IQ.

Is there something wrong with Howze that I'm missing? While I disagree with her emergency manager assessment, is she now the lesser of evils? Any psychotic or racially-charged episodes lately I should know about?

Any credible write-ins? Besides poobert.

Voting is super important to me...I've never missed an election - even school board - in my life. I'm not going to start now.

**artds** · June-18-13, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

It absolutely does. Look, Duggan is saying one doesnt have to be a qualified elector for one year prior to going to the clerk's office and filing, he is a saying all one needs be is a qualified elector for one year prior to the filing deadline. Meaning, by his own logic, WHEN one files is irrelevant so long as they became a qualified elector one year prior to when the filing deadline is.

There is no way THAT definition is what anyone drafting a residency requirement to RUN FOR OFFICE would say they contemplated when they drafted the rule. Again, what Duggan is saying is that he could have registered, got his petitions signed, and filed for office all on the same day. The residency requirement isn't about when one can HOLD office, but to RUN [[or be appointed) for office. His logic makes a residency requirement of one year qualified residence before one can run for office totally irrelevant.

I think that's EXACTLY what those drafting the residency requirement had in mind. Otherwise, under your interpretation, you end up with this absurdity:

How do you reconcile your interpretation of the residency requirement with this? What purpose is the residency requirement furthering if, under your interpretation, Candidate B, whole only fulfilled the residency requirement the day before the deadline, is perfectly eligible to run for office, while Candidate A, who has lived in the City for a longer period of time and turned in his paperwork before Candidate B is not?

**mam2009** · June-18-13, 04:13 PM

Court of Appeals Majority Decision
http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4207094618.PDF

Court of Appeals Partial Dissent
http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4207095618.PDF

**mam2009** · June-18-13, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by artds

I think that's EXACTLY what those drafting the residency requirement had in mind. Otherwise, under your interpretation, you end up with this absurdity:

How do you reconcile your interpretation of the residency requirement with this? What purpose is the residency requirement furthering if, under your interpretation, Candidate B, whole only fulfilled the residency requirement the day before the deadline, is perfectly eligible to run for office, while Candidate A, who has lived in the City for a longer period of time and turned in his paperwork before Candidate B is not?

Artds, let it go. The requirement for a person to run for elected office in Detroit is a two-pronged one. Duggan clearly did not satisfy the second prong "at the time of filing".

From the Court of Appeals opinion:

Enforcing the charter provision as it was drafted does not end in an absurd result. Rather, it is the logical outcome expected from application of the clear, straightforward charter language, and is much like enforcing a statute of limitation when a party has missed the statutory deadline by ten days. It is done not infrequently in Michigan courts because there is no “wiggle room” when applying a clear and definite time period to an undisputed set of facts. Consequently, to be eligible to be placed on the ballot, a candidate must have been a registered voter in Detroit for one year before filing his or her petitions.

**Danny** · June-18-13, 04:18 PM

This is nuts!It's Barrow's doing to make sure that Detroit has a BLACKS ONLY Mayoral election with another same ole' black Detroiters. But it won't be Barrow. It would be some black guy French dictator like name who will delare war against Lansing.

I'm sick and tired of this 'KEEP DETROIT BLACK' mentality!