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

**Wesley Mouch** · June-13-13, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

I'm sorry, but wasn't it the "voters" who voted for a charter less than 2 years ago that included the restriction for the first time?

Silly now. Was silly then.

When the voters approved the charter, I don't think they meant to exclude someone already accepted by the city clerk -- who reviewed the paperwork and found it to be in order. I'd like to read this judge's decision. Its difficult for me to accept that its justice to deny voters the opportunity to vote for someone.

There was a call on Fahle the other day. She was a lawyer and said that the charter has an overall statement in it that the charter language should be interpreted so as to deliver justice. I'd like to read that as well.

Duggan went into city hall, submitted his application early, had it reviewed, and got affirmative approval. Clearly they felt this was a reasonable way to behave. Its not silly.

Silly is the city clerk telling Duggan to hold onto the application until closer to the deadline because there's a possible interpretation of the charter that might be made by your political enemies. Silly is fools filing lawsuits to limit democratic voting.

I'd like to know more here, but this stinks.

And for the record, I don't like Duggan much -- and I travelled in his circles in Detroit years ago. And I prefer judges not to read things into the law. But when a judge reads something silly into the law, it gets my blood boiling.

Let voters vote.

**hortonz** · June-13-13, 05:16 PM

There are "great leaders" and "good leaders" and Mike Duggan is neither. A "great leader" is able to change people's minds and hearts by the power of their words and action. Think Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa or Abraham Lincoln and you get the definition of "great" leadership. Good leaders are able to motivate others to exceed the expectations and provide inspiration. Think of Lee Iacocca or Bill Gates. Duggan, on the other hand, is nothing more than an old-fashioned political hack and fixer. The only thing that separates him from the rest of the intellectual midgets running for mayor is his race. Detroit needs great leaders not morons.

**313WX** · June-13-13, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Silly is the right word. What's not much in doubt is that we are facing bankrupcty. Worrying about residency right now is silly. Do you think the EFM should be a resident?

Silly, all silly.

We have these people called voters. They should apply judgement. Suppose a 65 year old life-long city resident moves to Los Angeles to be city manager. Should they be excluded from running for mayor of Detroit?

Exclusionary rules are silly. Even though they've done a crappy job for years, I still trust the voters more than bureaucrats.

Too bad you didn't feel this passionately when the voters [[overwhelmingly) decided no on a EM and the state of Michigan imposed one anyway.

**michimoby** · June-13-13, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by hortonz

There are "great leaders" and "good leaders" and Mike Duggan is neither. A "great leader" is able to change people's minds and hearts by the power of their words and action. Think Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa or Abraham Lincoln and you get the definition of "great" leadership. Good leaders are able to motivate others to exceed the expectations and provide inspiration. Think of Lee Iacocca or Bill Gates. Duggan, on the other hand, is nothing more than an old-fashioned political hack and fixer. The only thing that separates him from the rest of the intellectual midgets running for mayor is his race. Detroit needs great leaders not morons.

While I disagree with and respect your viewpoint, I don't believe this is the appropriate thread to discuss our standing of certain candidates. And our opinions, frankly, should have absolutely zero bearing on the appropriate outcome of this situation.

**Crumbled_pavement** · June-13-13, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Too bad you didn't feel this passionately when the voters [[overwhelmingly) decided no on a EM and the state of Michigan imposed one anyway.

People like that only believe in democracy for themselves. None for you, none for me. Too silly for words, but they don't bite their tongues.

**Wesley Mouch** · June-13-13, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Too bad you didn't feel this passionately when the voters [[overwhelmingly) decided no on a EM and the state of Michigan imposed one anyway.

I'd have preferred payless paydays and bankruptcy myself. So long as the state and bankers loan Detroit cash, this crisis seems unreal. No paychecks one day, and you might get the public sector and voters to really understand the scale of the mismanagement of the city. But no, our Governor insisted on treating Detroit kindly and legally getting an EM law in place.

I wasn't very fond of the EM pushthrough, as I wasn't very fond of the way Obamacare was passsed. But passed they were. So let's deal with it.

I have been swept up in the enthusiasm for Mr. Orr. Been thinking that maybe the EM way will work. Nah, it won't. If Orr 'saves' the day. The voters, public sector, unions, and spoiled bureaucrats will go right back to their lunacy. Or if you prefer, they will not be able to save the ship that's heading for the rocks anyway -- because things like ending pension payments to retirees is 'off the table'.

Bankruptcy is the best option. Because only real pain might make our leaders responsible. Seems as if nothing else will.

**mam2009** · June-13-13, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by artds

mam2009,

I think you're losing sight of the issue. No one is arguing Detroit's residency requirement is too long, or that there's any problem with having residency requirements in general. Minimum residency requirement are very sensible. The issue is what the effective date to establish residency is in Detroit. Interpreting the Detroit charter in a way that makes that date moveable depending on when someone happens to turn in their signatures is not a reasonable interpretation of the provision.

The Livonia charter provision you posted clearly and sensibly sets the effective date as the date of the election [[i.e., not a moveable date that changes depending on when someone happens to turn in their paperwork), and it therefore lends nothing to this discussion.

Uhhhhhh...wasn't it you who agreed he was being penalized for filing EARLY? I could be wrong...but, I think there's some goal post moving going on here.

**mam2009** · June-13-13, 10:45 PM

By the way, read literally, the Livonia Charter provision wouldn't require its sitting mayor live in Livonia, assuming he had no intention of seeking reelection.

**sumas** · June-14-13, 04:38 AM

Personally think that Duggan is the only clear choice. Others have different opinions but I'd like the chance to vote for him.

**Honky Tonk** · June-14-13, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by sumas

Personally think that Duggan is the only clear choice. Others have different opinions but I'd like the chance to vote for him.

He does seem to be the lesser of all the evils.

**compn** · June-14-13, 07:52 AM

i dont like duggan, but i think its important for democracy if hes on the ballot.

theres been a lot of shenanigans when it comes to keeping things off the ballot in detroit. remember the city of detroit fought for 2 years to keep the marijuana decriminalization off the ballot? it went all the way to the mich supreme court.

duggan made it to the supreme court in a week!? thats impressive.

**Honky Tonk** · June-14-13, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by compn

i dont like duggan, but i think its important for democracy if hes on the ballot.

theres been a lot of shenanigans when it comes to keeping things off the ballot in detroit. remember the city of detroit fought for 2 years to keep the marijuana decriminalization off the ballot? it went all the way to the mich supreme court.

duggan made it to the supreme court in a week!? thats impressive.

"That's because he KNOWS how to get things done!" [[sarcasm)

**sumas** · June-14-13, 08:31 AM

Maybe I am wrong. I thought it would go to appeals court then the supreme court. Did hear rumors they might skip the appeals and go direct to the supreme court. Correct me if I am misinformed.

**Bham1982** · June-14-13, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by compn

i dont like duggan, but i think its important for democracy if hes on the ballot.

theres been a lot of shenanigans when it comes to keeping things off the ballot in detroit.

The ironic thing Is that we're talking the complete inverse here. It's Duggan with the shenanigans to scam his way into office, and the Detroit charter that's being violated, but apparently this is all vital to protect our democracy I guess.

And yeah, we all have our biases, but if there's an entity that's worse run than Detroit, it's Wayne County. Detroit is run like Switzerland compared to Wayne County; it's just that Detroit has so much less money, so looks worse in comparison. I would never hire any executive decisionmaker from Wayne County to do any job, anywhere.

Wayne County is where you get 40-year-olds making 200k, with concurrent 100k pensions for life from their old Wayne County job. Detroit City government could never dream of such excess.

**corktownyuppie** · June-14-13, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

The ironic thing Is that we're talking the complete inverse here. It's Duggan with the shenanigans to scam his way into office, and the Detroit charter that's being violated, but apparently this is all vital to protect our democracy I guess.

And yeah, we all have our biases, but if there's an entity that's worse run than Detroit, it's Wayne County. Detroit is run like Switzerland compared to Wayne County; it's just that Detroit has so much less money, so looks worse in comparison. I would never hire any executive decisionmaker from Wayne County to do any job, anywhere.

Wayne County is where you get 40-year-olds making 200k, with concurrent 100k pensions for life from their old Wayne County job. Detroit City government could never dream of such excess.

[[1) Wayne County is next on the financial emergency list.
[[2) NYC had a state-appointed financial advisory board for almost 30 years after coming to the brink of bankruptcy in the 70s. I have no doubt that Detroit will be under similar state oversight for the rest of my adult lifetime and that there's no way they would ever allow 5-1 retirement match, 6-figure pensions, or another Mullen situation.
[[3) Pensions for an employee under 50-years old is practically criminal. I think Ficano is done.

**Honky Tonk** · June-14-13, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

[[1) Wayne County is next on the financial emergency list.
[[2) NYC had a state-appointed financial advisory board for almost 30 years after coming to the brink of bankruptcy in the 70s. I have no doubt that Detroit will be under similar state oversight for the rest of my adult lifetime and that there's no way they would ever allow 5-1 retirement match, 6-figure pensions, or another Mullen situation.
[[3) Pensions for an employee under 50-years old is practically criminal. I think Ficano is done.

I sure as hell hope so.

**Wesley Mouch** · June-14-13, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

...snip...[[3) Pensions for an employee under 50-years old is practically criminal. I think Ficano is done.

Pensions for those under 60 are also inappropriate. I have relatives who have retired in their 40s under city pensions. Sure, its what their Union and City agreed to, but I never agreed nor was there ever a vote on 30 and out. I'm paying the taxes though.

**313WX** · June-14-13, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Pensions for those under 60 are also inappropriate. I have relatives who have retired in their 40s under city pensions. Sure, its what their Union and City agreed to, but I never agreed nor was there ever a vote on 30 and out. I'm paying the taxes though.

The people you voted to represent you agreed.

**artds** · June-14-13, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by mam2009

Uhhhhhh...wasn't it you who agreed he was being penalized for filing EARLY? I could be wrong...but, I think there's some goal post moving going on here.

Hmmm. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. He clearly IS being penalized for filing early, since this Judge would have deemed his candidacy valid had he filed two weeks later. And residency requirements are very sensible and perfectly valid under the law. Where's the moving goal post?

**mam2009** · June-14-13, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by artds

Hmmm. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. He clearly IS being penalized for filing early, since this Judge would have deemed his candidacy valid had he filed two weeks later. And residency requirements are very sensible and perfectly valid under the law. Where's the moving goal post?

If he applied too early it wasn't a "penalty", it was a foreseeable CONSEQUENCE". So, remind me why we've been debating this issue.

**corktownyuppie** · June-14-13, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by artds

Hmmm. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. He clearly IS being penalized for filing early, since this Judge would have deemed his candidacy valid had he filed two weeks later. And residency requirements are very sensible and perfectly valid under the law. Where's the moving goal post?

The requirements, are in my opinion, are very sensible and perfectly valid. And regardless whether or not they are valid, they are law. What is not clear is how to interpret "filing". Is the "filing" done at the point of submission? Or is it like an absentee ballot in that I "voted" today by dropping off my absentee ballot, but it doesn't "take effect" until election day?

That is going to be the 1st debate.

The next question is, "Even if Duggan failed to meet the requirements, did the City Clerk's Office have a legal obligation to tell him so....and even if they did not, did their affirmative approval of his petition to run for office now put the fault of this mistake on the City rather than Duggan's campaign. And lastly, if the fault is from the City rather than Duggan's campaign, should Duggan be penalized."

Let's see what the Supreme Court says.

**artds** · June-14-13, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by mam2009

If he applied too early it wasn't a "penalty", it was a foreseeable CONSEQUENCE". So, remind me why we've been debating this issue.

Ugh. You sure like going around in circles, don't you?

You're talking as though its a foregone conclusion that the Judge's ruling was correct, but that's exactly what's being debated. Duggan and many others [[including myself and the clerk who accepted his paperwork) believe that the cutoff to establish residency is the deadline for filing for a particular election cycle. That's what Duggan argued in the trial court, and that's the argument that's being taken to the Court of Appeals.

The applicable phrase is "the time of filing." That certainly could mean the exact moment in time when a candidate chooses to submit his paperwork [[despite the absurdity of that interpretation, as has been discussed ad nauseam). However, the Court could also determine that a candidate, regardless of when he gets his paperwork in, doesn't actually "file" until the deadline, in the same way that a person who votes early via provisional ballot doesn't actually "vote" until election day [[as one poster analogized). The court could also determine that "filing" isn't simply a momentary point in time when a candidate hands their paperwork over the counter to the Clerk, but rather that "filing" is a process that continues from the time the paperwork is submitted up until the deadline for filing for the election cycle.

Alternatively, even if the Court does rule that Duggan filed too early, it could find that he reasonably relied on the Clerk's statement to him that by filing at that time, he was in full compliance with the residency requirement [[given that the provision is subject to various interpretations and that its so new that no court has ruled yet on what it means). It could then recognize that Duggan is left without a remedy under the charter since the deadline to cure the defect has come and gone [[keep in mind that there's no dispute that he met the residency requirement before the deadline and could have cured it before then), and it could grant him equitable relief as a remedy by either allowing him an opportunity to resubmit his paperwork or simply order that his name remain on the ballot.

There is also an important policy consideration that guides courts on matters involving democratic elections, and that is to err on the side of allowing the democratic process to determine outcomes.

**getmoore** · June-14-13, 03:24 PM

He's back!... I think. til' Monday?

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/06/...-ballot-fight/

**compn** · June-14-13, 07:08 PM

LOL , well , you cant blame me. google and wdiv url say 'supreme court'
but it looks like they fixed the article to say court of appeals.
clickondetroit.com/news/mich-supreme-court-to-hear-duggan-residency-case-today/-/1719418/20567492/-/15mx27p/-/index.html

wayne county is screwed w/ficano and corruption. and i dont like oakland. whats left? washtenaw? macomb? lapeer?

**ct_alum** · June-15-13, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Pensions for those under 60 are also inappropriate. I have relatives who have retired in their 40s under city pensions. Sure, its what their Union and City agreed to, but I never agreed nor was there ever a vote on 30 and out. I'm paying the taxes though.

Ever see a 59 year old cop try to chase a teenage on foot? Or a 59 year old fire fighter climb a 32 foot ladder? There is a reason for the early outs, it's to get and keep relatively young people. Don't want to pay taxes for this? Move to the boonies and get a volunteer PD/FD and let me know how it works out for you when a 60 year old can't drag a 4" hose to the hydrant while your house burns.