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

[bailey]

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]

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]

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]

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.)

[bailey]

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?

[Zug]

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.

[Wesley Mouch]

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]

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?

[poobert]

I think it's murky enough. "the time of filing for office" may imply, but does not specifically state "the time the candidate files for office." "The time of filing for office" could indeed be construed to mean "the appointed timeframe of filing for office in the City of Detroit."

Regardless, it doesn't seem to make sense to disqualify him when he could have simply waited and still beat the deadline. Somebody on his staff should have thought of that, though.

Might I add, Barrow is completely fucking useless. What a freaking joke he is.

[bailey]

I think it's murky enough. "the time of filing for office" may imply, but does not specifically state "the time the candidate files for office." "The time of filing for office" could indeed be construed to mean "the appointed timeframe of filing for office in the City of Detroit."

I think that is a very generous reading of that clause...and I'm sure that is the language they will hang their hat on when they allow him to stay in the race, but I don't agree that is what a plain reading of it says.

The clause begins with "a person" then states the three things that must be true of that person "at the time of filing for office".

it does not say that they must be true "before the deadline for filing for office".

If this clause means what Duggan claims it does, he could have filed for office the day he moved into the city and registered to vote because that was more than a year from the deadline to file. That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

I think his campaign screwed up.

[Eber Brock Ward]

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.

[Eber Brock Ward]

I agree that the campaign screwed up, though. No reason not to play it safe, unless someone just missed the ball.

[corktownyuppie]

If this clause means what Duggan claims it does, he could have filed for office the day he moved into the city and registered to vote because that was more than a year from the deadline to file. That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

You've got a few problems here...

[[1) The Clerk's office ok'd the filing. What they should have done was ask, "Has it been 365 days since you became a Detroit resident?". When he answered no, they would have responded, "Ok, come back when it has been 365 days....lucky for you, it's before the deadline."

[[2) The Michigan Supreme Court has several opinions which make specific kinds of residency requirements unconstitutional by state law. Yes, you can certainly have a residency requirement. But it cannot be for a specific amount of time.

[[3) The statute also reads that you have to be a resident 1 year before filing. This is another problem with the language. What if it has been 2 years of residency? The language doesn't say, "at least" 1 year or "for more than" 1 year...I have no idea how this will play out.

[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?

[bailey]

You've got a few problems here...

[[1) The Clerk's office ok'd the filing. What they should have done was ask, "Has it been 365 days since you became a Detroit resident?". When he answered no, they would have responded, "Ok, come back when it has been 365 days....lucky for you, it's before the deadline."

[[2) The Michigan Supreme Court has several opinions which make specific kinds of residency requirements unconstitutional by state law. Yes, you can certainly have a residency requirement. But it cannot be for a specific amount of time.

[[3) The statute also reads that you have to be a resident 1 year before filing. This is another problem with the language. What if it has been 2 years of residency? The language doesn't say, "at least" 1 year or "for more than" 1 year...I have no idea how this will play out.

I really don't have a position.. I think it's sort of interesting that's all.

1- I haven't seen the form, but I imagine it's an affidavit signed by Duggan attesting that he meets the statutory requirements... I don't know if a clerk's failure to cross examine the validity of the affiant's testimony is an 'out' here.

2- I believe ..and you can correct me if I'm wrong here... the unconstitutional residency rules are for public employees, and not for elective office. In fact, I'm fairly certain a one year residency requirement for elective office were found to be constitutional.

3- I agree that it's sloppy. It would, one could assume, also exclude Barrow or any other candidate that has been a resident for MORE than one year... although that might get the "absurd result" treatment if reviewed.

[bailey]

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.

[downtownguy]

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]

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

[corktownyuppie]

I really don't have a position.. I think it's sort of interesting that's all.

2- I believe ..and you can correct me if I'm wrong here... the unconstitutional residency rules are for public employees, and not for elective office. In fact, I'm fairly certain a one year residency requirement for elective office were found to be constitutional.

The unconstitutional rules I believe you are referring to are for public employees. There is a constitutional rule that requires candidates to be residents of the office for which they are running.

Howeva...

There is legal precedence that states that putting a "clock" on that residency, or requiring it to be "for a specific amount of minimum time" is *not* constitutional.

Some of this precedence is dated [[the last legal challenge to this was cited from 1978), but I'm unsure if there is any relevant case law which is more recent.

http://www.detroitmi.gov/Portals/0/d...obertSedle.pdf

[[see #4 on page 3)

3- I agree that it's sloppy. It would, one could assume, also exclude Barrow or any other candidate that has been a resident for MORE than one year... although that might get the "absurd result" treatment if reviewed.

And so this begs the question...what is absurd treatment? I don't know, but here are my [[uninformed) beliefs on the legalities around the charter...

It seems that:

- The charter language was designed to make sure that people running for office were residents of the city. Done.

- The charter language was designed to ensure that people who *serve* in office have been residents for a minimum amount of time. [[Constitutionality questioned, but done.)

- The charter language was designed to ensure that people who *run* for office have been have been residents for a minimum amount of time. [[Constitutionality also questioned, but done.)

- The charter language was designed to ensure that people who *make official filings* for office have been residents for a minimum amount of time. [[Constitutionality also questioned, not done.)

So the question I would ask is whether or not there was some concrete benefit to having made his filing before his 365-day anniversary? Had the filing deadline been on the day he filed, I can see that "jumping the gun" and coming in early seem to provide enormous benefit -- it's the difference between being eligible to run and ineligible to run.

But if what people are arguing is that he was supposed to go around and collect the required signatures and he had to submit them.... not too late [[after the deadline), but not too soon [[before his 365-day anniversary), but just right [[the time in between....

It sounds like an electoral lawyer has been reading too much Goldilocks and the 3 bears.

The same argument is about the "for one year" text.... you can't file until you've been here one year, but you also can't file if you've been here two years... More Goldilocks?

Calling on all esquires to pick apart my legal analysis of the issue. - CTY

[corktownyuppie]

http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2013/0...e-mike-duggan/

Now this appears like it might have some legs...

[[1) vs. Duggan because he had not met the residency requirement prior to circulating the petitions for signature and

[[2) vs. Barrow because he had met the residency requirement but received his signatures several days prior to the first eligible day to circulate petitions.

Interesting.

State Rep. Lisa Howze, among the four leading mayoral candidates, said Duggan and fellow candidate Tom Barrow failed to properly circulate petitions for candidacy.
“I am challenging the legitimacy of Mr. Duggan’s candidacy on the grounds that he solicited petition signatures for nomination to the Office of Mayor at a time when he was not eligible to be nominated,” Howze said. ”Any and all signatures obtained prior to the one-year anniversary date of Mr. Duggan becoming a qualified registered voter of the Ciy of Detroit should be rendered null and void. Mr. Duggan should be disqualified as a candidate for mayor and promptly removed from the August 6thPrimary ballot.”
Howze’s allegations are similar – but not identical – to those made by perennial candidate Barrow. Both contend Duggan, who moved to the city last year, is ineligible to run because he was not a registered voter long enough in Detroit.
According to the city charter, “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.”
Howze is asking the city clerk and Detroit Election Commission to remove both candidates from the Aug. 6 primary ballot.
“As for Mr. Barrow, by his own admission during an interview on Thursday, April 25, 2013 on Fox 2 News Let It Rip, he stated that he had obtained all petition signatures in one day during the 2012 presidential election held on Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2012. According to sources at the Detroit City Clerk’s office, candidates running for office in the 2013 election were not allowed to circulate petitions any sooner than 180 days before the May 14, 2013 filing deadline. Therefore, the earliest date to circulate petitions for the Office of Mayor would have been Nov. 16, 2012. If indeed, 100 percent of the signatures submitted by Mr. Barrow on April 25, 2013 had been obtained 10 days prematurely on Nov. 6, 2012, then all signatures should be rendered null and void and the City Clerk and Detroit Election Commission should promptly remove Mr. Barrow from the August 6th Primary ballot,” Howze wrote in a press release.

[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.

[brizee]

What a ridiculous game politics is.

And then you have little Hitlers in Lansing waving their hands declaring all of this quite amusing.

Seriously very disappointed if this is how the Duggan campaign ends.

And if the charges against Barrow stick he looks like the jackass of the millenium.

[1953]

The city's charter is so poorly put together. Can't we have the whole damn thing thrown out and get a new one written by some legal experts?

I mean, to say that you have to be a voter for one year - not more, not less - is such an amateur move. If I am arguing this case for Mr. Duggan, I'm feeling pretty confident in my position.

1953

[Zug]

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]

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.