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

[Junkin4Life]

I am having faith that Duggan does not get DQ'd over something minor. He was only 2 weeks early

[evergreen]

Actually, the language looks pretty unambiguous to me. Seems that the charter commission wanted both actual residence and some evidence of civic involvement and commitment of at least one year's duration prior to formally seeking elective office.

Sorry for Duggan if he gets kicked over this. I also think that if a court keeps him on the ballot in the face of what is pretty straightforward language, it will just be one more institution trampling over the choices made by the Detroit electorate. I can see an opponent making a lot of hay with this mess either way.

Duggan claims to be running a major league type campaign and claims to be ready for the most difficult job in Michigan politics. This type of mistake - and it is real mistake - is going to consume a lot of his staff's time and energy. Very amateurish.

[corktownyuppie]

Actually, the language looks pretty unambiguous to me. Seems that the charter commission wanted both actual residence and some evidence of civic involvement and commitment of at least one year's duration prior to formally seeking elective office.

But here's my thing on this.

Let's Duggan goes to the Clerk's office and says, hey look...I've got my signatures, my 1-year anniversary is two weeks from now. Should I turn the papers in now? Or wait two weeks and then come back? Either way, I'm formally announcing my candidacy tomorrow.

And I guess the bigger question is why is this question even relevant? If the Clerk turned around and said, yes, you can come back in two weeks once you hit your anniversary, but it will be past the deadline. Then we've got a problem.

Either way his actions seem to consistent with the intent of the language, and along with the stamp of approval he got from the Clerk's office, I'd say he's got a leg to stand on.

And by the way....

of at least one year's duration prior to formally seeking elective office.

It may seem clear to you, and that was the way I interpreted it. But that's not what the charter says either.

[mam2009]

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.

I don't think Ms. Benson was a member of the Charter Commission [[I'm assuming that's what you meant) & Freeman Hendrix resigned from the Commission early on to be on the Greektown Casino Board. I would be far more interested in what Chairman Jenice Mitchell Ford believes is the correct interpretation of the provision given the very long & thorough revision process.

[bailey]

I don't think Ms. Benson was a member of the Charter Commission [[I'm assuming that's what you meant) & Freeman Hendrix resigned from the Commission early on to be on the Greektown Casino Board. I would be far more interested in what Chairman Jenice Mitchell Ford believes is the correct interpretation of the provision given the very long & thorough revision process.

According to Hollowell on WDET this morning, the charter commission testimony and discussion will bear out that they "meant" last day of filing.

If that is what they meant, seems like they should have just said it...instead of the somewhat ambiguous language.

Re: Howze's complaint. Would be hilarious to see Barrow hoisted on his own "technical violation" petard.

[Eber Brock Ward]

For the people in here typing "it's not ambiguous to me",

"It's not ambiguous to me" and ""it's not ambiguous" are two totally different things. Neither interpretation is contextually superior to the other in any way other than "I feel that way."

With that in mind, the result has to be inclusion of the candidate. Shame on Barrow, too. I wouldn't have voted for him, but I believe it's better to get people on the ballot to let the people decide, even if I disagree with them.

[mam2009]

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/[[S[[ak4...e=mcl-168-322a

This statute seems to suggest that once a candidate submits his/her paperwork, that candidate has "filed" since that candidate can only withdraw from consideration AFTER the deadline for filing has passed. If one could withdraw prior to the deadline, that would suggest a candidate had not yet legally filed.

I'm not leaning towards any of the candidates yet but I do enjoy a good legal debate!

[corktownyuppie]

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/[[S[[ak4...e=mcl-168-322a

This statute seems to suggest that once a candidate submits his/her paperwork, that candidate has "filed" since that candidate can only withdraw from consideration AFTER the deadline for filing has passed. If one could withdraw prior to the deadline, that would suggest a candidate had not yet legally filed.

I'm not leaning towards any of the candidates yet but I do enjoy a good legal debate!

I'd say that's one of the better legal arguments presented thusfar.

My opinion is that the ability for the candidate to pull out of the race is significant only in that demonstrates that filing is not permanent, but the date you are able pull out is less relevant in my opinion.

Of greater concern to me is whether or not Duggan received any constructive benefit for having filed 2 weeks earlier than his 52 week requirement. Did doing so offer him any political advantage or financial advantage? Obviously, if the 52-week requirement was past the filing deadline, there would be a major advantage. It would be the difference between filing and not filing. But since that point is no longer in question, what, if any, benefit does one get for simply turning his papers in 2 weeks early?

I can't imagine that there is any, which begs the question of why the charter commission chose to make that distinction to begin with. Or whether they even meant to.

Second is that my general predisposition is to make a ruling more inclusive rather than exclusive, knowing that the eventual decision will be made by the voters.

This comes up, for example, when a contract says, you must respond/pay "within 7 days." Is it within 7 days of proven receipt of the invoice? Is it within 7 days of when the invoice was issued/sent? Is it 7 business days? If I received it on Monday at 8pm, does Monday count as a day? So many possible ways to count something so simple.

My inclination when there are any unintended ambiguities like this is to err toward the side of the broadest and most lenient interpretation to the person who is being asked to perform...in this case, the recipient.

This inclination is only reinforced by the fact that the positive decision to put someone on the ballot will have zero consequence if the public does not want to see him/her in office. They have recourse by simply refusing to vote for him/her.

Lastly, from the pragmatic/utilitarian point of view, when given a decision point that will result in either more options vs. fewer options, it seems counterintuitive to choose fewer options unless there is some greater benefit to the end goal of the democratic process.

If tl;dr, then as they say in baseball, "Tie goes to the runner". Duggan stays on the ballot.

[Wesley Mouch]

CTY, your assessment is spot on. Tie goes to the runner.

Back to an earlier comment, about intent vs. words. I almost always want to go with the words. Certainly intent matters, but certainly certainty matters as well. People need to be able to understand their government, and not need a guide dog.

But the most crucial reason to avoid 'intent' is the elastic nature of 'intent'. It can be bent to suit one's needs. Being mistrustful of government [[and all collectives of men), I prefer less interpretation, thank you.

Here though, if one cracks open the intent box... one should say that Duggan clear intended to comply with the rule, and that he has demonstrated to be a sincere candidate. To exclude on technicality would not have been the intention of the authors nor the citizens.

Tie to the runner.

[corktownyuppie]

Interesting to hear from someone in the Judge Scalia school of legal doctrine . From someone more in the Sandra Day O'Connor camp, I would like to add one thing:

...one should say that Duggan clear intended to comply with the rule, and that he has demonstrated to be a sincere candidate.

...and I would add that he received no constructive benefit for having inadvertantly failing to comply [[should one choose to interpret it that way).

Of course, if his filing early coincidentally added a $3MM increase in his campaign donations, now we have a pretty arguable point.

[Eber Brock Ward]

Duggan stays on the ballot.

http://www.freep.com/article/2013052...on-Mike-Duggan

Now back to a molehill...

[sumas]

Seriously, I stay confused. Must be my advanced age. Duggan has serious support from us old farts of all races. Is he in the race or not now?

[1953]

Charles Pugh continues to disgrace himself every day he is allowed to stay in office...

[mam2009]

Interesting to hear from someone in the Judge Scalia school of legal doctrine . From someone more in the Sandra Day O'Connor camp, I would like to add one thing:



...and I would add that he received no constructive benefit for having inadvertantly failing to comply [[should one choose to interpret it that way).

Of course, if his filing early coincidentally added a $3MM increase in his campaign donations, now we have a pretty arguable point.

While I wouldn't consider myself in the Scalia camp, I believe this Charter provision was written very clearly and unambiguously. It uses 5th grade language [[I guess, I'm no teacher) and it was written just one year or so ago in the same social context that we're dealing with today. It was not written in Old English from over 200 years ago as our U.S Constitution was. If the Charter Commissioners had wanted the provision to read, "... by the filing deadline..." as it is EXPLICITLY stated in the State's election law, they could have simply mirrored that language. I attended a few of those meeting and I know they did exactly that to other Charter provisions so they would be consistent with State & federal laws.

IMHO this is just another example of people playing fast and loose with the law and with Detroit's Charter which seems to be getting more and more common. Why even have a Charter or Home Rule? Laws are made for a reason.

Even if I don't hit someone & injure them with my car while speeding, I still broke the law if I was speeding. I just told my teenager last week that every sign on the road & every line in the street has a law attached to them & that those laws are not SUGGESTIONS. An officer can ticket you if he catches you violating those laws even if they don't make sense to you. And he should do so to preserve ORDER for us ALL. That's what laws are for.

[Chinman]

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

[Al Publican]

It will be interesting to see if Detroiters pull a Gary, Indiana of some years ago by electing a white mayor. Not that ethnicity or gender or the other thing would matter to me when voting.

[downtownguy]

Former Detroit Medical Center CEO Mike Duggan will be on Detroit's mayoral ballot next year but there were some tense moments while awaiting a decision.

First paragraph in the story. The primary is just over 2 months away. Does anybody edit these things?

[Richard]

While I wouldn't consider myself in the Scalia camp, I believe this Charter provision was written very clearly and unambiguously. It uses 5th grade language [[I guess, I'm no teacher) and it was written just one year or so ago in the same social context that we're dealing with today. It was not written in Old English from over 200 years ago as our U.S Constitution was. If the Charter Commissioners had wanted the provision to read, "... by the filing deadline..." as it is EXPLICITLY stated in the State's election law, they could have simply mirrored that language. I attended a few of those meeting and I know they did exactly that to other Charter provisions so they would be consistent with State & federal laws.

IMHO this is just another example of people playing fast and loose with the law and with Detroit's Charter which seems to be getting more and more common. Why even have a Charter or Home Rule? Laws are made for a reason.

Even if I don't hit someone & injure them with my car while speeding, I still broke the law if I was speeding. I just told my teenager last week that every sign on the road & every line in the street has a law attached to them & that those laws are not SUGGESTIONS. An officer can ticket you if he catches you violating those laws even if they don't make sense to you. And he should do so to preserve ORDER for us ALL. That's what laws are for.

Fair points, but in the real world one could argue based on the past the rules were bent for the cost of many so a few could gain.

This whole thing speaks of ones ability to run on thier merits,when in doubt cast a distraction and try to lower the numbers of the playing field , it would be disappointing to think that a past stand of showing strength to the public was engineered for a future gain.

I would have a belief that this is not Mr. Duggans first day at the rodeo and grasping at straws or not grasping the big picture could be detrimental to ones cause.

In disclosure I support Mr. Duggan because as of yet he has shown that he does not believe in the shrinking city aspect and the core needs strong supporting neighborhoods.

The city needs a good politician that knows how to get things done , one way or another.He also needs to be able to work with a non dictatorial CC for the common good.

To me if the grey erea works towards the public good and for the betterment of the community have at it because it is no secert that the other side is not walking the sharp lines.

[Honky Tonk]

First paragraph in the story. The primary is just over 2 months away. Does anybody edit these things?

I'm still trying to figure out the 3-2 vote.

[Danny]

No more race cards Detroit Mayoral candidates! I want to hear your principles and plans to turn Detroit around.

[corktownyuppie]

While I wouldn't consider myself in the Scalia camp, I believe this Charter provision was written very clearly and unambiguously. It uses 5th grade language [[I guess, I'm no teacher) and it was written just one year or so ago in the same social context that we're dealing with today.

That's fair enough.

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.

The problem is that by the "5th grade language" perspective, one can argue -- with no interpretation necessary -- that Duggan met his requirement by growing up in Detroit during his childhood.

That's the fundamental problem I have with strict construction. At some point, someone needs to at least consider and interpret intent, even if they don't make that the primary basis behind their understanding of the law.

[Wesley Mouch]

...snip...That's the fundamental problem I have with strict construction. At some point, someone needs to at least consider and interpret intent, even if they don't make that the primary basis behind their understanding of the law.

The moral hazard question arises. If courts get to settle badly written laws, won't we get more badly written laws? I agree that there's always some interpretation, but I want interpretation to be like abortion -- rare. If one relies on interpretation, then soon there's nothing else because the laws will get written more poorly each day.

[mam2009]

That's fair enough.



The problem is that by the "5th grade language" perspective, one can argue -- with no interpretation necessary -- that Duggan met his requirement by growing up in Detroit during his childhood.

That's the fundamental problem I have with strict construction. At some point, someone needs to at least consider and interpret intent, even if they don't make that the primary basis behind their understanding of the law.

The Charter reads, "must BE [[present tense)...a registered and qualified voter in the City of Detroit for one year AT THE TIME OF FILING... AND MUST MAINTAIN THAT STATUS...

It does not read MUST HAVE BEEN which is very different from MUST BE... I have been 15 years old, but I BE [[am) 40 years old as I am typING this post. It is plain English. There is no arguing the words on the page, only the merits of bending the law. And in this era of bending [[read: ignoring) the law by our leaders, we ought to be setting the example of simply following the law to bring some structure & credibility back into this community.

[mam2009]

The moral hazard question arises. If courts get to settle badly written laws, won't we get more badly written laws? I agree that there's always some interpretation, but I want interpretation to be like abortion -- rare. If one relies on interpretation, then soon there's nothing else because the laws will get written more poorly each day.

Thumbs up!

[corktownyuppie]

The Charter reads, "must BE [[present tense)...a registered and qualified voter in the City of Detroit for one year AT THE TIME OF FILING... AND MUST MAINTAIN THAT STATUS...

It does not read MUST HAVE BEEN which is very different from MUST BE... I have been 15 years old, but I BE [[am) 40 years old as I am typING this post. It is plain English.

Right now, in the present and in this current moment, I *am* a 22-year resident of the City of Detroit. I lived in the city from Age 0 through Age 18. And then again from Age 31 - 35.

I cannot foresee any context where I would express this state as "I have been a 22-year resident of the City of Detroit".

At the minimum, I think the language is nebulous...and the enforcement of the strict interpretation of the language results in scenarios which violate common sense. [[Like meeting the requirements for filing, being a 1-year resident before the filing deadline, filing 2 weeks early, receiving no constructive benefit for having done so, and then being automatically disqualified.)

It is only in that context that I believe there some [[though not absolute) value in examining the possible intent of the law. Did the law really intend to punish someone for turning requirements in early, instead wanting Duggan to hold off on dropping the packet off at the office for 2 weeks? If so -- and I'm open to believing that such a reason might exist -- the question then is why?

Obviously, once you open interpretation, you open the Pandora's Box of legal revision by court ruling.

In that regard, I believe that I [[and all of the people that voted on Duggan's eligibility) am not really qualified to make a ruling on this.

Sure, I have my opinion. But I'd like to see the sharpest legal minds really tackle this one and put together some thinking on it.

The one thing I'm fairly sure about, though, is that the language is open to several different understandings about how to apply the law. Which one has more legal merit....

...I don't know.