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

**corktownyuppie** · June-11-13, 03:10 PM

Click Here to JUMP to June 19 Announcement that Duggan will NOT appeal to the Supreme Court

This is where I would normally remark, "Oh, Snap."

http://www.freep.com/article/2013061...t-mayoral-race

**mam2009** · June-11-13, 03:18 PM

The right decision was made.

**artds** · June-11-13, 03:53 PM

Hmmm. I'm not an election lawyer [[although I am a lawyer) and this decision seems contrary to the intent of the residency requirement in my opinion. Basically if Duggan had sat on his signatures for 14 days and THEN turned them in, then according to this ruling, his candidacy would be perfectly valid. But since he was proactive and turned them in two weeks earlier, he's off the ballot. I cannot think of a single policy reason that would support such an interpretation of the residency requirement. His "filing for office" could be [[and should be) regarded as continuing up to the date of the deadline for filing, and that deadline didn't occur until after he hit the 1-year residency mark and after he turned in his paperwork. This ruling should be overturned.

**trotwood** · June-11-13, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

This is where I would normally remark, "Oh, Snap."

http://www.freep.com/article/2013061...t-mayoral-race

I find that highly appropriate in this case lol.

**Wheels** · June-11-13, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

This is where I would normally remark, "Oh, Snap."

http://www.freep.com/article/2013061...t-mayoral-race

Duggan's reply is "Oh Zip"

**michimoby** · June-11-13, 04:09 PM

[[forehead slap)

My response? "Oh, Detroit..."

**evergreen** · June-11-13, 04:23 PM

Two words: told ya! The judge deemed the language "plain and unambiguous." Duggan said every election lawyer he has talked to [[paid) says the opposite.

Too bad he didn't have one of those geniuses read the language before he filed because any responsible lawyer- minimally acquainted with the rules of statutory construction and the English language - would have told him to avoid filing prior to April 14. Eliminate this as an issue.

This will be reviewed on an expedited basis by the appellate courts. Even if he wins at the Michigan Supreme Court, this will consume an enormous amount of time and energy and will basically freeze his campaign for the next 3 to 4 weeks as this works its way through the courts. In addition the issue highlights the weakness of his attachment to the City of Detroit. The primary is only about eight weeks away. This error, in my opinion, is fatal to his candidacy.

Even if he wins he loses.

**antongast** · June-11-13, 05:01 PM

Well, so much for Duggan being the competent guy in the race. He's apparently neither competent, nor in the race.

I still don't know who the fuck to vote for.

**313WX** · June-11-13, 05:20 PM

He'll be back on the ballot.

I'm 2 for 2 in my prediction of how this all would play out.

NExt steps:

*Duggan files a case with the Michigan Appeals Court.
*The Michigan Appeals Court overturns Popke's decisions and affirms the election board's decision.

It's a fun dog and pony show though.

**michimoby** · June-11-13, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by evergreen

Two words: told ya! The judge deemed the language "plain and unambiguous." Duggan said every election lawyer he has talked to [[paid) says the opposite.

Too bad he didn't have one of those geniuses read the language before he filed because any responsible lawyer- minimally acquainted with the rules of statutory construction and the English language - would have told him to avoid filing prior to April 14. Eliminate this as an issue.

This will be reviewed on an expedited basis by the appellate courts. Even if he wins at the Michigan Supreme Court, this will consume an enormous amount of time and energy and will basically freeze his campaign for the next 3 to 4 weeks as this works its way through the courts. In addition the issue highlights the weakness of his attachment to the City of Detroit. The primary is only about eight weeks away. This error, in my opinion, is fatal to his candidacy.

Even if he wins he loses.

You sound quite excited about all of this. I'm awfully curious as to why.

**bailey** · June-11-13, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by artds

Hmmm. I'm not an election lawyer [[although I am a lawyer) and this decision seems contrary to the intent of the residency requirement in my opinion. Basically if Duggan had sat on his signatures for 14 days and THEN turned them in, then according to this ruling, his candidacy would be perfectly valid. But since he was proactive and turned them in two weeks earlier, he's off the ballot. I cannot think of a single policy reason that would support such an interpretation of the residency requirement. His "filing for office" could be [[and should be) regarded as continuing up to the date of the deadline for filing, and that deadline didn't occur until after he hit the 1-year residency mark and after he turned in his paperwork. This ruling should be overturned.

...and kids 20 yrs and 11 months old get MIPs. Lawyers can't practice the day before their bar results come back. A kid 15 yrs and 11 months old can't consent to sex...etc. We have minimum requirements for all sorts of things. The...meh, it would have been legal a few days later defense is usually a loser.

**mam2009** · June-11-13, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by artds

Hmmm. I'm not an election lawyer [[although I am a lawyer) and this decision seems contrary to the intent of the residency requirement in my opinion. Basically if Duggan had sat on his signatures for 14 days and THEN turned them in, then according to this ruling, his candidacy would be perfectly valid. But since he was proactive and turned them in two weeks earlier, he's off the ballot. I cannot think of a single policy reason that would support such an interpretation of the residency requirement. His "filing for office" could be [[and should be) regarded as continuing up to the date of the deadline for filing, and that deadline didn't occur until after he hit the 1-year residency mark and after he turned in his paperwork. This ruling should be overturned.

There are minimum residency rules for a million reasons...U.S. Citizenship naturalization, In-State Tuition discounts, certain college scholarships, to be Governor, to be President, to receive State aid. The rules exist for a reason, to establish MINIMUM requirements, not to establish INTENTION to meet the requirements. If you can't meet the MINIMUM requirements established, then you are deemed ineligible for those things until such time you CAN meet the MINIMUM requirements.

Do we give people official diplomas when they are one credit short of graduating from high school? No. Yes, you intend to graduate, but you haven't completed the requirements yet. Competent adults ought to follow rules and they ought to be teaching the next generation to do the same. The rules are there to even the playing field and give everyone a fair chance to qualify by meeting a minimum requirement. After that, its up to you to make your case for why you deserve to be treated differently than the rest. If he had only had 498 valid signatures instead of the required 500, I guess that would have been ok to some people too, right?

**Detroitdave** · June-11-13, 05:40 PM

If this sticks , I won't be voting , There's not ONE of the others I am interested in . I'm NOT impressed by ANY of the others, and I just wont vote for someone of something I don't believe in , and NONE of the other I like , just my two cents

**poobert** · June-11-13, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitdave

If this sticks , I won't be voting , There's not ONE of the others I am interested in . I'm NOT impressed by ANY of the others, and I just wont vote for someone of something I don't believe in , and NONE of the other I like , just my two cents

It wasn't that I was really into Duggan. The others just scare the FUCKING SHIT OUT OF ME because they're so damn stupid and/or crazy. We had a good run. Let's blow it up and give it back to the Three Fires.

**Smirnoff** · June-11-13, 06:10 PM

Aka: political posturing

**Novine** · June-11-13, 06:46 PM

The charter commission relied on a couple of court cases from the early 1980s. If Duggan appeals, I predict the residency requirement gets tossed.

**Bham1982** · June-11-13, 06:52 PM

A Wayne County judge with a backbone? Is it actually possible?

Duggan will probably deliver some fat envelopes to the appellate judge shortly. No way the McNamara machine takes this hit without some slimy tactics; they need to keep their hands in Detroit, especially now that everything will be sold off in the coming years.

**Jason** · June-11-13, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by mam2009

If he had only had 498 valid signatures instead of the required 500, I guess that would have been ok to some people too, right?

This is more like the writing saying you "require 500 signatures" [[and not a "minimum of 500") and him getting disqualified for having 501.

**JBMcB** · June-11-13, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by artds

I cannot think of a single policy reason that would support such an interpretation of the residency requirement.

Then the statute would say as such. It says one year. Not 351 days. There isn't a lot to interpret, it says one year and the people who drafted the legislation meant one year, otherwise it would say something else, right?

His "filing for office" could be [[and should be) regarded as continuing up to the date of the deadline for filing, and that deadline didn't occur until after he hit the 1-year residency mark and after he turned in his paperwork. This ruling should be overturned.

Except the statute doesn't say one year from the filing *deadline*, it says one year from *filing*. Again, if they meant deadline, they would have put deadline in the statute.

If this isn't exactly what the lawyers who drafted the statute meant, then someone needs to loose their job, because that's what the statute says.

**Scottathew** · June-11-13, 08:09 PM

I'm torn. Duggan really screwed the pooch. I don't really like the idea of someone moving to the city only for one reason, to become mayor of that city.

However, Napoleon scares the crap out of me. He's running on some of that "us vs. white people" mentality, I hate that sh.. poo.

**dmike76** · June-11-13, 08:24 PM

I hope this gets overturned. Benny Napoleon will run the city farther into the ground than it already is. He can't even balance his own budget. It'll be the status quo all over again. SMH......and what does Barrow really think he'll accomplish other than furthering the divide between city and suburbs? He's not going to win. All he's doing is interfering. And further weakening the region with his rhetoric.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · June-11-13, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by artds

Hmmm. I'm not an election lawyer [[although I am a lawyer) and this decision seems contrary to the intent of the residency requirement in my opinion.

I am not a lawyer at all, and I neither like nor hate Mr. Duggan [[there is no candidate running that I think is up for the job). But doesn't the law say specific things? Do XYZ and you qualify, do ABC and you don't. Legislators who write vague laws are morons; people who debate laws that aren't vague are also morons. I can't understand why there would be debate on this topic [[I have read neither the law nor the court's opinion). If the law sets out specific conditions for getting on the ballot, then either he met them or he didn't. Intent of both law and candidate are not relevant.

**downtownguy** · June-11-13, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitdave

If this sticks , I won't be voting , There's not ONE of the others I am interested in . I'm NOT impressed by ANY of the others, and I just wont vote for someone of something I don't believe in , and NONE of the other I like , just my two cents

It's good to know that democracy is only worth two cents to you. I'm voting. I'm undecided. But I know there are more choices, and I rarely find the perfect candidate, yet I've never missed an election--ever.

**Honky Tonk** · June-11-13, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by dmike76

I hope this gets overturned. Benny Napoleon will run the city farther into the ground than it already is. He can't even balance his own budget. It'll be the status quo all over again. SMH......and what does Barrow really think he'll accomplish other than furthering the divide between city and suburbs? He's not going to win. All he's doing is interfering. And further weakening the region with his rhetoric.

I'm voting for Bennie. Hock the artwork, get rid of the EM, and it's business as usual in the D! Raises for everyone! What to do with the DIA building, jail or party store?