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

[mam2009]

Has Judge Popke's opinion been printed & published anywhere that is free for the general public to view?

[Bham1982]

This wasn't a fuckup. Duggan was assured by an election official that he was doing more than was necessary by turning in his paperwork early. He specifically asked them if there was any reason to wait, and they assured him there was not.

Well, gee, then it must be right. The clerk told him not to wait!

And you're right; there wasn't a screwup. Duggan told the truth, and did everything by the book. The problem is that his residency was inadequate, and the judge ruled accordingly.

Unfortunately, Detroit's "loss" is Wayne County's "gain". Watch the fastest shrinking county in the U.S. with Duggan as next county exec., probably right after Ficano is hauled off to prison.

[corktownyuppie]

Has Judge Popke's opinion been printed & published anywhere that is free for the general public to view?

That's a really good point. Mea Culpa for holding strong to an opinion without having heard the strongest opinion for the other side.

According to the Craig Fahle Show this am [[they are trying to get a copy of the ruling), the opinion is 27 pages long and the court did not hear any oral testimony prior to making the ruling.

I am curious to hear arguments on all the legal issues at play here:

- Is the residency requirement constitutional?
- Is the method for calculating the retirement clear, and does it follow the intent of the charter?
- Is the charter meant to lean toward being more exclusive or more inclusive of behavior that is on the margin/border of the statute?
- In the event of that the City Election Committee disseminates inaccurate information or opinions which leads to damage, what is proper recourse?

Etc. Keep those popcorn makers going.

[sumas]

Uhmmmm, I still make my popcorn in a cast iron skillet. I won't hold my breath but Duggan is/was??? the only one worth voting for.

[mam2009]

If the point of the Charter provisions was, in essence, to discourage people from just moving to the city to run for elected office [[or to a particular City Council district) without really having a true sense of what the community's needs and experiences are [[I'm paraphrasing the Charter commentary, but I think I'm close), then it seems that a court IMHO should view this provision as restrictive as possible. Since residency rules for political candidates have indeed been ruled constitutional, it seems that the public interest of requiring a candidate live in the community is best served by the candidate living in the community for a longer [[yet, reasonable) span of time, rather than a shorter one.

So, even though I don't personally believe the language of the Charter is at all ambiguous, I would think any court that MAY think it is, would take that public policy into account. And as I recall, there are some Michigan municipalities that have much longer minimum residency requirements for candidates, so that precedent is already out there as well.

[[Was that "old racist" enough for you, Rex? LOL!)

From the Livonia Charter:
Section 3. Qualifications.
No person shall be eligible for any administrative office of the City, elective or appointive, unless he is a duly qualified and registered elector in the City and has continuously resided in the City for at least two [[2) years immediately prior to his appointment or the election at which he is a candidate; provided, however, that said requirement of two [[2) years continuous residence shall not exist or have any effect as to the first City election held under this Charter.

I guess Livonia's residency requirement also is determined according to "the filing deadline" too even though those words don't appear anywhere in their Charter provision either.

[Zacha341]

For certain a nanosecond after midnight, the other side of the '365th' day followed by a slow drive 'til daylight to be first in line at the filing joint would've been advantageous!

If he wanted to be on the ballot...

All the candidates, except for Duggan, were Detroit residents for one year. There's no rule indicating you must file on the exact nanosecond by which one reaches one year of residency.

[Crumbled_pavement]

From the Livonia Charter:
Section 3. Qualifications.
No person shall be eligible for any administrative office of the City, elective or appointive, unless he is a duly qualified and registered elector in the City and has continuously resided in the City for at least two [[2) years immediately prior to his appointment or the election at which he is a candidate; provided, however, that said requirement of two [[2) years continuous residence shall not exist or have any effect as to the first City election held under this Charter.

That's very sick. Livonia doesn't have the right to require someone to live there in order to run for office. They should just shut up and vote for who they are told to vote for, kind of like what the legions of DYesers tell us Detroiters to do.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Well, gee, then it must be right. The clerk told him not to wait!

And you're right; there wasn't a screwup. Duggan told the truth, and did everything by the book. The problem is that his residency was inadequate, and the judge ruled accordingly.

Unfortunately, Detroit's "loss" is Wayne County's "gain". Watch the fastest shrinking county in the U.S. with Duggan as next county exec., probably right after Ficano is hauled off to prison.

He doesn't want to be the County Exec, he wants to be Mayor of Detroit. If that were the case, he'd still be living in Livonia.

[artds]

Well, gee, then it must be right. The clerk told him not to wait!

And you're right; there wasn't a screwup. Duggan told the truth, and did everything by the book. The problem is that his residency was inadequate, and the judge ruled accordingly.

Unfortunately, Detroit's "loss" is Wayne County's "gain". Watch the fastest shrinking county in the U.S. with Duggan as next county exec., probably right after Ficano is hauled off to prison.

It doesn't matter if it was right. What matters is that Duggan reasonably relied on the Clerk's assurances to his detriment.

[mam2009]

And for all of you who seem to think Detroiters and their elected leaders are just a bunch of bumbling idiots who don't know what they're doing, I challenge you to find a rather glaring oversight in Livonia's Charte provision [[quoted in my previous post above) that is not missing from Detroit's. If read literally, it makes an absurd implication about the residency of the mayor.

[Zacha341]

Yep. He should have 'relied' on a paper wall calendar if nothing else. Clerks come and go...

It doesn't matter if it was right. What matters is that Duggan reasonably relied on the Clerk's assurances to his detriment.

[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.

[Crumbled_pavement]

No one is arguing Detroit's residency requirement is too long, or that there's any problem with having residency requirements in general.

I'm not sure I agree with that...

Bham1982 said this:

Minimum residency is the obvious public policy interest. Duggan didn't meet it.

To which Wesley Mouch responded to with this:

Maybe its time we try competence instead.

And then there's this gem:

I think residency requirements are stupid

Which was only topped by an even greater gem:

Residency Laws haven't produced anyone that has been able to run the city successfully within a budget and stop the flight for decades. Maybe the time has come to insist that the next Mayor isn't a resident; and have Job description for him, rather than let someone come in and freewheel.

I think there are some that believe residency requirements [[at least in regards to Detroit) are silly.

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.

Personally, I agree with this though.

[Eber Brock Ward]

And for all of you who seem to think Detroiters and their elected leaders are just a bunch of bumbling idiots who don't know what they're doing, I challenge you to find a rather glaring oversight in Livonia's Charte provision [[quoted in my previous post above) that is not missing from Detroit's. If read literally, it makes an absurd implication about the residency of the mayor.

I find it more telling that Livonia used "at least" in their 2-year requirement. Shows intent. Everyone in Detroit should be kicked off the ballot!

Beyond that, Livonia took the standard route of tying the requirement to a static date [[the election, or the date of filing set by the clerk in Detroit's case, as is one interpretation), rather than a dynamic date [[the candidate's date of filing [[the other Detroit interpretation).

The statute is ambiguous -- I think there are reasonable arguments for either interpretation -- and Duggan will be back on the ballot after the Court of Appeals takes up the issue. Barrow/Davis did well to appear before a judge. Popke, with a history of disqualifying candidates.

The only question is: Will this fiasco hurt Duggan's campaign enough to cost him the election. While the Barrow/Davis gambit never has and doesn't have a chance of actually kicking Duggan out permanently, they may have accomplished much the same result by damaging Duggan's chances going forward.

Lose the battle, win the war. Smart move by Barrow/Davis, if Napoleon beats Duggan.

[Honky Tonk]

And for all of you who seem to think Detroiters and their elected leaders are just a bunch of bumbling idiots who don't know what they're doing, I challenge you to find a rather glaring oversight in Livonia's Charte provision [[quoted in my previous post above) that is not missing from Detroit's. If read literally, it makes an absurd implication about the residency of the mayor.

You're aware that before Duggan was given approval a meeting was held by Janice M. Winfrey and her constituents, a vote was taken, and Duggan was given the green light to file? If I take a home addition plan before the City, get approval, add the addition to spec, a City inspector comes out, tells me it's all wrong, I show him the approval, and he says "well, that's between you and the approver" who's @ fault? Who absorbs the cost? You are right though, this IS Duggan's fault, he believed what he was told. But then this kind of scenario never happens in Detroit, does it?

[coracle]

Residency Laws haven't produced anyone that has been able to run the city successfully within a budget and stop the flight for decades. Maybe the time has come to insist that the next Mayor isn't a resident; and have Job description for him, rather than let someone come in and freewheel.

[Eber Brock Ward]

Residency Laws haven't produced anyone that has been able to run the city successfully within a budget and stop the flight for decades. Maybe the time has come to insist that the next Mayor isn't a resident; and have Job description for him, rather than let someone come in and freewheel.

I would love to see the reboot of our city government call for a professional city manager.

[SWMAP]

Did a similar residency dispute dog Rahm Emanuel and keep him from success in Chicago?

Because of questions over his eligibility to run for mayor, Emanuel's candidacy was initially rejected by the Illinois First District Appellate Court, though he was later found eligible to run in a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of Illinois. Emanuel won with 55% of the vote over five other candidates in the nonpartisan mayoral election, succeeding 22-year incumbent Richard M. Daley.
[[From Wikipedia)

[48205to24]

Residency Laws haven't produced anyone that has been able to run the city successfully within a budget and stop the flight for decades. Maybe the time has come to insist that the next Mayor isn't a resident; and have Job description for him, rather than let someone come in and freewheel.

This city has pleny of qualified and capable residents, however who wants to deal with so much corruption at the state, region, county and local levels unless they are corrupt themselves. Why would anyone with common sense leave a successful business, job, etc to deal with this mess?
If you arent apart of some corrupt administration or willing to do the bidding of big business. I doubt you would get very far anyway. Everyone in Detroit politics is apart of a previous city administration, state administration on wayne county administration.
The only real reason Detroiters vote is because people died for the right to vote and which candidate use the most lubricant when they screw you.

[downtownguy]

Strictly speaking, Bing wasn't a resident either. In fact, if I recall correctly, since he ran prior to the new charter, residency wasn't a requirement to run, and he stayed in Franklin until the election. Regardless, my point is, Bing has been a colossal failure. So what makes you think the residency requirement is what's giving us bad leadership?

[downtownguy]

sure. Mams an old racist, the thought of a white man as mayor of Detroit makes her angry. Dnt worry about my spelling son.

At least you're not a racist!

Son? hahahahahahahahahahaha

[Wesley Mouch]

I'm not sure I agree with that...snip...I think there are some that believe residency requirements [[at least in regards to Detroit) are silly.

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.

[bailey]

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.

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?

[JBMcB]

So what makes you think the residency requirement is what's giving us bad leadership?

Picture a Venn diagram in your head - let's call it the list of people who you'd want to be the mayor of Detroit.

1. First, limit it to only people who live in Detroit
2. Then apply the other statutory restrictions [[I believe there are age requirements)
3. Then narrow it down to those who WANT to be Mayor
4. Narrow that down to the people who are capable of being mayor - who you'd actually vote for

What does that leave you with?

Why would you limit your choices to only those who happen to live in the city? If it's that important, people can include it in their criteria for whom they vote for.

[bailey]

Picture a Venn diagram in your head - let's call it the list of people who you'd want to be the mayor of Detroit.

1. First, limit it to only people who live in Detroit
2. Then apply the other statutory restrictions [[I believe there are age requirements)
3. Then narrow it down to those who WANT to be Mayor
4. Narrow that down to the people who are capable of being mayor - who you'd actually vote for

What does that leave you with?

Why would you limit your choices to only those who happen to live in the city? If it's that important, people can include it in their criteria for whom they vote for.

Not to repeat my self, but perhaps all this debate should have happened as the charter was being drafted and voted on in 2011?