Council-by-districts lawsuit struck down

[kraig]

Council-by-districts lawsuit struck down
BY NAOMI R. PATTON
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Wayne County Circuit Judge Virgil Smith struck down a lawsuit against the Detroit City Clerk Janice Winfrey this morning that would have placed a proposal to elect the Detroit City Council by districts on the Nov. 3 ballot, as the deadline looms for the ballots to be printed.

"I cannot believe this," said Mildred Madison, president of the League of Women Voters Detroit and member of Detroiters for Council by Districts. "I am absolutely shocked."

Despite support from State Attorney General Mike Cox and Gov. Jennifer Graholm’s offices, Smith ruled that the ballot language "that has been submitted by the petitioners is insufficient." He said the language in the ballot summary "should’ve also been included on the language that would have amended the city charter" that would have been published on the ballot, according to state law.

Mary Ellen Gurewitz, attorney for Detroiters for Council by Districts, was flummoxed by the decision.

"The judge misunderstood the question before him…respectfully," she said. "It’s always frustrating when you don’t convince the judge you’re correct."

The Proposal D ballot language on the petition would have amended the city charter to elect seven council members by districts and to elect two at-large.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm's legal counsel has determined that Proposal D should be placed on the Nov. 3 ballot. Steven Liedel reviewed the matter after the Detroit City Council approved a resolution for Cox's office to review the ballot proposal language for a second time.

In August, the Attorney General’s Office issued an opinion, finding the ballot language "incomplete and problematic," and determined that the council to fix the proposal language for it to be placed on the ballot as required by state law.

Smith allowed George Elworth and Frank Monticello, both representing the state Attorney General’s Office, to intervene on the case on behalf of Detroiters for Council by Districts. Winfrey’s attorney Christopher Trebilcock, with Miller Canfield, also argued on behalf on the Districts group.

"The clerk is simply just trying to comply with election law," Trebilcock said.

Lawyers for the city have said the proposal's language is flawed, because it states the Election Commission should draw the district, when state law requires the City Council to draw the districts. Smith did not address this issue.

Liedel also wrote that the Home Rule City Act requires proposals that have garnered the sufficient number of signatures should be placed on the ballot with no role for the governor, attorney general or city officials to prevent it.

Officials with the clerk’s office said the deadline to print the November general election ballot is Tuesday. The City Council will discuss the ballot at its Tuesday formal session.

It appears that The Detroiters for Council by Districts group is receiving some very bad advice. If City Council sent the matter to the Attorney General's Office for clarification. The group should have waited for the clarification that would, more than likely, have came back in their favor. Why go to court knowing that the Judge doesn't have the luxury of basing his decision on public sentiment, as does Jennifer Granholm and Mike Cox, but has to base his decision on the law. Victory for the District Group was only 3 or 4 days away. Now, the opinion by the AG won't hold as much weight as the decision by the judge. It's been said before. PATIENCE IS A VIRTUE.

[xphillipjrx]

There was a thread about this a while ago. Chicago has a council elected from 50 wards throughout the city. One of the advantages is people in Chicago know which throat to grab. I read that Detroit had a similar system and abolished it in favor of the system in place now. What are some of the disadvantages of the ward system that Detroiters looked to avoid back in the day?

[Detroitej72]

What are some of the disadvantages of the ward system that Detroiters looked to avoid back in the day?

The thought was that it was harder to bribe officials who were elected at large from the entire city. It was believed that under wards, it was easier to control a member, but the current system sure seems corrupt and the members don't have to answer to any district.

[Stosh]

Michigan Supreme Court option? At least give it a shot...

[buildingsofdetroit]

Your other option would be putting your faith in the Charter Commission to change it. While many of the candidates ran as council-by-districts as part of their platform, it remains to be seen whether they meant it.

[gnome]

Virg Smith ... another fine judical appointment by Ms. Granholm. Stellar. Right up there with Ruth Carter, Bernard Kilpatrick's old bunk mate.

[humanmachinery]

As expected, the City Council are trying to use any and all means to keep this initiative off the ballot. Expect a long pissing contest between several council members, the City Clerk, and the State of Michigan.

A referendum on whether to elect the City Council by districts remains in limbo after a judge on Friday refused a bid to force it onto the Nov. 3 ballot.

Despite support from representatives of City Clerk Janice Winfrey, Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Attorney General Mike Cox to place Proposal D on the ballot, Wayne County Circuit Judge Virgil Smith ruled that its ballot language is "insufficient" and should have contained specific language to change the city's charter. Smith concluded Winfrey "had no clear duty" to place the question on the ballot.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090...oposal-unclear


Big surprise. The council wrote the ballot, and then moved to have the ballot thrown out for its "vague language."

A dispute over the language first emerged this week after lawyers for the City Council argued that the soon-to-be-elected Charter Commission should weigh district representation. They also argued the referendum's language is illegal because it gives the Election Commission power to draw the lines for those districts, not the City Council.

So the City Council wants the power to draw its own districts, so members can guarantee their own re-election. Ahahahahaha.

Smith didn't address those arguments. There was no lawyer for the City Council involved in the hearing.

City clerks are delaying printing ballots until the flap is resolved. The City Council will likely take up the dispute again Tuesday.

Which means the council will drag its feet until it's "too late" to put this on the ballot.


------------

If I had my druthers, I'd do a body mainly of ward-councilors with a few "at-large" seats thrown in. The at-large group would who sit on a smallish executive committee with the mayor.

This balances local neighborhood interests with city-wide executive authority. The at-large councilors head up such functions as public safety, city finance and other services that have a city-wide importance. Meanwhile the local or "junior" council members can focus on things deemed important in their own neighborhoods. Measures require approval by all members of council, however.

[kraig]

As expected, the City Council are trying to use any and all means to keep this initiative off the ballot. Expect a long pissing contest between several council members, the City Clerk, and the State of Michigan.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090...oposal-unclear


Big surprise. The council wrote the ballot, and then moved to have the ballot thrown out for its "vague language."



So the City Council wants the power to draw its own districts, so members can guarantee their own re-election. Ahahahahaha.

Which means the council will drag its feet until it's "too late" to put this on the ballot.


------------

If I had my druthers, I'd do a body mainly of ward-councilors with a few "at-large" seats thrown in. The at-large group would who sit on a smallish executive committee with the mayor.

This balances local neighborhood interests with city-wide executive authority. The at-large councilors head up such functions as public safety, city finance and other services that have a city-wide importance. Meanwhile the local or "junior" council members can focus on things deemed important in their own neighborhoods. Measures require approval by all members of council, however.

City Council didn't write the ballot language. The petitioner, Detroiters for Council By Districts, wrote the ballot language. Incorrectly, I might add, which is the true root of this particular problem.

As far as City Council drawing the districts themselves instead of the Election Commission. State Law requires that it's City Council that draw the districts. The Election Commission is not authorized to draw the districts. That was a big mistake that was put in by the petitioner, which was surprising since a former three term state representative, Steve Tobocman, was closely involved with this.

If they were smart, the petitioners probably spent the entire weekend speaking with Council Members and getting the votes needed to get Council to change the language for them, despite sound legal advice that suggests otherwise, and get the matter put onto the ballot.

[ndavies]

Well it's back on the ballot:
http://www.freep.com/article/2009092...s-court-ruling

[kraig]

Well it's back on the ballot:
http://www.freep.com/article/2009092...s-court-ruling

Yeah, but with the language that's in there, it may get knocked down to advisory status. With the court ruling, the language that calls for the election commission to draw the districts may remain. That part is unenforceable by state law. They should have waited, Council was going to clean up the language today. The group had 5 votes.

[detourdetroit]

kraig knows everything about everything.

[Danny]

This means NO EVIL WARD SYSTEM YAY!

[humanmachinery]

City Council didn't write the ballot language. The petitioner, Detroiters for Council By Districts, wrote the ballot language. Incorrectly, I might add, which is the true root of this particular problem.

As far as City Council drawing the districts themselves instead of the Election Commission. State Law requires that it's City Council that draw the districts. The Election Commission is not authorized to draw the districts. That was a big mistake that was put in by the petitioner, which was surprising since a former three term state representative, Steve Tobocman, was closely involved with this.

If they were smart, the petitioners probably spent the entire weekend speaking with Council Members and getting the votes needed to get Council to change the language for them, despite sound legal advice that suggests otherwise, and get the matter put onto the ballot.

Crap, you're right. Mia culpa.

http://www.freep.com/article/2009091...ep-on-any-toes

So they wrote a misguided ballot, that didn't take a stupid and corrupt law into account. Ick. Gerrymandering for everyone!

And Councilwoman Sheila Cockrel said she, for one, intends to follow the law "with the understanding that this is a charter revision and not an amendment." Amendments can be initiated by petitions, she said. Revisions cannot.

This part is very upsetting.

[kraig]

kraig knows everything about everything.

Detourdetroit, I know that you were a big supporter of this ballot initiative. I also know that you were one of the organizers for the panel discussion that was held at Wayne State last week. I can appreciate the fact that the initiative started before the decision had been reached that a Charter Commission would be elected next month. I can appreciate all of the hard work that was put in by the supporters of the initiative. Hell, I can even appreciate the philosophy of continuing the effort to place the initiative on the ballot to insure that the Charter Commission will have to address the issue.

Therefore, you should be able to appreciate how self defeating it will be when the public overwhelmingly votes to approve something that will be completely unenforceable according to the law. After all of the time and effort that was put into this initiative. Why let it fall into Advisory status?

[kraig]

Crap, you're right. Mia culpa.

http://www.freep.com/article/2009091...ep-on-any-toes

So they wrote a misguided ballot, that didn't take a stupid and corrupt law into account. Ick. Gerrymandering for everyone!



This part is very upsetting.

LOL. Yeah, I read Rochelle Riley's column. Freman Hendrix is no dummy. Would anyone honestly expect him to come out against proposal D knowing that coming out against the Cobo Hall deal probably cost him a shot at the Mayor's Office? About 80-90% of Detroiters favor Council By District. Hell, I favor Council By District. I'll probably vote in support of Proposal D. Why do you think I'm so critical of it? If I'm going to support someone or somebody, I expect them to have their act together. Low expectations equal low results. We have to aim higher.

[humanmachinery]

Here's an exact quote from Crain's Detroit Business:

“We conclude that the stipulated language, to which the Attorney General has given express approval, meets the requirements of [[state law),” the ruling states.

“Accordingly...we direct the Detroit city clerk to place on the Nov. 3, 2009 ballot the initiative petition with the [[ballot Proposal D) question...”

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...FREE/909229991

Which brings us to this passage:

On Tuesday, Sept. 15, the day language was due at Winfrey's office for the ballot proposal, the council met to ostensibly draft the "no more than 100 words" for Proposal D as directed by Cox. Instead, at the last minute, council chose to debate state law and whether the proposal is consistent with the state's Home Rule City Act, which sets the ground rules for local governance — this despite Cox's August conclusion that Proposal D "is consistent with HRCA."

At the same meeting, David Whitaker, director of the DRA, delivered the opinion that the proposal was a revision of the city charter rather than an amendment — rhetoricians, get out your dictionaries. Eventually,Sheila Cockrel introduced, and council passed, a resolution to ask the attorney general's office to review the legality of the proposal — again.

http://www.metrotimes.com/news/story.asp?id=14388


So the Court of Appeals and State Attorney General believe the ballot language is perfectly legal.

Of course, there will likely be other legal challenges.

[Tig3rzhark]

I would like someone to explain for me, the disadvantages of having council elected by district. If you look at the current council, many city council members live in more prominent areas of the city.

[bailey]

I would like someone to explain for me, the disadvantages of having council elected by district. If you look at the current council, many city council members live in more prominent areas of the city.

I would like someone to explain for me, how all the time, effort and expense of trying to get this changed will be worth a damn if the voters in this city continue to elect corrupt buffoons [[Dearing) and lightweight rank amateurs [[Pugh).

Much ado about nothing.

[kraig]

I would like someone to explain for me, the disadvantages of having council elected by district. If you look at the current council, many city council members live in more prominent areas of the city.

That's a fair question. Let's assume that the city will operate from Prop D.

Some advantages:

Filling a vacancy of one of the Council Members elected by 1. District would only cost around $425,000.00 as opposed to the $3,000,000.00 it cost for a special election to fill an at large seat.

2. Areas that haven't had a Council Member residing there for decades will have the opportunity to have one.

3. Council Members will be empowered to address constituent concerns in their districts.

Some disadvantages.

1. No matter how much you may want to vote for a candidate, you may not be able to if that candidate is not running in your district. Unless that candidate is running for one of the at large seats.

2. Expect a big increase in City Council's budget as they may have to lease and staff district offices along with their CAYMC offices.

3. The potential for nepotism. If done like the County, outgoing Members choose their replacements. Ken Cockrel and Kwame Kenyatta both chose their wives to replace them. [[Yeah I know, they're both real stand up guys).

Those are just a few things off the top of my head. Hopefully, there will be enough public input with the Charter Commission to address a lot of road blocks that will come up. I'm also hoping that personal agendas of the Charter Commisioners don't interfere with the work that's being done on the Charter. One of the reasons districts didn't pass the first time was because the Charter Commission tried to expand, if you can believe it, City Council to 11 members. As you can guess, there were about 11 or 12 Charter Commissioners that were attempting to use their Charter Commission positions as a stepping stone to run for City Council. Which, and understandably so, probably had something to do with Detroiters for Council by Districts deciding to push for Prop D even though the Charter's going to be revised.

Other things, such as whether a district council member will be able to fill the vacancy of an at large member, will hopefully get worked out over the course of the revision.

But, what's going to matter the most, is that we choose capable leaders, as Bailey has pointed out, regardless of what kind of system we're in. Prop D has a lot of similarities with how we select our school board members. So here's a question. Are you satisfied with the Detroit School Board?

[Tig3rzhark]

I'm not satisfied at all with the school board. Nor am I satisfied with the current members of city council sans 1. It is true that no matter which system we have, whether current or by district, we have to have competent leadership. Some of our council members have already made it clear that we do not have such leadership. There is plenty of opposition from some citizens for fear that it would decrease the majority representation that the current Black majority has. Some have noted history that a district council has not worked favorably toward the interest of the minority population.

Any research on how to alleviate those fears?

[The Recycling Guy]

I think that the main reason to push for Proposal D with this urgency, is the timeline that it will take for the District initiative to take place. If Prop D passes, the 2013 election will be with Districts in place. Without Prop D, the Charter Commision can place Districts in their Charter Revision, which will be voted on in the 2013 election, and IF it passes, will allow for the Districts in the 2017 election.

Prompt change is what we need. Not a decade.

[kraig]

I'm not satisfied at all with the school board. Nor am I satisfied with the current members of city council sans 1. It is true that no matter which system we have, whether current or by district, we have to have competent leadership. Some of our council members have already made it clear that we do not have such leadership. There is plenty of opposition from some citizens for fear that it would decrease the majority representation that the current Black majority has. Some have noted history that a district council has not worked favorably toward the interest of the minority population.

Any research on how to alleviate those fears?

Learn as much as you can about the candidates. Another advantage is that you probably won't have as many as 167 candidates running in a district as you had in an at large system. Which would afford you the opportunity to attend the candidate forums and debates for your particular district. Partnering up and organizing with your neighbors to list your concerns is always a good thing. Whichever candidate appears to best address your concerns is probably the one that you want. Letting race factor into it is not a good idea. As Detroiters, on a whole, we tend to vote more against someone or something than for someone or something, and it hasn't worked out for us. What's needed is good honest leadership. In my personal opinion, one of the best Council Members this city has had was Mel Ravitz, who was a white man that did a lot in addressing the concerns of black residents. On the flip side, JoAnn Watson and Barbara Rose Collins yell the word black in every other sentence, but, once you take a hard look at what they claim to have accomplished, you realize that they haven't accomplished anything for us. Also, Monica Conyers and Lonnie Bates were always using the "look like me" line at the table. As it turns out, they were saying that just to line their own pockets.

Look at the Charter Commission. One of the candidates, Andy Linn, is white, but, campaigned in parts of Detroit that few of the other candidates set foot in. He was always well received in those areas as well. However, we as black Detroiters, wanting to vote for candidates that look like us, voted former Corporation Counsel John Johnson through to the General Election. The same John Johnson that rode shotgun while Kwame was driving the corruptionmobile through the City.

We just have to inform ourselves and vote for the best candidates. No matter who they are.

[kraig]

I think that the main reason to push for Proposal D with this urgency, is the timeline that it will take for the District initiative to take place. If Prop D passes, the 2013 election will be with Districts in place. Without Prop D, the Charter Commision can place Districts in their Charter Revision, which will be voted on in the 2013 election, and IF it passes, will allow for the Districts in the 2017 election.

Prompt change is what we need. Not a decade.

That is an extremely valid point. Good post.

[detourdetroit]

I completely agree with the recycling guy. Detroiters must act boldly and with urgency to right this ship we're in. I also completely agree with Kraig that we must do our best to educate ourselves on the best candidates for the job. We've made some real bad choices in the past few years. So it's true, no system whether all districts...all at large...or hybrid is perfect. In the end it's about the people. Like Charlton Heston once said in horror, "Soylent Green, er.. I mean City Council is People." But I digress...

In terms of Prop D specifically, it's conceivable that the original language could have been vetted more thoroughly. However, what drew me and others to the cause was that Prop D's intent couldn't be simpler or clearer: LET DETROITERS VOTE FOR DISTRICTS. And so often in these situations, there is a realization that if you really want to make change, it will likely get messy and meet with resistance. We were prepared for paper cuts and have so far negotiated the rapids intact.

Is it any surprise whatsoever that the powers that be have tried to poke holes in this from the beginning? If it wasn't "these" words that were deemed "fatally flawed" it could just as easily been "those" words. RAD works for City Council...hmmm.... Some might argue that Corp. Counsel leadership of late hasn't exactly had the best interests of Detroiters in mind. Council sat on their hands for weeks to fix what they deemed broken. They officially skirted their duty last week and this week only served to underscore their status as an ineffective body, grandstanding and hedging while the Court of Appeals took 30 minutes in their final deliberation before reaching a conclusion. It may be true that some on council acted in good faith to work towards a solution, but in the end they only have themselves to blame for not acting more expeditiously.

In terms of future suits, besides being a further drain on Detroit's resources, we'll cross that unfortunate bridge if we have to. In the meantime, as of yesterday, Prop D is headed for the ballot. In terms of district boundaries for city council, who would YOU want drawing the borders? The City Council? It may be interpreted that way by HRCA, but it would seem to me to be a clear conflict of interest to have council drawing its own lines. Call me crazy, but the election commission would seem to be far less politically inclined. Also it will be based on a new census in 2010, which will likely give us a different baseline from which to work.

It's true Detroiters for Council by Districts based its assumptions on the School Board districts for legal reasons. But besides the physical boundary similarities, the comparison really ought to end there. School Board and Council are two largely ineffective bodies, but their roles and responsibilities are quite different.

And this is where the Charter Commission comes in. They'll be in a much better place with Prop D on the books. Instead of wasting precious time arguing about whether we should or should not have districts, they'll be arguing about the best path to districts. They can discuss the nature of the beast...district and at-large totals...boundaries...roles and responsibilities...leadership...and power. A vote for Prop D will make their time much more effective and will give us all a starting position that represents a mandate from the people of Detroit.

Godspeed Prop D.

[detourdetroit]

And PS - As Kraig rightly suggests, this is all the more reason to make sure our new crop of council people and charter review commissioners are up to task. This is a vital election and we can't afford any more mistakes...