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

[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.

[bailey]

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.

[jaytheory]

...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.

Not the same thing. when turning 21 there is only one event to mark that event. in this case there are two dates, his filing and the deadline. Michigan law does not state by the age of 21 it states any minor cannot purchase or posses alcohol so that is different from the charter and residency requirements.

[bailey]

Not the same thing. when turning 21 there is only one event to mark that event. in this case there are two dates, his filing and the deadline. Michigan law does not state by the age of 21 it states any minor cannot purchase or posses alcohol so that is different from the charter and residency requirements.

Well, you're taking that out of context. The issue I was responding to was the position that minimum standards are not bright lines and he was really close...so no harm no foul. I was simply stating we have lots of things where"almost" or "close enough" is not a defense.

On the issue you raised; that is the debate ins't it? the Charter says for Detroit office it's, " at time of filing" . State election law says "by the filing deadline". The charter could have used the state law language, they didn't- which created the "confusion" over reading literal terms literally.

[mam2009]

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?

[Jason]

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.

[Wesley Mouch]

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

But it said 500.

[artds]

To mam2009:

Your high school analogy doesn't quite track the facts here. A better analogy would be as follows: your teacher gives you a take-home test and tells you that you need to turn it in on May 15th if you want to participate in the graduation cermony on May 30th. You get a jump on things and turn it in early on May 10th instead. Should you be prohibited from graduating because you didn't turn your test in ON May 15th like the teacher instructed? Or is it reasonable to interpret the teacher's instruction to mean that it needs to be tirned in BY May 15th? To answer that question, you need to consider whether there is any conceivable policy reason that would cause your teacher to not accept your test prior to May 15th, or if such a hard date requirement would be arbitrary. If the latter, then the reasonable interpretation is that turning it any time on or before May 15th is acceptable. Likewise, no public policy is served by requiring Duggan to sit on his signatures for two weeks before turning them in. Such a requirement would be arbitrary. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the 1-year requiremt to mean that you must be a resident for 1 year by the DEADLINE for filing, and not by the date you happen to send a runner down to the election office to turn in the signatures you collected. Think about how ridiculous the cure for such a defect would be: had this issue became known prior to the deadline for filing, Duggan could have cured it by having the election office give him his signatures back two weeks after he filed them, then literally hand them right back to the election officials two seconds later in order to comply with this arbitrary requirement to not turn in your paperwork too early. If you can think of a single conceivable public policy that would be served by such a rule, I'm all ears. Bottom line: this decision should be overturned, and there's a very good chance it will be.

[corktownyuppie]

To mam2009:

Your high school analogy doesn't quite track the facts here. A better analogy would be as follows: your teacher gives you a take-home test and tells you that you need to turn it in on May 15th if you want to participate in the graduation cermony on May 30th. You get a jump on things and turn it in early on May 10th instead. Should you be prohibited from graduating because you didn't turn your test in ON May 15th like the teacher instructed? Or is it reasonable to interpret the teacher's instruction to mean that it needs to be tirned in BY May 15th? To answer that question, you need to consider whether there is any conceivable policy reason that would cause your teacher to not accept your test prior to May 15th, or if such a hard date requirement would be arbitrary. If the latter, then the reasonable interpretation is that turning it any time on or before May 15th is acceptable. Likewise, no public policy is served by requiring Duggan to sit on his signatures for two weeks before turning them in. Such a requirement would be arbitrary. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the 1-year requiremt to mean that you must be a resident for 1 year by the DEADLINE for filing, and not by the date you happen to send a runner down to the election office to turn in the signatures you collected. Think about how ridiculous the cure for such a defect would be: had this issue became known prior to the deadline for filing, Duggan could have cured it by having the election office give him his signatures back two weeks after he filed them, then literally hand them right back to the election officials two seconds later in order to comply with this arbitrary requirement to not turn in your paperwork too early. If you can think of a single conceivable public policy that would be served by such a rule, I'm all ears. Bottom line: this decision should be overturned, and there's a very good chance it will be.

Not to mention this hypothetical...what if he brought his paperwork early and asked the Clerk's office if it was ok? If the the Clerk responded in the affirmative, then how the hell do we cure this defect? Who is at fault and where should the punishment lie?

[Bham1982]

To mam2009:

Your high school analogy doesn't quite track the facts here. A better analogy would be as follows: your teacher gives you a take-home test and tells you that you need to turn it in on May 15th if you want to participate in the graduation cermony on May 30th.

That seems like a poor analogy to me.

The issue, in this case, is establishment of minimum duration of residency, as a proxy for qualification to represent Detroiters. The minimum wasn't met, so the judge threw Duggan off the ballot.

Bottom line: this decision should be overturned, and there's a very good chance it will be.

I'm no lawyer, but the legal commentators I've heard [[Charlie Langston et al) see to indicate that they agree with the decision. The intent appears to be a minimum required commitment to Detroit, determined by a specific minimum time period.

[artds]

The intent appears to be a minimum required commitment to Detroit, determined by a specific minimum time period.

And he met that minimum residency requirement well in advance of the deadline to submit your candidacy for Mayor during this election cycle.

[Bham1982]

And he met that minimum residency requirement well in advance of the deadline to submit your candidacy for Mayor during this election cycle.

No, per the ruling, he did not meet the residency requuirement, due to the filing date. He was two weeks short.

It's like applying for a job that requires a Masters, and being two weeks away from receiving one's degree. You haven't yet qualified for the job opportunity.

[artds]

No, per the ruling, he did not meet the residency requuirement, due to the filing date. He was two weeks short.

It's like applying for a job that requires a Masters, and being two weeks away from receiving one's degree. You haven't yet qualified for the job opportunity.

No, it's more like a job posting that says "Applications due on May 15th" and you turning your application in on April 2nd.

[Wesley Mouch]

Suddenly, everyone wants to follow the rules.

Why just yesterday, everyone wanted to toss out the EFM rules because they limit democracy.

Today, they want to limit democracy because of rules.

[artds]

LOL, I just read Duggan's Supreme Court brief that mam2009 posted, and I can't help but wonder if the good lawyers at Honigman who are representing Duggan might have read this thread and "borrowed" the analogy I used to illustrate the absurdity of the trial Judge's ruling.

Here's my post dated June 11th:

To mam2009:

Think about how ridiculous the cure for such a defect would be: had this issue became known prior to the deadline for filing, Duggan could have cured it by having the election office give him his signatures back two weeks after he filed them, then literally hand them right back to the election officials two seconds later in order to comply with this arbitrary requirement to not turn in your paperwork too early.

And here I reiterated this point on June 12th:

By accepting this judge's interpretation of the charter, you're essentially saying that you would have been satisfied if Duggan had gone back down to the Clerk's office on April 14th, asked the Clerk to hand him the signatures he already turned in, then literally handed them right back to the Clerk. Surely you see the absurdity of all this.

Now here's an excerpt from Duggan's Supreme Court brief dated June 14th:

[JBMcB]

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.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

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.

[artds]

To MikeyinBrooklyn,

Sometimes the law is vague and subject to varying interpretations, and sometimes literal interpretations would lead to an absurd result. This is why we have judges to interpret the law and determine what the legislative intent was. Take if you will a law that says "No animals shall be allowed in public buildings." Pretty straight forward, right? Well, taken literally, this law would exclude human beings from public buildings, since human beings are animals, after all. But that interpreation would lead to an absurd result. If we delve into the intent of the legislative body that enacted the law, I'm sure we would find that they did not intend to exclude human beings from public buildings. I'm sure we'd also find that they did not intend for the law to encompass seeing eye dogs. This of course is a overly simplistic example, but it illustrates the point.