Appeals court throws RMGN of 2010 off ballot

But, IS it dead? (4.00 / 2)

Does it get appealed to the State Supreme Court?  That's actually an EXTREMELY interesting question, since Mike Hodge, who represents both the MDP and the Faux Tea Parry, seems to be in a position where vigorously advocating the claims of the latter group might expose the former group to a hazardous situation: forcing the brand new 4-3 majority on the court to become involved in a messy political battle and potentially hand the Republicans a powerful campaign issue to use this fall against Davis and Stephens.

That conflict between the interests of two different clients would seem to call for Hodge to back away from the case - as long as we assume Faux Tea has interests separate from those of the MDP.  Which - of course - we believe.

---

by: Grebner @ Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 17:29:26 PM UTC

Who is Stephens? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: memiller @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 12:44:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry, I missed the signal from the catcher. (0.00 / 0)

Resulting in a wild pitch.  "Morris" I meant.  You know, our other nominee.

---

by: Grebner @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 13:32:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good riddance (4.00 / 2)

As you noted, it was a cute idea (by whatever non-Dem came up with it), and called the teabaggers' bluff about their claims of "independence", but it quickly became just another bit of annoying clutter gunking up the campaign.

---

by: Brainwrap @ Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 17:29:29 PM UTC

How much did it cost? I'm glad you asked. (4.00 / 2)

PPC would have charged $150,000 to $200,000 to collect the signatures.  How much it cost the mysterious organizers is another question.  Drafting the petition would have cost something, especially since Hodge isn't known to come cheap.  Holding the "convention" seems not to have been financially burdensome, since Hodge says he only mailed three copies of the call, and the event seems to have required seating for only a dozen people.  There's no indication of lengthy debate, either.

 

---

by: Grebner @ Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 17:37:14 PM UTC

The real cost was the collateral damage to election law. (4.00 / 3)

I haven't read the order, but it was described by a reporter as "brief" and "cryptic".  In any event, it apparently created a new power in the Board of Canvassers to reject petittions which contain trivial discrepancies.  

If failing to capitalize "the" is grounds for rejection, no petition is likely to be immune.  The supposed reservation of the right to initiate legislation by popular vote will be in danger until/unless the courts manufacture a counter-loophole.  Anybody who has believed we conduct elections under a clear and neutral system of law should look at this case and realize we're all being taken for fools.

---

by: Grebner @ Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 17:45:28 PM UTC

If I was on the court (0.00 / 0)

I would want to find some other pretense to keep the "tea party" off of the ballot and throw out the rule created by the court of appeals.

---

by: aasnider @ Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 18:29:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As I said earlier at BFM: (4.00 / 1)

It clearly was a dirty trick, and just as clearly ends up hurting us in the court that really matters - the court of public opinion - much more than it could ever have helped us, even had it been successful. It feeds the meme of: "HOW desperate are the Democrats? SO desperate that..." So this effort pulls off the trifecta of being stupid, evil, AND illegal (with respect to the forged affadavits of identity, at least), which is quite a feat.

On the other hand, is that really the best the Appeals Court could come up with? Really? I'm just imagining how upset I would be if a real, legitimate party - even one I did not support - went to the trouble of collecting enough ballot signatures only to be told, "Sorry! Your font sizes are not up to snuff."

I think that the Appeals Court intends citizens to read between the lines, and realize that this is just a convenient excuse to dispose of what everyone understands is an invalid effort. But another word for that sort of argument is hypocrisy. Does using this sort of excuse build respect for the rule of law?

---

by: memiller @ Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 19:01:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's an argument to put away for when you need it. (4.00 / 1)

Michigan election law specifies type sizes for various parts of petitions.  Those requirements were easy to follow when type was set by hand, or by linotype.  All you had to do was physically pick the right font, and since fonts were clearly labeled, there weren't any borderline questions.

Now everything is composed digitally, but the margins are resized by the interaction of Windows, Word, and the laser printer.  And there may be a round or two of photocopying as well.  It must occasionally happen that type is shrunk by 5% or 10% in the process, at least on some sheets.  If capitalizing "the" is enough to block a political party, what will happen when 11 point type is discovered, where 12 point was required?  Just a thought to be filed away, for use in a jam.

---

by: Grebner @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 06:10:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The more I read about the COA decision, (4.00 / 1)

the more confused I am.

The Free Press says:

A three-judge panel of the court said elections officials were not required to honor the request because the Tea Party ... had not strictly adhered to election law in the nomination of its slate of candidates.

Elsewhere, I've read that it was based on font sizes, still elsewhere, because the word "the" in "the Tea Party" was not capitalized!

So I just now looked at the order - not even an opinion - and all it says is:

In light of plaintiff's failure to strictly comply with MCL 168.685(4), plaintiff fails to establish a clear legal duty on the part of defendant to certify the petition.

Now, the defendant is the Secretary of State. The cited paragraph reads:

(4) The balance of the petition form shall be substantially as set forth in section 544c. The size of all organizing petitions shall be 8-1/2 inches by 13 inches and shall be printed in the following type sizes: The words "petition to form new political party" and the name of the proposed political party shall be in 24-point boldface type; the word "warning" and the language contained in the warning shall be in 12-point boldface type.

So, unless the COA is referring back to 544c, they really are hanging their collective hats on font sizes, which means this is not something to be tucked away for future reference!

---

by: memiller @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 12:14:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Or, upon reflection, it could be based on: (0.00 / 0)

...the name of the proposed political party shall be ...

, hence, the reported capitalization issue. There is no clue in the order itself. Perhaps if you were in the courtroom to hear the argument, one might have a clue.

Just another reason why I never became a lawyer!

---

by: memiller @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 12:30:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The crux of the argument, such as it is. (0.00 / 0)

I think the Republicans on the Board of Canvassers seized on the question whether the official name of the Faux Tea party is "Tea Party" or "The Tea Party".  Apparently, Hodge wasn't careful to stick with one form or the other, but allowed his usage to vary from one appearance of the name to the next.  If the official name included "The", that word should have been set in 24 point type on the petition.

We might contrast this fastidiousness with our own political party, which was referred to variously and interchangeably as "the Democrats" or "the Republicans" during its first forty years - until another party was formed and grabbed the second version for itself.

Or The New York Times, which wasn't always sure whether its name included "The" or whether the city might not be spelled "New-York" during its first 50 years.

---

by: Grebner @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 13:48:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree with Grebner's point (0.00 / 0)

---

by: NoviDemocrat @ Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 20:46:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It will be appealed to the Supreme Court (4.00 / 1)

I got an e-mail from Michael Hodge and this will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

---

by: bfealk @ Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 18:41:49 PM UTC

That may result in putting the four Dems on the spot. (4.00 / 1)

I can imagine this whole thing blowing up in a ghastly way, with Republicans making any prompt ruling by the Supremes into a campaign issue, complete with frantic hysterical claims that Davis is in the pocket of Acorn, Soros, and MichiganLiberal.com.  (Someday, I hope, Eric will be elevated to the axis of liberal evil.)

If the Court of Appeals is overturned, I'll be surprised if the vote isn't exactly 4-3.  The fact their order SHOULD be overturned, by the application of any reasonable set of legal principles, won't faze the "strict constructionists".

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.  One possibility might be to accept the appeal and reverse the Court of Appeals in due course - but long after the ballot is printed without Faux Tea, and when the issue is effectively moot.

---

by: Grebner @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 05:58:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Or, remand to COA (0.00 / 0)

and say, basically, "Come up with a better reason to keep them off."

---

by: memiller @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 12:26:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Grow a pair (4.00 / 2)

Look, this is what happens every time there is a supposed scandal on the Democratic side, we go into a defensive crouch.

Republicans helped Ralph Nader get on the ballot and the Republicans never flinched.

This is not "clearly" a dirty trick.  No one has connected this to the Democratic party.  

This so-called fake tea party is more real than the real tea partiers.  They held a convention, filed candidate affidavits, filed articles of incorporation, etc.  

Sounds pretty "real" to me.  The tea party says they invite Democrats into their fold, so why shouldn't they be on the ballot with candidates of any stripe?

I hate when Democrats are always playing defense.  You can't win unless you play offense.

---

by: bfealk @ Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 20:46:54 PM UTC

This was a stupid, poorly executed scandal, that's why (4.00 / 4)

Is a little competence too much to ask for?  They did the equivalent of signing dead men up to run for public office. I mean, they couldn't find real, live people in those districts who'd be willing to put their names on the ballot (hell, if they'd offered my a six pack of beer and to cover all relevant fees, I'd have let them use my name).

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 21:48:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Grow some ethics (0.00 / 0)

You know that this was the Democrats, I know this was the Democrats, everybody knows this was the Democrats. This kind of trick laughs in the face of voters and mocks democracy itself.

---

by: aasnider @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 13:18:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Meh (3.25 / 4)

When the other guy stabs me, I'm inclined to escalate to a firearm. Ethics are neat, tidy, and useless, and I'm sick of fighting with one hand behind the back. The Tea Party trick would have been the best thing the MDP did in years if it had only done it correctly.

---

by: countvonbob @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 14:56:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As about as effective (4.00 / 1)

as the dumb ass ballot initiatives that were pushed forward the last election cycle.

But everyone thinks Brewer is a star...we need new blood at the top.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 03:48:26 AM UTC

Somewhere I read that (0.00 / 0)

the list of candidates must be finalized by Friday (i.e. tomorrow) in order for County Clerks to begin the process of making up ballots, which need to be sent to municipal clerks to be proofed, then returned, then printed, then distributed, etc. - before absentee ballots can begin to be sent out in about two weeks.

I suppose the Supreme Court can do whatever it likes, clerks be damned, but there will come a point, and sooner rather than later, when any further litigation will come at the expense of careful preparation for this election. Do we suppose that the Supremes will make an announcement soon - like, tomorrow? Or at least next week? - saying, OK, you clerks can go ahead, we're done with this?

---

by: memiller @ Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 23:35:34 PM UTC

In this case, the deadline is our friend. (4.00 / 1)

The Supremes might just take up this case in the fullness of time, maybe waiting for evidentiary hearings to be conducted, proper motions to be presented and argued before the lower court, all that sort of thing.

Then, they could sort out the limits of the Board of Canvassers' discretion, how rigorous the review of petitions' composition should be, even exactly what steps went into the creation of the Faux Tea Party.  (Or "The Faux Tea Party", perhaps.)

It would be in everybody's best interest, I think, to deal with this in proper time.  The Republicans would be spared the bogus party on the ballot this year.  The Democrats would be spared the creation of a campaign issue that could undo Betty Weaver's kind gift to them.  The voters would be spared useless distraction, at a time their attention is being sorely tested anyway.  And Mark Brewer (who is not involved, and doesn't have any concern either way) would have been protected from harming himself.

Even Mike Hodge and John Pirich would be well served, since the case could drag on for a couple years, and their fees could eventually run into six figures.

What's not to like?

---

by: Grebner @ Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 02:42:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Michigan Supreme Court granted your wish. (0.00 / 0)

Examiner.com: Michigan Supreme Court declares no room for Tea Party on November ballot
By Vince Lamb, Washtenaw County Elections 2010 Examiner

With today's 5-2 decision, the Michigan Supreme Court has ended the efforts of an entity calling itself the The Tea Party to put 23 candidates on the ballot, including five who would have appeared on Washtenaw County ballots.

All three of the justices nominated by Republicans, Maura D. Corrigan, Stephen J. Markman, and Robert P. Young, Jr., voted to deny The Tea Party's appeal of a ruling by the State Court of Appeals not to override the failure of the Board of State Canvassers to rule on the sufficiency of The Tea Party's petition to get on the ballot, preventing the entity from being officially recognized and having its candidates placed on the ballot.

Joining Corrigan, Markman, and Young were Michael F. Cavanagh and Alton Thomas Davis, both of whom were nominated by Democrats, producing a bipartisan majority.  Voting to allow the appeal were Chief Justice Marilyn Kelly and Diane M. Hathaway.

The majority admitted that The Tea Party has a right to receive an official declaration from the board on the sufficiency or insufficiency of its petition.  The decision also noted that the Board of State Canvassers failed to carry out its duty to The Tea Party, as the board deadlocked and did not issue an official declaration.  However, the lack of an official ruling by the board meant that there was no decision to review.

Unfortunately, the justices also noted that the court lacks any mechanism to enforce any order requiring the board to do its job.  They concluded that the process needs to be corrected, but since it was not within the power of the court, there was no point in hearing the appeal.

More at the source, including a list of candidates thrown off the ballot in Washtenaw County, Michigan, and the connections between The Tea Party and local Democratic officials in SE Michigan.  Folks, if you're going to pull a prank on the local GOP, this is an object lesson on how not to do it.

I don't think I'll reblog this article.  Instead, I'm going to post a macro that best sums up my reaction to this story.

To quote Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about it.

Greetings from Detroit, Ground Zero of the post-industrial future!

---

by: Neon Vincent @ Sat Sep 04, 2010 at 14:58:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]