OutsideLansing.com - Recent Comments

Millages are like that.. And then it gets worse....

JGillman — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:51:28 GMT

Some Kalkaska county residents wanted an ice rink/Athletic center. It was a grand a glorious design, and after a couple tries through the millage process it won 51% to 48% (or something like that) All while Busses for the their schools had been cut as well as some extra-curricular activities..

Sweet! Got a new Ice Rink!! ... umm oh yeah they needed a place to put it! And before you knew it, the local civic center (essentially a park with a meeting hall on it) was split to accommodate the newly mandated Athletic complex.

ALL RIGHT!! Lets go Skating!! oohhhh wait.. it seems the millage was for money to cover a bond for the construction (which by the way came in over budget.. surprised?) and NOT for operating costs. This of course was revealed to Joe taxpayer AFTER it was built. And... as anyone who has ever taken a kid to a hockey game could tell you, and Ice rink ain't cheap to operate.

Although I am not exactly sure how they resolved the operational costs, it certainly looks nice with all the pepsi billboards all over it.

Suns

chetly — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 02:07:43 GMT

People under-rate the Chicago Sun circulation - its a very interesting paper. I received more web-traffic from a cross-mention in them in 2003 than I did from Detroit papers. I think one my stories in 2007 also hit "blogburst" and was reposted on the Sun website (something about Traverse City millages?) and it created a burst of traffic.

Big-timing it!

Nick — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:26:16 GMT

Very nice work and congrats! Ah, I remember my moment in the Chicago Sun... good times.

Well done, sir.

--Nick
www.RightMichigan.com

Duplicates

chetly — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:47:31 GMT

Yeah, only 377 signatures were rejected under the duplicate analysis, and some of them likely overlapped with the other rejections. But even if you could get all the duplicates back, that's not enough. You must win the circulator issue to win, or pair up the 377 with another 400 miscellaneous victories, which I suspect is not likely.

Your best argument is a three-level STATE Constitutional challenge. Level one is that the state Constitution gives you a right to petition for recall calls for 25% of the registered voters in the district to sign but says nothing about circulators being in the district, which overrides any law implementing it. There's no doubt you complied with the Constitutional requirement of gathering the requisite number - you failed the statutory requirements which further proscribe how. Level two is that the State Constitution has a clause very similar to the First Amendment, but which the state courts have interpreted slightly differently. You make the circulator residency argument using the federal case law (and any Michigan stuff) here as analog. Level three is an equal-protection argument (again, both state and feds have it) -- circulator residency requirements unequally protect classes (residents and non-residents, recallees and recallers). They protect the recallee and non-resident since the recallee can hire non-residents and the recaller can't. Since its not a "suspect class" (like race), its likely to be evaluated only under the "rational basis" standard, a very hard standard to win as a plaintiff on. But really the only rational basis for the rule is to make it more difficult for your class to recall someone - which is circular.

Here's why I caution you not to go to federal court on these issues. You have unified and well-funded enemies. The case does not have a "clean set of facts." It is very complicated. The court can find many reasons to evade the case to avoid precedent, and it could find reasons to use to create bad precedent. Part of the problem with the Grutter and Gratz affirmative action cases is that they were too complicated (and the plaintiffs made them moreso by filing two cases, which allowed a "split the baby" decision that might not have occurred had Gratz alone been filed, which I believe had stronger facts given the "grid system" exposed by Carl Cohen's 1996 FOIAs). Residency is something that will be decided in the next 5-10 years though, and I'd like to see a good case set up for it. I have no real issue with you trying to win it in Michigan courts though.

Duplicates

chetly — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:26:04 GMT

I agree with you about the duplicates, however, I don't think there were enough duplicates in your effort to make a difference? Were there? If so, the duplicate issue is an interesting one to litigate, but I doubt any of these will make it in state court since you're dealing with federal issues, and that means you won't make it in time anyway.

The enviro-whackos

Nick — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:10:11 GMT

won't be happy until we're all trolling around on those fugly Segway things. Just get ready.

--Nick
www.RightMichigan.com

In pursuit of Justice

wctaxpayer — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:41:24 GMT

Rose Bogaert

vs.

Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, in her official capacity,
Andy Dillon, and Wayne County Board of Election Commissioners

On June 6, a Complaint For Writ of Mandamus was filed in the Court of Appeals to recapture signatures which are valid as found by the US Supreme Court. If found to be invalid it would would violate citizens First Amendment Rights of free speech and association. This would give us more than enough signatures to place the question on the Aug. 5th ballot.

In addition, we are also challenging the practice of throwing out both signatures when someone signs twice by accident. For years the opposition has been thought to be signing petitions more than once to throw off the count. In 1983 when we were attempting to recall Senator Patrick McCullough, we had enough signatures to recall him from office for his vote for a 38% increase in the income tax. Due to duplicate signatures, where both the original and the duplicate were thrown out, we were unable to place the recall on the ballot. We challenged it in the Court of Appeals but did not have the resources to challenge it any further. We now have the opportunity if the Court of Appeals does not drag their feet.

On the face of the petition, is this warning in bold print: "A PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY SIGNS A RECALL PETITION MORE THAN ONCE OR SIGNS A NAME OTHER THAN HIS OR HER OWN IS VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF THE MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW."

We believe that over a three month period people can honestly forget if they signed a petition. We still have the presumption of innocence in this country. We agree that one of the signatures should be discounted but only one. In any case, we should not allow the disenfranchisement of voters for political expediency. Hopefully we will prevail.

Both stories are accurate

chetly — Tue, 20 May 2008 06:54:44 GMT

Bruce, both stories accurately reported Lennox's representations as his own, whether you put your comment here or there.

In the first story, I clearly note that we should not rush to judgment and wait to see the policy - in this one, I opine, defending First Amendment rights of professors.

And since Lennox's press release is just an opinion itself - his self-attribution of credit for an action most observers could have predicted in September 2007 - its hardly possible it wasn't "true". Opinions with no factual elements are not "true" or "false" - they are what they are. And my editorial decision to relay Lennox's opinion is not something you should decide - even as I chose to relay it and disagree.

BTW, the Gongwer story is hardly a paragon of thoroughness - it covers it only from the angle of inside-Lansing (this blog is OutsideLansing!!!). While Gongwer usually does an excellent job at what they do - this does not address the policy issue still pending at CMU, and it glosses over other stuff. It's focus - naturally - is to update Lansing policy wonks about an event, in as short of a way as it can.

Tell me exactly how OutsideLansing.com got it wrong? That was your accusation.