Subverting Detroit's Vote

The Office of the Attorney General in Michigan is aligned with working toward Emergency Management. This was demonstrated in 2012 in statements regarding the referendum to Repeal the Emergency Manager Law. The referendum sought abrogation of the law. The Attorney General's opinion reduced the effect to subrogation by insisting that a replacement law for that being repealed had to be available.

The AG's opinion on Aug 6, 2012 indicated PA 72 was to be revived contradictory to MCL 8.4.1. Some would call this a zombie law because the law says once a law was repealed as PA 72 was to make way for PA 4, then it could not be revived. AG Schuette's opinion was the revivification forumla for the zombie law. The Attorney General opined that MCL § 8.4 prevents the revival of an earlier statute by repealing legislation, but not when the repeal was initiated by voter referendum: The disapproval of an act by referendum does not constitute a “legislative enactment” but rather the “disapproval” of a prior legislative enactment. Accordingly, MCL 8.4, on its face, does not apply to a referendum.

The revived law was brought to trial in April 2013. The following statement from trial records (2:13-cv-11760-GCS-RSW Doc # 19 Filed 05/15/13 Pg 6 of 11 Pg ID 271) demonstrates the intent of the public vote was ill-conceived by the court hearing the case.

The Attorney General opined that MCL § 8.4 prevents the revival of an earlier statute by repealing legislation, but not when the repeal was initiated by voter referendum:

The disapproval of an act by referendum does not constitute a “legislative enactment” but rather the “disapproval” of a prior legislative enactment. Accordingly, MCL 8.4, on its face, does not apply to a referendum.

Under this opinion the voting power of the people under a referendum does not supercede that of our elected representatives and the people thereby have no access to remove a law once enacted. Apparently once a statute has been set it can't be removed unless through our representatives. This is how AG Schuette has interpreted the intent of MCL 8.4.

The injury alleged by plaintiff is the dilution of his voting power due to defendants’ unconstitutional interpretation and application of Michigan’s anti-revival statute. Plaintiff argues that the revival of PA 72 “debased, diluted and weakened [his] vote to repeal Public Act 4 in the November, 2012 general election.” (Complaint ¶ 22). Plaintiff acknowledges that his vote was counted in the November, 2012 election. Plaintiff also acknowledges that he was aware of Schuette’s opinion regarding the permanent revival of PA 72 at the time of the election, so before he voted he knew what the outcome would be if the referendum passed. Finally, plaintiff acknowledges that he is arguing a unique impact on his vote in the form of diminished voter expectations due to the fact that the State does not agree with the position taken by the referendum.

The problem with plaintiff’s standing to bring this action is that his asserted protected interest is not “concrete and particularized.” Rather than being individually targeted, his alleged injury is shared with over two million members of the statewide electorate. It is speculative for plaintiff to argue that all of the voters expected MCL §8.4 to be applied such that the repeal of PA 4 would not revive PA 72. In light of all of political and legal maneuvering leading up to the election, which was widely covered by the press, the more likely accurate speculation is that the educated voter knew that if PA 4 was repealed PA 72 would be revived. It is reasonable to speculate that the class of voters who voted for the repeal of PA 4 knew PA 72 would be revived if they were successful, and they wanted this less intrusive statute which had been on the books since 1990, as opposed to the available alternatives included bankruptcy or PA 4.

For a host of reasons, including the ones discussed above, the court finds it unlikely plaintiff has standing to bring this case.

November 6, 2012 over 60% of Michigan voters voted NO on Proposal 1 and successfully repealed PA 4 of 2011. Michigan legislators got to work on revising a skeletal new Emergency Manager Law bill and pushed it through during the lame-duck session in December 2012, giving Michigan PA 436 signed into law by Lt Gov Calley on December 30, 2012. This new law would replace the propped up "zombie law" PA 72 on March 28, 2013. Detroit, you must understand your right to vote and to petition grievances is seriously undermined by the State of Michigan and its court system. Appealing cases up to the Federal level takes a lot of labour and manoeuvring with allies.  It takes escalating information outside the local and state viewing to national and international viewers. It takes finding allies in "unlikely places".

Get Out And Vote Detroit!

The Detroit Free Press Editorial Board published a story "Editorial: Dark money invades Detroit politics", about the Michigan Community Education Fund. The article brings forward the position that "Detroit Forward isn’t the problem. It’s just a symptom of a broken campaign finance system that abets special interests who seek to manipulate the political process without leaving fingerprints." Yes money in politics is a nuisance, but if you fail to fight back on the same ground that you're being targeted then the battle is conceded without a fight. Its a matter of equality in the system.

Section 501(c)4 of the U.S. tax code — including the provision that allows nondisclosure of donors — has been around for about a century. But in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case changed the ways in which corporations and unions can spend money in political campaigns, giving them the ability to spend directly to influence campaigns. Pair the ability to spend directly in political campaigns with the nondisclosure provision of the 501(c)4, and suddenly, that kind of nonprofit became an attractive vehicle for donors who didn’t want to be publicly associated with an issue or campaign. And in the last three years, 501(c)4s have roared into action. Gov. Rick Snyder’s New Energy to Reinvent and Diversify Fund (NERD Fund) took in $1.3 million during its first year in operation. Attorney General Bill Schuette is supported by a 501(c)4, On Duty for Michigan. --- Free Press Editorial article

Deadline Detroit also offered a story "Mike Duggan, SuperPACs And The Dawning Of The Age Of Plutocracy" about the Super PACs and their alignment with the candidates for Mayor of Detroit. The article also offers links to the campaign finance reports for Turnaround Detroit (Duggan) and Detroit Forward (Napoleon).

The era of SuperPACS in Detroit is just dawning; there is no indication that it will go away. The U.S. Supreme Court spoke forcefully in 2010 that many types of donations to political campaigns are protected by the First Amendment's free speech guarantees. As recently as Thursday, a federal appeals court struck down a law in New York state that limited contributions to independent political committees, and SuperPACs suddenly can get involved in the waning days of New York City's mayoral campaign. Similar laws in other states have been overturned. Wealthy people in metro Detroit have always had much more influence on political candidates than regular citizens, like they do everywhere. And many of the rich people and their organizations that gave to Mike Duggan stand out for being public spirited, giving generously to a variety of causes that make life better in the city and region -- even buying much-needed police cars and ambulances. --- Deadline Detroit article