Emergency Manager repeal petitions were LEGAL!

[annabanana]

Remember all those signed petitions that Michiganders sent to Pontiac that were thrown out because of FONT SIZE?

...the petitions that would have called for repeal of that grossly undemocratic Emergencgy Manager rules that allows the gov of Michigan to eliminate that pesky "democracy" in the towns and cities in fiscal trouble?

well, turns out:

Michigan elections officials had proof Emergency Manager repeal petitions were legal but kept it secret.

The Stand Up for Democracy coalition released information today that shows that Michigan elections officials had been given an expert analysis by Assistant Professor Chris Corneal of the Graphic Design in the Department of Art, Art History and Design at Michigan State University that showed the font in question was, in fact, 14-point bold as required by law. The analysis was actually REQUESTED BY THE DIRECTOR FOR ELECTIONS FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Chris Thomas.

However, Mr. Corneal’s analysis was, for some reason, never mentioned in the report given at the April 26th hearing.http://eclectablog.com/2012/05/michigan-elections-officials-had-proof-emergency-manager-repeal-petitions-were-legal-but-kept-it-secret.html

http://eclectablog.com/2012/05/michigan-elections-officials-had-proof-emergency-manager-repeal-petitions-were-legal-but-kept-it-secret.html

[catbyte]

1. Crooked bastards

This is what happens when you try to run a government like a business. YOU CAN'T DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Diane
Anishinaabe in MI & mom to Leo, Sophie, Taz & Nigel, members of Dogs Against Romney, Cat Division
"We ride inside--HISS!”

[lsewpershad]

2. What's next???

[annabanana]

3. #1 - Make sure Rachel sees this..

contact page:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/

[davsand]

4. So--the Court of Appeals said THEY don't want to hear all the evidence?

Just when I thought maybe things couldn't get much worse in Michigan, I sat down and read those articles cited in the OP. Not only was the original board flawed in the decision to disallow the petitions, now it appears that the appeals court has no interest or ability to hear about the suppression of evidence that took place in that flawed decision!


From the article:


"The Stand Up for Democracy coalition released information today that shows that Michigan elections officials had been given an expert analysis by Assistant Professor Chris Corneal of the Graphic Design in the Department of Art, Art History and Design at Michigan State University that showed the font in question was, in fact, 14-point bold as required by law. The analysis was actually REQUESTED BY THE DIRECTOR FOR ELECTIONS FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Chris Thomas.

However, Mr. Corneal’s analysis was, for some reason, never mentioned in the report given at the April 26th hearing.

Mr. Corneal has since signed a sworn affidavit that says:


1. He was asked to review the font size of the petition headline that is in dispute.

2. He determined that the font size is correct.

3. He told elections officials the font size is correct before the hearing.

The repeal opponents, namely the Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility, have been successful in getting Mr. Corneal’s affidavit and testimony quashed and the results of the expert analysis that he did at the request of the Elections Board will not be presented at the Court of Appeals hearing tomorrow that will decide the fate of the petitions. The judges ruled that it was not admissible since it was not presented at the April 26th hearing. It was not presented by the Stand Up for Democracy attorneys because they only this week learned of it and, for some reason, it was not mentioned by the elections officials even though they were the ones to request it in the first place.

Most likely, the appeals court can only rule on the procedural aspects of the original case--so if I am understanding Michigan law correctly--the appeals court has to look at what was presented in the original case and rule on that only. That is not an uncommon structure for the courts. What IS NOT making any sense to me is the decision not to allow evidence that was incorrectly disallowed in the original hearing.

Wow.



Laura

[Scuba]

5. Their lack of respect for democracy is appalling. Why aren't they being criminally charged?

[malaise]

6. OMFG - when will these fuggers be sent to

prison