|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
RACHEL GOT SUCH A HUGE RESPONSE FROM THIS STORY SHE DECIDED TO PLACE THE VIDEO AND THE TRANSCRIPT ON THE RACHEL MADDOW BLOG. SHE WILL UPDATE THE STORY MONDAY NIGHT ON MSNBC AT 9 PM AND MIDNIGHT.
Here again is our Thursday segment on what's happening in Michigan, where Republicans control the governorship and both chambers of the legislature.
In a nutshell, the story is that the Michigan Constitution requires that bills wait until the end of the session -- essentially, the end of the calendar year -- plus 90 days before becoming law. You can, however, put a bill into effect immediately, provided you have a two-thirds majority in both chambers. Republicans have that super-majority in the Senate, but not in the House. Yet they appear to have given nearly every bill since they took over in January 2010 immediate effect.
Michigan Republicans have applied immediate effect even to legislation Democrats have opposed in a block, from taking away domestic partner benefits (pdf) to blocking the expansion of union rights (pdf) to the souped-up emergency manager law (pdf) that lets the state replace elected officials with managers who have unilateral control. As you can see in the clip above, the Republican speaker calls for a rising vote, waits a blink, and then gavels in his party's super-majority.
Michigan Democrats have begun using their numbers to demand a record roll call vote, as a means of trying to make Republicans prove they have the super-majorities they claim to have. They say Republicans are denying them roll call votes, and last week, they sued the House (and specifically Republican House leadership) over it. On Monday, a county judge ruled for the Democrats. Issuing a temporary injunction, he ordered the House leadership to grant the roll call votes; he also put on hold several recent bills passed improperly.
I'll add files to this post as they come in. For now, these pdfs: the Democratic brief, the temporary injunction, the House (Republican) appeal and the Democratic response. Also, the official Journal of the House (pdf) on the day Republicans attached "immediate effect" to the emergency manager law. The action is on numbered pages 209 and 210; you'll see the GOP has 62 votes, when a super-majority would be at least 73.
ADDING: Michigan Republicans have totaled up the number of bills Democrats passed under immediate effect when they were the majority and it was nearly all of them. What we don't know yet is whether the Republican minority requested roll call votes and was denied them, which is what Democrats say has been happening to them.
More on this story Friday night and next week. If you've got links to add, please drop them in the comments.
.
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Sat Apr 07, 2012 5:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
Sat Apr 07, 2012 5:29 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The Maddow Blog - About that Michigan story
maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/06/11060678-about-that-michigan-story?lite
1 day ago ... In a nutshell, the story is that the Michigan Constitution requires that bills wait until the end of the session -- essentially, the end of the calendar ...
Comments on “Rachel Maddow Eviscerates Michigan Republicans ...
www.politicususa.com/rachel-maddow-eviscerates-michigan-republicans-for-cir...
1 day ago ... Page 1 of comments on 'Rachel Maddow Eviscerates Michigan ... to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Rachel Maddow Eviscerates ...
Rachel Maddow Eviscerates Michigan Republicans for - ...
www.politicususa.com/rachel-maddow-eviscerates-michigan-republicans-...
1 day ago ... Rachel Maddow said, “Under the Michigan constitution remember again you can only .... I watched Rachel's story on Michigan with horror.
[ More results from www.politicususa.com ]
rachel-maddow.com
rachel-maddow.com/- Similarto rachel-maddow.com
Rachel Maddow twitter posts, news, blog posts, videos, etc. ... Rachel Maddow ignites growing firestorm over Republican tyranny in Michigan ... 7 Apr 2012 | 1: 27 am. By Pat Cunningham The ... See all stories on this topic » · RachelMaddow ...
Daily Kos: Mich Republicans have ILLEGALLY passed over 96 ...
www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/06/1081234/-Michigan-Republicans-have-ILLEGA...
1 day ago ... Last night, Rachel Maddow broke a huge story that has been happening since Republicans took over in Michigan in 2011 and has gone ...
Crazy Eddie's Motie News: Rachel Maddow: Michigan is now ...
crazyeddiethemotie.blogspot.com/2012/04/rachel-maddow-michigan-is-now.html
1 day ago ... Last night, Rachel Maddow teased her viewers with a political news story about Michigan that she claimed was a scoop. I thought it might be ...
Rachel Maddow on the EM Law - Michigan Rising
https://michiganrising.org/impact/video/rachel-maddow-on-the-em-law.html
Rachel Maddow story on state-appointed Emergency Financial Manager takeover of Benton Harbor, Michigan.
Rachel Maddow ignites growing firestorm over Republican ...
blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2012/04/06/rachel-maddow-ignites-growing-firesto...
1 day ago ... The story has been the big buzz on Twitter all day, after Rachel Maddow's segment on it last night… Ironically, the case centers on modification ...
Rachel Maddow Eviscerates Michigan Republicans for - In-A-Gist
inagist.com/all/188124111183167489/
1 day ago ... Rachel Maddow Eviscerates Michigan Republicans for Circumventing ... The show features Maddow's take on the biggest stories of the day, ...
Michigan Republicans Illegally Passed Over 96% of Bills Under ...
videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/michigan-republicans-illegally-pass
1 day ago ... Last night, Rachel Maddow broke a huge story that has been happening since Republicans took over in Michigan in 2011 and has gone ... |
|
|
|
Sat Apr 07, 2012 5:32 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Court grants Republicans request to reinstate laws pending legal battle with House Democrats
Published: Monday, April 09, 2012, 5:29 PM Updated: Monday, April 09, 2012, 6:19 PM
By Melissa Anders | manders@mlive.com
.
LANSING, MI — The Michigan Court of Appeals sided with House Republicans in their request to reinstate the immediate effect given to two controversial union laws.
The court on Monday overturned an injunction ordered by the Ingham County Circuit Court that stopped the immediate effect given to two recently passed laws and one pending bill.
That means the laws go back into effect while the case is argued in court.
“We are confident that the law and the facts in this case support our position that the House of Representatives has been following the Constitution and House Rules in all of our procedures,” House Speaker Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, said in a statement. “It’s too bad the House Democrats are so determined to play games and earn political points rather than work with us on the important agenda of reforming and restructuring Michigan’s economy to spur more job creation.”
Gov. Rick Snyder last month signed bills into law that prohibit school districts from deducting union dues and fees from employee paychecks and ban university research assistants from unionizing.
Both of those became effective upon Snyder’s approval in mid-March instead of waiting until 90 days after the legislature adjourns, typically at the end of the year.
House Democrats contend Republicans violated state Constitution by not granting Democrats’ request for recorded roll call votes on whether the bills should take immediate effect. Both laws were given immediate effect after a rising vote – when legislators stand to vote yes.
The case will continue to be heard in the Michigan Court of Appeals, rather than at the lower court.
“We’re disappointed with this emergency ruling, and once a full hearing has been completed, we’re confident our claims will be substantiated,” House Democratic Leader Richard Hammel, D-Mount Morris Township, said in a statement.
House Republicans were hoping for a ruling on Monday in order to prevent the Michigan Employment Relations Commission from revisiting the issue of university student research assistants’ ability to unionize. MERC plans to meet on Tuesday.
Related: MSNBC's Rachel Maddow gets traction and criticism for her take on Michigan political battle
Email Melissa Anders at manders@mlive.com. Follow her on Twitter: @MelissaDAnders. |
|
|
|
Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:48 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
George April 09, 2012 at 7:01PM
Follow on M-Live
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(vgwyo5iskk233oqg2heh4y55))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Article-IV-27
Here is the text of Article IV, Section 27 of the Michigan Constitution:
"No act shall take effect until the expiration of 90 days from the end of the session at which it was passed, but the legislature may give immediate effect to acts by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to and serving in each house."
The Court of Appeals and/or the Michigan Suoreme Court would have to basically overrule decades of constitutional and statutory interp relation rules to find what the GOP majority is don't to be constitutional based upon the plain and unambiguous langue of the provision cited above.
That's why if they do - it would be a highly partisan decision and not based upon any legal principle. It would be especially egregious force current conservative majority of the Supreme Court, given their adherence to a strict textual analysis of statutes and constitutional provisions. |
|
|
|
Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:50 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow gets traction and criticism for her take on Michigan political battle
Published: Monday, April 09, 2012, 3:06 PM Updated: Monday, April 09, 2012, 5:37 PM
By Melissa Anders | manders@mlive.com
Update: Court grants Republicans request to reinstate laws pending legal battle with House Democrats
LANSING, MI — A legal fight between Michigan House Democrats and Republicans caught the attention of MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, but she's getting criticized for skewing the facts.
Michigan’s representatives are in court over the political process used to give two recently passed laws and one bill immediate effect.
Maddow blasted House Republicans, saying they circumvented democracy by tacking on immediate effect to bills despite Democrats’ opposition.
“Never mind your little democratic process, the Republicans are in charge now,” she said during her show on Thursday.
The video of that segment has been all over blogs, not to mention Twitter and Facebook - from people worked up on both sides of the aisle.
Some criticized Maddow for making it look like giving bills immediate effect is a new tactic used by Republicans, even though Democrats also have passed bills with immediate effect. As with many political battles, it's more complicated than that. The current legal issue focuses on the legislative process used to give a bill immediate effect.
"It is unfortunate that the House Democrats and Rachel Maddow would seek to trash the integrity of an institution like the Michigan House of Representatives in an attempt to score political points and please the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party in an election year,” House Speaker Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, said in a statement. “It would seem the liberal sour grapes have resulted in an overflowing dose of whine.”
The lawsuit deals with two recently passed laws that prohibit school districts from deducting union dues and fees from employee paychecks and ban university research assistants from unionizing. (Fun fact: You'll see MLive reporter Dave Murray's story on the issue around minute 5:40 on Maddow's segment).
The suit also covered a House bill that would prohibit Michigan residents from circulating ballot petitions without approval of the Board of State Canvassers.
House Democrats contend that House Republicans violated the state Constitution by ignoring their request for a record roll call vote over whether to give the bills immediate effect. Ingham County Circuit Court Judge Clinton Canady III last week granted the Dems’ request for a preliminary injunction to prevent the laws from taking immediate effect.
House Republicans appealed and argued that they were simply following longstanding House practices, and that using a roll-call vote on immediate effect is the exception, not the norm. Republicans have asked the Michigan Court of Appeals to rule on the case by the end of business on Monday.
Unless the legislature calls for immediate effect, Michigan laws don’t go into effect until 90 days after the legislature adjourns, typically at the end of the year.
But most bills passed under the current GOP majority, as well as during Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s Democratic-led House, have bypassed the waiting period and gone into immediate effect.
Democrats reported that of the 566 bills passed in the House since January 2011, 546 were given immediate effect.
Conversely, in the 2009-2010 session (when the Democrats led the House), 744 of the 761 bills passed in the House, or 98 percent, had immediate effect, according to House Republicans. A recorded roll-call vote was taken only twice on immediate effect, they said.
But MichiganLiberal.com points out that during that time, Republicans led the Senate, so bills were more likely to have bi-partisan support than they would now under both chambers controlled by the GOP.
The lawsuit focuses on the voting procedure used to arrive at immediate effect.
House Democrats requested a recorded roll call vote on whether the bills should take immediate effect. Instead, both were given immediate effect by way of rising vote - when lawmakers stand to vote yes.
Two-thirds of the House must support giving it immediate effect, but Republicans do not comprise 2/3 of the chamber. House Democrats argued that House Republicans violated the state Constitution, which requires a “record of the vote and name of the members of either house voting on any question shall be entered in the journal” if 20 percent of the House requests such a vote.
Republicans argued that the Democrats requested a roll call vote in writing, but “…the longstanding practice of the House is to recognize only oral motions for a roll call vote.”
Email Melissa Anders at manders@mlive.com. Follow her on Twitter: @MelissaDAnders. |
|
|
|
Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:53 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Republicans Embarrass Michigan on National Stage
Progress michigan
By Joshua Pugh on April 6, 2012 9:25 AM
Last night you may have seen a surprisingly long segment on the Rachel Maddow Show devoted to the controversy surrounding "immediate effect" in the Michigan House. It's a complex issue, but that doesn't make the Republicans' egregious abuses of power any less outrageous.
Under the Michigan Constitution, bills are not supposed to go into effect until after the close of the current legislative session. This was intentionally designed as a check on the power of the Legislature, with the exception that if laws need to be implemented quickly in an emergency, they can take "immediate effect" with the consent of two-thirds of the body.
Republicans, who don't have a two-thirds majority in the state House, have been giving nearly every bill "immediate effect" in order to address very serious emergencies like graduate students attempting to form a union and denying the Democrats their opportunity to have their votes counted in opposition to this.
Out of 566 bills passed by the Michigan state House since January 2011, 546 have been given immediate effect. This represents 96 percent of all bills passed, including Republicans' unprecedented expansion of the powers of emergency managers and a bill that made it more difficult to collect petition signatures to get any issue on the ballot.
Maddow rightly calls this "the most radical thing that Republicans have done in the country." This from a caucus who cites "responsible leadership" as one of their three guiding principles. It truly defies parody. Please watch the clip below and check out the reactions to the show we've gathered from social media - and stay tuned for updates on how you can get involved in fighting back against these abuses of power in 2012. |
|
|
|
Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:25 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
@ProgressMich
Corporate Backers quit ALEC, Lansing politicians should follow suit
By Joshua Pugh on April 10, 2012 9:52 AM
We’ve written in this space about the controversial American Legislative Exchange Council several times before, but in recent weeks their organization has faced renewed scrutiny. This is in part thanks to revelations that they have worked diligently (and secretly) to pass “Kill-At-Will” laws like Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law that let Trayvon Martin’s killer go free, union-busting laws like in Wisconsin, and voter suppression efforts across the country.
ALEC is not just another conservative advocacy outfit. An estimated 98 percent of their funding comes from big corporations, not grassroots members. Corporate lobbyists write ALEC “model legislation” and then send these bills off to state capitols around the country - including to Republican politicians in Lansing, several of whom were caught last year paying their ALEC dues with taxpayer funds.
Laws are supposed to protect our rights and help keep us safe - that’s just common sense. In the wildest example of an ALEC bill designed to do nothing more than protect its corporate benefactors, Rep. Joe Haveman, who represents the safest Republican seat in the state House, introduced and passed an ALEC model bill that released a Pennsylvania corporation from liability for making workers sick by asbestos exposure. Attempting to defend his copied-and-pasted legislation from the single media outlet that questioned him on it, Rep. Haveman said it shows that Michigan is “open for business.”
This is unacceptable. Sign our petition - demand that Republican politicians withdraw from ALEC immediately.
So far, progressive activists have been able to convince Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, Intuit, Inc., and the Gates Foundation to stop funding ALEC. Turns out their far-right agenda doesn’t look very good when a little transparency is introduced.
Republican politicians in Lansing have proved again and again that they are far more concerned with protecting their corporate lobbyist buddies than creating jobs or adopting real reforms that would protect Michiganders and help preserve our rights. Now it’s time for us to fight back. Sign our petition and demand that Republicans in Lansing cut off the flow of special favors and easy access for this corporate front group immediately.
Note: list of lawmakers with ALEC ties below.
Michigan House of Representatives
•Rep. Dave Agema (R-74) - paid ALEC dues with taxpayer funds in 2008. Sponsored House Bill 4305 (2011). Compare to ALEC’s model “No Sanctuary Cities for Illegal Immigrants Act.”
•Rep. Judson Gilbert (R-81) - paid ALEC dues with taxpayer funds in 2005 while a state senator.
•Rep. Gail Haines (R-43) - Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force.
•Rep. Ken Horn (R-94) - paid ALEC dues with taxpayer funds in 2011.
•Rep. Eileen Kowall (R-44) - paid ALEC dues with taxpayer funds in 2011.
•Rep. Kenneth Kurtz (R-58 ) - Health and Human Services Task Force.
•Rep. Matthew Lori (R-59) - Health and Human Services Task Force.
•Rep. Pete Lund (R-36) - Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force.
•Rep. Tom McMillin - sponsored House Bill 4050 (2011) and House Bill 4453 (2011). Compare to ALEC’s model “Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act” and “Competitive Contracting of Public Services Act.”
•Rep. Aric Nesbitt (R-80) - Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force.
•Rep. Amanda Price (R-89) - Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force.
•Rep. Mike Shirkey - paid ALEC dues with taxpayer funds in 2011.
Michigan Senate
•Former Sen. Jason Allen (R-37) - paid ALEC dues with taxpayer funds in 2006. Former ALEC State Chairman for Michigan. Currently is the Senior Deputy Director for Veterans Affairs at the Dept. of Military and Veterans Affairs.
•Former Sen. Patricia Birkholz (R-24) - paid ALEC dues with taxpayer funds in 2005. Currently is the director of the Michigan Office of the Great Lakes.
•Sen. Darwin Booher (R-35) - paid ALEC dues with taxpayer funds in 2005, 2007 and 2009 while a state representative.
•Sen. Bruce Caswell (R-16) - Health and Human Services Task Force.
•Sen. Mike Green (R-31) - paid ALEC dues with taxpayer funds in 2011.
•Sen. Goeff Hansen (R-34) - paid ALEC dues with taxpayer funds in 2005, 2007 and 2009 while a state representative.
•Sen. Dave Hildenbrand (R-29) - paid ALEC dues with taxpayer funds in 2005, 2007 and 2009 while a state representative, and in 2011 while a state senator.
•Sen. Rick Jones (R-24) - paid ALEC dues with taxpayer funds in 2005 while a state representative.
•Sen. Mike Kowall (R-15) - paid ALEC membership dues with taxpayer funds in 2009 while a state representative, and in 2011 while a state senator.
•Sen. Arlan Meekhof (R-30) - paid ALEC dues with taxpayer funds in 2009 while a state representative.
•Sen. John Moolenar (R-36) - paid ALEC dues with taxpayer funds in 2005 and 2007 while a state representative.
•Sen. Mike Nofs (R-19) - paid ALEC dues with taxpayer funds in 2008 while a state representative.
•Sen. David Robertson (R-26) - paid ALEC dues with taxpayer funds in 2005.
•Sen. Tonya Schuitmaker (R-20) - ALEC State Chairman for Michigan, Civil Justice Task Force |
|
|
|
Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:31 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Rachel Maddow To Michigan Republicans: 'Bring It On' (VIDEO)
The Huffington Post | By Katherine Fung Posted: 04/10/2012 12:00 pm Updated: 04/11/2012 1:38 pm
Rachel Maddow issued an intense challenge to critics of her recent report about Republican tactics in the Michigan state legislature on Monday night.
On Friday, Maddow delivered a "scoop" on Michigan Republicans' use of the immediate-effect clause. State law requires laws to go into effect ninety days after the end of each legislative session, unless a two-thirds vote calls for the law to take immediate effect. She reported that Republicans have illegally invoked the clause without having a majority in the House.
Conservatives promptly denounced the story, pointing out that Democrats have also used the immediate-effect clause.
On Tuesday, Maddow conceded that she should have noted that point. But the MSNBC host argued that what the Republicans were doing was drastically "different" than what Democrats had done. She replayed a clip of the House Speaker noting 73 Republicans present, and ignoring a Democrat's call for a count.
"It's one thing to glance around the room, assume you've got your supermajority and bang, gavel it through," Maddow said. "It's another thing to refuse to check your count when the minority side calls you out for the fact that you seem to be lying about that count."
She also expressed alarm at the state of Michigan politics, alleging that citizens are being "stripped" of their voting rights. She issued a fierce message to her critics.
"On a personal note, I have to say I am more inclined than ever to stay on this story," she said. "I think something is going on Michigan that's not going on anywhere else in the country, and it deserves a lot more attention than it's getting."
"But also, turns out your insults make me stronger," she continued. "Bring it on, keep shooting the messenger."
Related on HuffPost:
Rachel Maddow on the job |
|
|
|
Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:21 pm |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
| Isn't Radical Madcow still campaigning to have Bush tried for "war crimes"? |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:05 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
| Dave-You are so Republican! |
|
|
|
Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:21 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
BREAKING: Major conflict of interest for elections panel member reviewing Emergency Manager petition challenge
By Eclectablog on April 10, 2012in Emergency Manager Law, GOPocrisy
Conflict of interest much?
As I have been reporting on (HERE and HERE), the effort to repeal Public Act 4 — Michigan’s Emergency Manager law — is being challenged by a group called Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility. The group is asking elections officials — the Board of State Canvassers — to throw out all of the petitions because the heading is in the wrong font despite the fact that the petition printer’s affidavit says it is in the correct font. The challenge will be heard later this month by the Board. And one member of the panel has a major conflict of interest.
Citizen’s for Fiscal Responsibility is, as Michigan Radio reported yesterday, headed up by a guy named Bob LaBrant. Labrant, a retired head of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, currently works as the Senior Counsel for Sterling Corporation.
The Sterling Corporation also runs a group called Michigan Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility. Not the Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility. The MICHIGAN Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility. Two different groups. According to the Michigan Radio piece, LaBrant says that’s just a remarkable coincidence. Right. Sure it is.
As it turns out, Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility shares an address with Sterling Corporation. In other words, they are basically one in the same or, perhaps more accurately, if you include Michigan Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility, THREE in the same. One of the partners at Sterling Corporation is a guy named Jeff Timmer.
In addition to his position with Sterling Corporation, Jeff Timmer is also one of four members of the Michigan Board of State Canvassers, one of two Republicans on the bipartisan panel. As I said at the beginning, this is the group that will make a decision on whether or not Stand Up For Democracy’s petitions will be thrown out on a font size technicality. In other words, one of the people on the panel that will decide whether or not to throw out over 225,000 petition signatures is part of the same group that filed the complaint in the first place and is actively working against the repeal of Public Act 4.
According to elections officials, Timmer will decide for himself if he has a conflict of interest and must recuse himself, leaving a 2-to-1 Democratic majority on the panel.
So the question is this: will Jeff Timmer, a man with a clear and blatantly obvious conflict of interest, step aside and recuse himself?
Magic Eight Ball sez: Outlook not so good.
By the way, the other Republican on the Board of State Canvassers is Norman Shinkle, Deputy Chair of the Michigan Republican Party.
[CC Facepalm image credit: Cesar Astudillo | Flickr :: CC Exclamation Point image credit Simon Adriaensen | Flickr]
Share on facebookShare on google_plusone
Share on stumbleuponShare on emailShare on printShare on redditShare on favoritesShare on gmailMore Sharing Services
Follow Eclectablog |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:55 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Opponents of Emergency Manager law repeal challenging petitions due to FONT SIZE
By Eclectablog on April 9, 2012in Emergency Manager Law, Public Act 4
FONT SIZE???!
[NOTE: This post has been updated HERE.]
In a clear act of desperation, a group opposing the repeal of Public Act 4 — Michigan’s Emergency Manager law — are challenging the petitions because they say the font size is too small.
[O]pponents of the referendum drive say they’ve found what they’re calling a “fatal error” on the petitions.
The group Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility says the petition itself is printed in the wrong type size, which is contrary to state law.
The group will ask a bipartisan state elections panel to throw out all the petitions at a hearing expected to be held later this month.
UPDATE: More from ClickOnDetroit.com:
Bob LaBrant of Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility said the petitions turned in by the pro-repeal group Stand Up for Democracy aren’t legal because the heading is printed in a type that’s smaller than required. A printer’s affidavit says the heading size is correct, but LaBrant contends that “two experienced printers” disagreed.
“It’s somewhere between 10 and 12-point, rather than the 14-point size required, he said, suggesting the type was the size generally used in the body of a letter rather than in a larger heading. Opponents also say the proposal’s summary is “incomplete and misleading” and that the petition language has other glitches.
I asked Brandon Jessup, head of the group Michigan Forward who spearheaded the effort to put the repeal on the November ballot, about this turn of events. “They are desperate,” he told me. When I asked if their challenge is legitimate, he said simply, “No.”
If the petitions were rejected due to this technicality, I fear for what might happen in our state. It’s not too hard to imagine that the response to such a blow to the repeal effort might result in a great deal of unpleasantness, potentially even violence. I hope I am wrong. |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:00 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
| TOMORROWS FLINT JOURNAL HAS A BIASED STORY ON RACHEL MADDOW AND THE REPUBLICAN COMMENTS (THE ONES NOT DELETED FOR BEING TOO REPULSIVE) ARE SHOWING HOW LIVID THEY ARE ABOUT RACHEL. |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:18 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
By Laura Conaway
-
Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:00 PM EDT.
Benton Harbor, Michigan, is getting some new outdoor sculpture. It's part of the Krasl Arts Center's 2012 Biennial Sculpture Invitational, and the guy in charge of Benton Harbor says it's OK for the sculpture to come on in.
The manager's approval matters, because he stripped the local elected officials of their power last year. Now, when the city commission needs a new mayor pro tem, he has to sign an order to make that happen. When the city commission proclaims Constitution Week, he cancels it, because the city commission hasn't got even that level of ceremonial power anymore. And when the local arts organizations want to hold a sculpture exhibit, he has to sign the order (pdf) saying yes, citing the "financial emergency" that gives him complete control.
There's a price to pay for this kind of governance. Back in October, when it looked like Benton Harbor might be getting its democracy back soon -- it's not -- Chris Savage of Eclectablog wrote:
Nothing has been done to reduce poverty. Nothing has been done to help Benton Harbor citizens to become more politically-engaged, educated or prepared to lead or even select good leaders. The systemic problems of poverty and education will continue to plague this community and there’s no reason to believe that the city won’t be right back in the same place several years from now.
And you could say that's just a Democratic activist and liberal blogger talking, but today he posts word that the former emergency manager of Pontiac, Michigan, is making essentially the same argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Stampfler says:
"I do not believe EMs can be successful -- they abrogate the civic structure of the community for a period of years then return it virtually dismantled for the community to attempt to somehow make a go of it. The program provides no structure for long term recovery, and that is why most communities slide back into trouble, if they experience any relief at all -- a vicious cycle. The Public Act is not sufficient and the state bureaucracy isn't up to a performance offering any significant success -- as can be noted from the communities repeating."
We've been wrestling with the question of what's going on in Michigan, from how the legislature is passing laws to conflicts of interest at a key elections board (Republican and Democratic.) Whatever's going on in Michigan, it does seem like the usual way is not working so great anymore. |
|
|
|
Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:27 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The Rachel Maddow Show: Democracy under threat in Michigan on ...
video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/democracy-under-threat-in-michigan/17yyd7dyj?cpkey=...
21 hours ago ... April 19: Rachel Maddow reports on yet another conflict of interest on Michigan's Board of State Canvassers, and other disturbing news in the ... |
|
|
|
Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:33 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
