• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge allows US Rep. Conyers to be on Ballot.....

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Do you think the Judge and Conyers attend the same parties and fundraisers? What do you think about this? Isn't he getting around the system knowing he didn't come up with enough signatures. Always wins with like 80% of the vote? Shouldn't they have been checking him and his numbers out all this time? What say ye?




A judge on Friday ordered U.S. Rep. John Conyers' name placed on the August primary ballot, trumping Michigan election officials who said the Democrat was ineligible because of problems with his nominating petitions.

Conyers needed 1,000 petition signatures to get a spot in the Democratic primary. But many petitions were thrown out because the people who gathered names weren't registered voters or listed a wrong registration address. That left him more than 400 short.

d6045bb4-b14f-4c45-9a47-23474631a56e.jpg


But Leitman issued an injunction putting Conyers on the ballot. He said a Michigan law that puts strict requirements on petition circulators is similar to an Ohio law that was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal appeals court in 2008.

The Michigan attorney general's office had defended the law and urged Leitman to reject Conyers' challenge. Spokeswoman Joy Yearout said the state hasn't decided whether to go to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court that struck down the Ohio law.

His petitions were challenged by the campaign of a Democratic rival, the Rev. Horace Sheffield III. A spokeswoman for the pastor sounded conciliatory after Conyers won in court.....snip~

Judge allows US Rep. Conyers to be on ballot - AP News 5/23/2014 7:02 PM
 
I live here in SE Michigan and have access to political circles. The word was out on this a week ago that this would happen. One big big reason behind it is a simply and very pragmatic one: if a known state senator or representative or political name had filed for the seat - they would have let Conyers go and the party would have switched to that person as an acceptable and viable replacement. In fact, people inside the party wanted Conyers to step down on his own and wanted his current one to be his last term. But Conyers would not go.

So the only other name filer was a complete horses ass named Horace Sheffield who is a poverty pimp minister without an ounce of political experience and even less credibility. The guy is simply bad news and has no support in legitimate state political circles. So the party was NOT willing to see Sheffield become this years version of Kerry Bentivolio across town in the suburbs.
 
Regardless of the maneuvering and such or how awful the other candidate appears, the decision is all sorts of wrong. He in no way fulfilled the requirement for candidacy. In fact he missed it by about half. It's a very simple requirement and easily fulfilled. Conyers blew it, the judge blew it. Talk about cronyism.
 
Do you think the Judge and Conyers attend the same parties and fundraisers? What do you think about this? Isn't he getting around the system knowing he didn't come up with enough signatures. Always wins with like 80% of the vote? Shouldn't they have been checking him and his numbers out all this time? What say ye?



A judge on Friday ordered U.S. Rep. John Conyers' name placed on the August primary ballot, trumping Michigan election officials who said the Democrat was ineligible because of problems with his nominating petitions.

Conyers needed 1,000 petition signatures to get a spot in the Democratic primary. But many petitions were thrown out because the people who gathered names weren't registered voters or listed a wrong registration address. That left him more than 400 short.

d6045bb4-b14f-4c45-9a47-23474631a56e.jpg


But Leitman issued an injunction putting Conyers on the ballot. He said a Michigan law that puts strict requirements on petition circulators is similar to an Ohio law that was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal appeals court in 2008.

The Michigan attorney general's office had defended the law and urged Leitman to reject Conyers' challenge. Spokeswoman Joy Yearout said the state hasn't decided whether to go to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court that struck down the Ohio law.

His petitions were challenged by the campaign of a Democratic rival, the Rev. Horace Sheffield III. A spokeswoman for the pastor sounded conciliatory after Conyers won in court.....snip~

Judge allows US Rep. Conyers to be on ballot - AP News 5/23/2014 7:02 PM

I can't believe any petitions of registered voters would be discounted because the people circulating the petitions weren't registered voters. Why on earth would you punish the voter for the 'misdeeds' of those circulating the petition? That makes no sense at all. It also opens the system up to all sorts of abuse as people who do not wish the candidate well circulate petitions on his behalf, knowing they will be thrown out.
 
I can't believe any petitions of registered voters would be discounted because the people circulating the petitions weren't registered voters. Why on earth would you punish the voter for the 'misdeeds' of those circulating the petition? That makes no sense at all. It also opens the system up to all sorts of abuse as people who do not wish the candidate well circulate petitions on his behalf, knowing they will be thrown out.

The want in state citizens to gather for in state issues/elections. That way outside the state forces cannot flood the state and influence the election. Conyers and his team knew about this requirement going in, it wasn't a surprise. Her just failed to meet the requirement, fair and square.
 
I live here in SE Michigan and have access to political circles. The word was out on this a week ago that this would happen. One big big reason behind it is a simply and very pragmatic one: if a known state senator or representative or political name had filed for the seat - they would have let Conyers go and the party would have switched to that person as an acceptable and viable replacement. In fact, people inside the party wanted Conyers to step down on his own and wanted his current one to be his last term. But Conyers would not go.

So the only other name filer was a complete horses ass named Horace Sheffield who is a poverty pimp minister without an ounce of political experience and even less credibility. The guy is simply bad news and has no support in legitimate state political circles. So the party was NOT willing to see Sheffield become this years version of Kerry Bentivolio across town in the suburbs.

I guess it's okay then. ;)
 
I guess it's okay then. ;)

I do think the federal judge has a point in that the legitimate registered voters who signed the nominating petitions did so in good faith and there is a good chance that the Michigan law - which allows unregistered voters to be circulators on issue petitions but NOT on candidate petitions may well be unconstitutional as it puts the rights of one group of people (signers) totally dependent on the status of the circulators and thus disqualifies the intent of the signers through no fault of their own.
 
The want in state citizens to gather for in state issues/elections. That way outside the state forces cannot flood the state and influence the election. Conyers and his team knew about this requirement going in, it wasn't a surprise. Her just failed to meet the requirement, fair and square.

What difference does it make who circulates the petitions as long as it is only qualified registered voters who sign them? Again, the voters are being punished for the sins of the circulators. As a voter, my rights are being forfeited through no fault of my own if I'm one of the signers.
 
I guess it's okay then. ;)

Heya Maggie.
hello2.gif
Kind of Reminds ya of Derek Smith and how he won election after being kicked out of the Illinois assembly for taking Bribes, huh.
 
What difference does it make who circulates the petitions as long as it is only qualified registered voters who sign them? Again, the voters are being punished for the sins of the circulators. As a voter, my rights are being forfeited through no fault of my own if I'm one of the signers.

Does it really matter in this case? EVERY other candidate played by the same rules. This was not a new thing that somehow Conyers was kept out of the loop. He KNEW going in whom he could hire to collect the petitions and whom he couldn't. He failed. All the other candidates did just fine with the law. Including the republicans, libertarians and his fellow party member candidates.

He's ineligible, and it's all his own doing. Now some judge glad hands him the candidacy. It's not right and your defense shows your ultrapartisan bent.
 
Clearly Mr Conyers is the only qualified person in that district. It should be his seat until he passes and then it should go to his wife. Hopefully her time in prison won't disqualify her and if so, this same judge is on the bench to make things right.
 
Does it really matter in this case? EVERY other candidate played by the same rules. This was not a new thing that somehow Conyers was kept out of the loop. He KNEW going in whom he could hire to collect the petitions and whom he couldn't. He failed. All the other candidates did just fine with the law. Including the republicans, libertarians and his fellow party member candidates.

He's ineligible, and it's all his own doing. Now some judge glad hands him the candidacy. It's not right and your defense shows your ultrapartisan bent.

Nonsense. I would say exactly the same thing if it was a Republican or Libertarian candidate. How are the interests of the voters being served here? If enough registered voters signed the petition, he should be on the ballot - regardless of his political party.
 
I do think the federal judge has a point in that the legitimate registered voters who signed the nominating petitions did so in good faith and there is a good chance that the Michigan law - which allows unregistered voters to be circulators on issue petitions but NOT on candidate petitions may well be unconstitutional as it puts the rights of one group of people (signers) totally dependent on the status of the circulators and thus disqualifies the intent of the signers through no fault of their own.

The problem with this is that many of us might support a candidate who fails to meet the qualifications for his/her candidacy whether that be residency or age or citizenship or filing requirements such as getting so many registered voters to sign a petition to put somebody on the ballot. The signature is not a pledge to vote for the person in the first place. And there should be some accountability for the people re who they choose to support.

If the process can be nullified and the candidate qualified by virtue of a lot of ineligible signatures on the petition, wouldn't that create a HUGE incentive to include a LOT of ineligible signatures on purpose?
 
Nonsense. I would say exactly the same thing if it was a Republican or Libertarian candidate. How are the interests of the voters being served here? If enough registered voters signed the petition, he should be on the ballot - regardless of his political party.

You're fooling yourself and no one else. ALL candidates for election followed the same law and only Conyers didn't. But that's okay because he's special to you, right.
 
You're fooling yourself and no one else. ALL candidates for election followed the same law and only Conyers didn't. But that's okay because he's special to you, right.

There is nothing partisan about this. If the judge hadn't let him back on the ballot because of a stupid law that quite possibly is unconstitutional, he would have qualified by write in. You're just pissed because he's a Democrat. And a black one at that.
 
The problem with this is that many of us might support a candidate who fails to meet the qualifications for his/her candidacy whether that be residency or age or citizenship or filing requirements such as getting so many registered voters to sign a petition to put somebody on the ballot. The signature is not a pledge to vote for the person in the first place. And there should be some accountability for the people re who they choose to support.

If the process can be nullified and the candidate qualified by virtue of a lot of ineligible signatures on the petition, wouldn't that create a HUGE incentive to include a LOT of ineligible signatures on purpose?

The signatures on the petition weren't 'ineligible'. That's the point. The signatures on the petition were just fine. It was the people circulating the petition that screwed up. Therefore, the right wing would like to toss all those signatures of legal voters. It's how they roll.
 
Heya Maggie.
hello2.gif
Kind of Reminds ya of Derek Smith and how he won election after being kicked out of the Illinois assembly for taking Bribes, huh.

Are you accusing Representative Conyers of taking bribes? Do you have a link to that? That's a pretty serious charge, even for somebody on the Far Right.
 
Clearly Mr Conyers is the only qualified person in that district. It should be his seat until he passes and then it should go to his wife. Hopefully her time in prison won't disqualify her and if so, this same judge is on the bench to make things right.

Wasn't she the one who called Kwame Kilpatrick "Shreck" and got her ass handed to her in a debate with an 11 year old?
 
Are you accusing Representative Conyers of taking bribes? Do you have a link to that? That's a pretty serious charge, even for somebody on the Far Right.

Nah, I was talking about the ethics of those in the Democratic circles. Shouldn't have been that difficult to correlate with. Just sayin.
 
Should we compare and contrast with the morals of those in 'Republican circles'?
 
Should we compare and contrast with the morals of those in 'Republican circles'?

Sure you can go and put a thread up on it.....Right now, though its more on the Demos and Conyers.

Not to mention Banks up there in Detroit......now he was a straight up criminal. But look, just like Chicago and Derek Smith. Detroit had no problem making sure he would get elected.
 
Back
Top Bottom