Skip to content

Federal judge puts ineligible John Conyers on the Michigan primary ballot

May 23, 2014

 Michigan Democratic Representative John Conyers was ruled ineligible to have his name placed on the primary ballot by Michigan’s Secretary of State because he did not gather enough legal signatures.

  At issue was signatures gathered by people who were not eligible to collect signatures under Michigan law so the names they collected were removed from the list leaving Representative Conyers with less than half of the required signatures.

  But then a Federal judge intervened earlier today and declared John Conyers was eligible to be placed on the ballot because the signatures gathered by the people who were ineligible to gather the signatures should be counted anyway.

    How did Judge Matthew Leitman come to this conclusion? This was his reasoning:

“There is evidence that their failure to comply with the Registration Statute was the result of good faith mistakes and that they believed they were in compliance with the statute,” Leitman said in his ruling.

  These people thought they were within the law and did not realize they were not so therefor they did not willfully break election law. And I was always thought that ignorance of the law was no excuse from the law. Silly me!

  Try using this excuse the next time you run afoul of the law and see how far it gets you. I guess application of the law depends on who you are and I thought we were all supposed to be equal under the law, but again, silly me!

16 Comments leave one →
  1. May 23, 2014 6:36 pm

    Reblogged this on theThumpHouse.


  2. May 23, 2014 6:44 pm

    Whew, that was a close call. Imagine the House of Representatives without that old lefty bag of horseshit. As a resident of Detroit they will need his help to remedy that city’s fiscal mess .
    I’m going to take my medication now..:


    • May 23, 2014 6:48 pm

      I feel so much better now that I know the courts are there to protect the establishment! UGH!


      • May 23, 2014 6:52 pm

        Makes you wonder if they can do ‘anything’ RIGHT … why is it they do the ‘wrong thing’ 99% of the time? Their ‘right’ is when there’s nothing ‘left’ worth anything! 😡 Oh well, nothing new under this old sun!


      • May 23, 2014 6:58 pm

        We are told that America is a nation of laws but when the law is not equally applied is there really any law?


  3. Bruce permalink
    May 23, 2014 7:03 pm

    A veteran politician so useless he couldn’t even get the minimum signatures in a district the left owns, lock, stock and barrel.
    As I have said so many times before, “…heads, they win, tails, we loose…”


  4. Paul H. Lemmen permalink
    May 23, 2014 8:52 pm

    Reblogged this on Dead Citizen's Rights Society.


  5. May 24, 2014 12:51 am

    I see. So, ‘I didn’t KNOW I was breaking the law and I certainly didn’t INTEND to break the law’ is now an acceptable reason to break the law and not be held responsible because they DID, in fact, break the law, but they didn’t ‘mean’ to. WTF? Have I somehow stumbled into the Mad Hatter’s tea party?


    • May 24, 2014 7:47 am

      It really gets twisted when you try to explain it, but yes, you got the gist of it. Martha Coakly (Ma. AG) once said it wasn’t illegal for a person to be illegal in Massachusetts. I guess this is the same thing. I wonder what would happen if we used this excuse. 😉


  6. May 25, 2014 12:22 pm

    Actually, it appears that laws requiring that only registered voters could collect signatures had been struck down elsewhere. The reason states gave for passing the restriction was that they wanted a way to be able to reach the petition “circulators”, but the courts said that that information can be secured without going so far.

    Consider – you sign a petition in good faith for a candidate, and then later on you decline to sign another petition for the same candidate, because you don’t want to muddy the waters with dupl;icate signatures. Then it turns out that the person who asked you to sign the petition wasn’t a properly registered voter and the petitions s/he got signed are all therefore invalidated – hasn’t your right to support someone’s candidacy been violated? Or is it now the job of individual citizens to check the voting status of people who ask them to sign petitions? Clearly an onerous burden to place on the average citizen under the circumstances.

    The Michigan law had other flaws as well, which are discuessed in the brief opinion that the judge issued when ordering that Mr. Conyers be placed on the ballot. Here’s a link to that ruling:

    Note also that the Michigan Secretary of State acknowledged that the signatures were otherwise valid.

    Take good care and may God bless us all!



    • May 25, 2014 11:35 pm

      No, it’s the responsibility of the campaign to make sure they follow election regulations. A person has to be registered to vote to SIGN a petition. The state has the authority to require those collecting the signatures of registered voters ALSO be registered voters. That is what this is about – VOTING.

      No one’s Rights were violated, the campaign dropped the ball. The onus is on THEM to ensure they followed the rules. THEY didn’t make sure they were complying with the law. The state has the authority to establish the requirements for registering and running. No one has a RIGHT to be on the ballot. They have the Right to try. If they don’t qualify because they didn’t follow the rules or didn’t get the required number of voter signatures, a FEDERAL judge has no authority to invalidate a state election requirement.

      Article I Section 4
      “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

      When, where, and how an ELECTION is held is subject to oversight by the federal government. Regulations for registering to vote, voting, and being on the ballot is the sole authority of the state.

      We are governed by laws that apply equally to everyone. We are NOT governed by the whims of men. We are most definitely NOT governed by OPINIONS of a select few.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: