By ZEINAB NAJM
Sunday Times Newspapers
TAYLOR — A June 2 Michigan Court of Appeals ruling has made two City Council members seeking re-election ineligible to appear on the Aug. 3 primary ballot.
Mayoral candidate Jeff Jones and City Council candidate Martin James Drouillard brought the case to the Court of Appeals following a ruling by a lower court. They filed the initial case against Mayoral candidate Tim Woolley, council candidate Lindsey Rose and council incumbents Charley Johnson and Caroline Patts.
Last month, Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Timothy Kenny ruled all four candidates were eligible to remain on the the ballot — calling the charge an “untimely” challenge since it came after candidates were certified — but the appeals court ruled that Patts and Johnson are ineligible, reversing the previous ruling.
In the appeal signed by Judges Thomas Cameron, Karen Fort Hood and Anica Letica, the main concern is whether the four candidates were properly certified.
“We affirm in part, reverse in part, and direct that the county defendants take the necessary steps to ensure that Charles Johnson and Caroline Patts are not placed on the ballot for the upcoming August 2021 election,” the appeals court ruling said.
Jones and Drouillard claim Johnson, Patts, Woolley and Rose filed false Affidavits of Identity so, they could not be certified to appear on the ballot.
According to the city clerk’s website, each candidate was required to submit a nominating petition including at least 150 signatures to the clerk by 4 p.m. April 20. The requirements also included an AOI and a statement of candidacy. Qualifications are that the candidate has to be 18, a registered voter and be a resident of the city for at least one year.
The ruling said that Jones and Drouillard allege the four candidates owed outstanding late filing fees or fines as of the date that they signed their respective AOI. According to Jones and Drouillard, the Taylor city clerk and election commission were precluded from certifying Johnson, Patts, Rose, and Woolley as candidates in the upcoming election.
Jones and Drouillard sought emergency declaratory relief and a writ of mandamus compelling the city clerk and election commission to remove Johnson, Patts, Rose and Woolley from the August 2021 primary ballot.
According to the ruling, the Taylor Election Commission filed a brief arguing, among other things, that the affidavits were not actually false. The brief also argued that, pursuant to the city charter, the city clerk had to make a final determination regarding the validity of each nominating petition no later than April 23, and that plaintiffs had failed to challenge any of the affidavits at issue until after that date passed.
An affidavit from Woolley, explains that before filing his affidavit, he contacted Wayne County Campaign Finance Manager Gil Flowers, and was told he owed no outstanding fees or fines.
At the May 21 hearing, Rose explained that she believed any fees and fines owed by her were discharged in a 2019 bankruptcy. Woolley also spoke, explaining that he stood by his affidavit.
“The trial court explained that it believed there were factual disputes that precluded it from granting mandamus relief, as there were disputes (at least with regard to Rose and Woolley) regarding whether outstanding fees or fines were owed,” the ruling said. “Further, the trial court believed that plaintiffs were untimely in bringing their challenges. Thus, the court declined to grant the relief sought by plaintiffs.”
The ruling said Johnson filed his AOI Feb. 25, but a late filing fee notice dated Aug. 10, 2018, explaining his candidate committee’s July 2018 quarterly campaign statement was overdue so a $25 fee was assessed. A stamped copy of the notice shows that the fine was paid May 10, about two-and-a-half months after Johnson filed his affidavit.
Regarding Patts, Jones and Drouillard provided her affidavit, which was dated Feb. 19 and contains the same attestation regarding the payment of late fees and fines. Jones and Drouillard also provided a notice, dated Sept. 10, 2018, stating that Patts’ campaign committee had not timely filed a report due on Dec. 7, 2017, and that the committee was assessed a $500 late filing fee.
They also provided a second mailing of the same notice, dated Oct. 10, 2018, and provided a copy of the second notice, but with a stamp stating that the fee had been paid in full on April 30 — more than two months after Patts filed her affidavit.
Listed next was Rose; Jones and Drouillard provided a copy of her AOI, which is dated April 19 and contains the same attestation regarding the payment of late fees and fines. They also provided a copy of a notice, dated June 9, 2017, informing Rose that a report was overdue and that a fine of $300 was being assessed.
Jones and Drouillard provided the court a second mailing of the notice dated July 12, 2017. They did not provide evidence that the late fee had been paid after the affidavit was signed. Rose explained that she believed that the fine was discharged in bankruptcy in 2019. The trial court agreed that there was a factual dispute regarding whether Rose’s fine had been discharged in bankruptcy.
Woolley had a notice dated Oct. 19, 2018, directed to his campaign committee. The notice, provided by Jones and Drouillard, stated that a report was overdue, and that Woolley was being assessed a late filing fee of $25. As was the case with Rose, plaintiffs did not provide a receipt or other documentation showing whether this late fee was paid after the AOI was signed.
Woolley’s affidavit explains that, based on his own review of his committee account and the information obtained from Flowers, he believed that all fees and fines were paid and that the statements in the AOI were truthful.
“Based on the evidence presented, it is clear that the AOIs submitted by Johnson and Patts did contain false statements,” the ruling said. “Both attested that all outstanding fines and late fees were paid, but that was not true; both paid late filing fees owed from prior years after filing their AOIs. The AOIs clearly state that, as of the date of the AOI, all outstanding fines and late filing fees are paid. That was false.”
Jones and Drouillard also sought declaratory relief, in the form of a declaration that the challenged candidates were not eligible to be included on the ballot. The ruling said they are entitled to a declaratory judgment with regard to Johnson and Patts, but not with regard to Rose and Woolley.
Following the appeal court’s ruling, Johnson and Patts have the choice to pursue a write-in campaign on the primary election ballot.
(Zeinab Najm can be reached at [email protected].)