Barrow v. City of Detroit Election Commission
301 Mich. App. 404
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Duggan moved to Detroit in March 2012 and registered to vote there on April 12, 2012.
- Duggan filed nominating petitions for the August 2013 mayoral primary on April 2, 2013.
- Barrow challenged Duggan’s eligibility under Detroit Charter § 2-101, which requires one year of Detroit residency and voter registration at the time of filing for office.
- Election Commission certified Duggan’s eligibility on May 23, 2013, apparently relying on a one-year period before the filing deadline applicable to all candidates.
- Plaintiff sued for mandamus and declaratory relief seeking removal of Duggan from the ballot; Duggan argued the durational requirement is unconstitutional and that the filing deadline should govern.
- Circuit court held the charter language is plain and unambiguous and that Duggan did not meet the one-year requirement as of filing April 2, 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'at the time of filing for office' in § 2-101 | Duggan argues the one-year clock runs from the filing deadline (May 14, 2013). | Winfrey/City argue the clock runs from the actual filing date (April 2, 2013). | Plain language requires one year before filing; Duggan ineligible. |
| Constitutionality of the durational residency/registration requirement | The one-year requirement is unconstitutional under equal protection and travel rights. | The provision furthers substantial governmental interests and survives intermediate or rational basis review. | Durational requirements survive constitutional scrutiny under the court's chosen standard. |
| Applicability of substantial compliance doctrine | Technical defects should be excused to avoid ballot loss. | Charter terms are mandatory; substantial compliance does not apply. | Substantial compliance doctrine not applicable; mandatory language controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grano v Ortisi, 272 NW2d 693 (Mich. App. 1978) (strict scrutiny applied to durational residency in some contexts; not narrowly tailored)
- Musto v Redford Twp, 357 NW2d 791 (Mich. App. 1984) (durational residency for public employment subjected to strict scrutiny)
- Green v McKeon, 468 F2d 883 (6th Cir. 1972) (durational residency; strict scrutiny framework discussed)
- Bullock v Carter, 405 US 134 (1972) (durational residency and ballot access context; demonstrated strict scrutiny approach)
- Clements v Fashing, 457 US 957 (1972) (insignificant interference with travel may require only rational basis review)