Conyers vows legal fight to remain on ballot

posted at 8:46 am on May 14, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Democrats may have a big problem in Michigan this November — and a legal fight in the shorter term. A decision invalidating petition signatures for John Conyers will keep his name off of the primary ballot, but Conyers and his team vow to win … in the courts, anyway:

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) won’t appear on the Democratic primary ballot after failing to submit enough valid signatures, Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett said on Tuesday. …

Conyers’s Democratic primary opponent, pastor Horace Sheffield III, challenged the validity of the incumbent’s signatures. The clerk ruled that since two of his petition-gatherers weren’t registered voters in Michigan, as required under state law, the signatures he obtained didn’t count.

Conyers submitted 2,000 signatures, needing 1,000 valid ones. After the challenges, he had 592.

Legal challenges to the petition-gathering rule are likely, though. The American Civil Liberties Union has already challenged that law in federal court, saying it’s unconstitutional to require signature-gatherers to be registered voters.

Jazz raised this possibility almost two weeks ago, and Mary Katharine noted it in passing last night. It seemed fantastical that a man who won 25 terms in office could get tripped up on such a basic issue, but here we are. Apparently, Conyers’ expert staff couldn’t be bothered to check the CVs of their petition gatherers despite state law requiring it, which tells us plenty about the quality of people Conyers has in his employ.

Meanwhile, his lawyers plan to challenge the ruling, but it’s not clear on what basis they could succeed:

The 84-year-old Detroit Democrat was at risk because officials believe several people who circulated his petitions do not appear to have been registered voters or had registered too late.

Conyers has three days to appeal Garrett’s ruling to the Michigan Secretary of State.

“It is a very unfortunate circumstance that an issue with a circulator of a petition would disqualify the signature of valid registered voter,” Garrett said. “However, I am bound by the current laws and statutes of the state of Michigan that set forth very specific and narrow instructions regarding candidate petitions.”

Federal court actions, meanwhile, are taking aim at the requirement that petition collectors be registered voters. The ACLU has filed suit to change state law. If neither happens, Conyers can run as a write-in. If he wins the primary as a write-in, he would qualify for the general election ballot.

The ACLU can file all the suits it wants to change the law, but that takes a legislature if the law itself isn’t unconstitutional or overwhelmingly unreasonable. Conyers managed to get elected to the same office 25 times while abiding by the law, or at least avoiding challenges that alleged he didn’t. One round of incompetence doesn’t provide a good reason for a court ruling that allows Conyers onto a ballot when his competition abided by the same law.

They’d better start planning their write-in campaign, and hope that Conyers’ name recognition can carry the day. If he manages to win the primary, his name will automatically appear on the general-election ballot. But maybe voters in MI-13 should consider whether this episode isn’t a signal that their 50-year Congressman has lost his grip, and start looking for a fresh face.

Note: Bear in mind that for all intents and purposes, this is the general election. MI-13 has a D+34 Cook rating, so there is zero chance for a Republican surprise in the fall.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I wonder which side the media will take. Hmmm….

BJ* on May 14, 2014 at 8:48 AM

Minority and a democrat … already know how this ends. Laws are only for white right leaning people.

watertown on May 14, 2014 at 8:49 AM

Rules are racist.

CurtZHP on May 14, 2014 at 8:49 AM

84 years old and 25 terms in office. He’s the latest poster boy for term limits.

Charlemagne on May 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM

But maybe voters in MI-13 should consider whether this episode isn’t a signal that their 50-year Congressman has lost his grip, and start looking for a fresh face.

Ha! Good luck up there with that.

Bmore on May 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM

MI-13 another Democrat vote plantation.

Viator on May 14, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Ed, in the final analysis does it really matter.Some leftist will represent that district.

celtic warrior on May 14, 2014 at 8:51 AM

Conyers in court: “I AM THE LAW!”

Rix on May 14, 2014 at 8:51 AM

It seemed fantastical that a man who won 25 terms in office could get tripped up on such a basic issue, but here we are. Apparently, Conyers’ expert staff couldn’t be bothered to check the CVs of their petition gatherers despite state law requiring it, which tells us plenty about the quality of people Conyers has in his employ

.

The man is 84-years old and has been in office for 50 years. Maybe God is trying to tell Conyers something.

Happy Nomad on May 14, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Send in Eric Holder’s Brownsirts the Black Panthers to straighten the situation out.

Krupnikas on May 14, 2014 at 8:55 AM

Relying on write-ins to win could be problematic since a good many of those likely to vote for Conyers can neither read nor write.

NixTyranny on May 14, 2014 at 8:55 AM

Some leftist will represent that district.

celtic warrior on May 14, 2014 at 8:51 AM

Assuredly but to fumble the basics after 50 years in Congress and 25 campaigns???? That’s too precious to not enjoy a little bit. And it was all because his opponent actually challenged him. IMO, his people were just phoning it in with the assumption that nobody heading into the Dem primary would be sticking that close to the law.

Happy Nomad on May 14, 2014 at 8:56 AM

The 84-year-old Detroit Democrat

should FINALLY step aside and let someone else take his place.

Mark Boabaca on May 14, 2014 at 8:57 AM

So how many extra EBT cards will his voters get as a reward for learning how to spell his name so they can write it on a ballot?

AZCoyote on May 14, 2014 at 8:58 AM

But maybe voters in MI-13 should consider whether this episode isn’t a signal that their 50-year Congressman has lost his grip, and start looking for a fresh face.

Yeah, I’m sure there is some spry 70-year-old “young turk” waiting in the wings as Conyers and Dingell head out. Of course Dingell has already gifted his seat to his wife.

Happy Nomad on May 14, 2014 at 8:58 AM

With the activist judges we have he’ll win methinks

cmsinaz on May 14, 2014 at 8:59 AM

He will get 110% of the vote.

docflash on May 14, 2014 at 8:59 AM

I suppose they could run his wife, now that she’s out of federal prison.

Mr. D on May 14, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Laws don’t apply to Democrats. Never have, never will. And they wonder why we care about vote fraud? It’s because we have Democrats.

oldennis on May 14, 2014 at 9:00 AM

One round of incompetence doesn’t provide a good reason for a court ruling that allows Conyers onto a ballot when his competition abided by the same law.

Ed has clearly never met an actual Democrat Party member.

Eric in Hollywood on May 14, 2014 at 9:01 AM

With the activist judges we have he’ll win methinks

cmsinaz on May 14, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Wouldn’t surprise me.

bazil9 on May 14, 2014 at 9:02 AM

The 84-year-old Detroit Democrat

should FINALLY step aside and let someone else take his place.

Mark Boabaca on May 14, 2014 at 8:57 AM

Thats not how the mafia works.

phatfawzi on May 14, 2014 at 9:04 AM

Legal challenges to the petition-gathering rule are likely, though. The American Civil Liberties Union has already challenged that law in federal court, saying it’s unconstitutional to require signature-gatherers to be registered voters.

What is unconstitutional about that? There’d be no point to the rule if they can have any ol tom, dick or harry sign it.

But, Conyers will prevail. After all, he needs more time in Congress to fight for the little guy and stuff.

changer1701 on May 14, 2014 at 9:05 AM

Wasn’t there an Illinois state senator who only got elected because he challenged the incumbent’s petition signatures?

rbj on May 14, 2014 at 9:07 AM

NJ law said Frank Lautenberg couldn’t be put on the ballot when Senator Robert Torricelli dropped weeks before the 2002 election (facing federal corruption charges and an uphill climb for re-election against Republican nominee Doug Forrester).

The law didn’t stop Lautenberg from getting his name on the ballot and winning the election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lautenberg#2002_election

The New Jersey Supreme Court basically said that following the letter of the law would give an unfair advantage to the Republican, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case.

So, I’m fully expecting that the Democrats will find a way to return John Conyers to Congress for another term. We are no longer a Republic, governed by the rule of law. We have become a Democracy, governed by the rule of the majority. And if a majority of voters in Conyers’ district want Conyers as their representative, it will happen… the law be damned.

ITguy on May 14, 2014 at 9:08 AM

He’ll fight harder for that than for freedom and democracy.

vityas on May 14, 2014 at 9:09 AM

Wasn’t there an Illinois state senator who only got elected because he challenged the incumbent’s petition signatures?

rbj on May 14, 2014 at 9:07 AM

Why, I believe there was. Did his name begin with O and end with -bama?

Conyers is going to have to learn some tricks about write-ins from Lisa Murkowski.

onlineanalyst on May 14, 2014 at 9:10 AM

I’m fully expecting that the Democrats will find a way to return John Conyers to Congress for another term. We are no longer a Republic, governed by the rule of law. We have become a Democracy, governed by the rule of the majority. And if a majority of voters in Conyers’ district want Conyers as their representative, it will happen… the law be damned.

ITguy on May 14, 2014 at 9:08 AM

I don’t know about that. Michigan’s laws are pretty clear about this. It’s why most candidates go well above the minimum (1,000 in Conyers case) in order to get on the ballot.

Happy Nomad on May 14, 2014 at 9:14 AM

Conyers is going to have to learn some tricks about write-ins from Lisa Murkowski.

onlineanalyst on May 14, 2014 at 9:10 AM

I wonder just how many trunks full of “found” ballots it takes to run a write-in campaign.

Happy Nomad on May 14, 2014 at 9:16 AM

His letter to the elections board involved some commentary about drive-by shootings and a vague reference to “cement-shoes”?

I dunno. Must be some new fashion thing we don’t hear much about out here in the country.

hawkdriver on May 14, 2014 at 9:17 AM

Relying on write-ins to win could be problematic since a good many of those likely to vote for Conyers can neither read nor write.

NixTyranny on May 14, 2014 at 8:55 AM

But if preprinted stickers are allowed (I don’t know if they are in Michigan, but they are in some other states), the literacy of the populace won’t matter.

Steve Eggleston on May 14, 2014 at 9:18 AM

NixTyranny on May 14, 2014 at 8:55 AM

Hey, you know how the dem’s work, even if voters just put “x” in the write in box it will be CLEAR that they INTENDED to vote for the leathery old bastadge.

waterytart on May 14, 2014 at 9:20 AM

I don’t know about that. Michigan’s laws are pretty clear about this. It’s why most candidates go well above the minimum (1,000 in Conyers case) in order to get on the ballot.

Happy Nomad on May 14, 2014 at 9:14 AM

That’s what Conyers’ team thought they did by turning in 2,000 signatures. It is telling that nearly 3/4ths of the signatures were deemed invalid.

Steve Eggleston on May 14, 2014 at 9:21 AM

What’s the over/under on when he blames Republicans for this? I give it two days before someone starts on the Vast Right Wing conspiracy angle.

Surprised that that hasn’t already come up.

Johnnyreb on May 14, 2014 at 9:21 AM

So, I’m fully expecting that the Democrats will find a way to return John Conyers to Congress for another term. We are no longer a Republic, governed by the rule of law. We have become a Democracy Autocracy, governed by the rule whim of the majority Elites. And if a majority of voters in Conyers’ district want Conyers as their representative, it will happen… the law be damned.

ITguy on May 14, 2014 at 9:08 AM

ReWrite™ engaged for reality. We are, after all, neither a Republic nor a Democracy.

Steve Eggleston on May 14, 2014 at 9:23 AM

Meanwhile, his lawyers plan to challenge the ruling, but it’s not clear on what basis they could succeed:

The perfect reason, starts with an R and ends with acism.

Bishop on May 14, 2014 at 9:26 AM

I’m so sick of seeing these Beltway barnacles everywhere I look. Politics being such a cushy “profession” doubtless accounts for the great number of mummies that exist there.

1) Term limits

2) Mandatory retirement after age 70

MisterElephant on May 14, 2014 at 9:28 AM

I don’t know about that. Michigan’s laws are pretty clear about this. It’s why most candidates go well above the minimum (1,000 in Conyers case) in order to get on the ballot.

Happy Nomad on May 14, 2014 at 9:14 AM

It’s also a Blue-on-Blue battle here, where, other than due to a backlash, Rev. Horace Sheffield III would figure to be elected in November and hold the seat virtually for life as well, or for as long as he could competently collect filing signatures (though I suppose voters in 2016 looking for a fresh face could decide to put the 86-year-old geezer back in office).

In the New Jersey race, the Democratic judges acted to prevent a Republican win; here the Democrat’s going to win no matter what the judge does.

jon1979 on May 14, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Suffer a loss and try to change the rules after the fact. I’m so surprised to see that reaction.

The Schaef on May 14, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Maybe God is trying to tell Conyers something.

Happy Nomad on May 14, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Nooooo. I have this hope that if God were trying to tell him something it would involve lightning.

It’s why most candidates go well above the minimum (1,000 in Conyers case) in order to get on the ballot.

Happy Nomad on May 14, 2014 at 9:14 AM

Heh. You’d think double the minimum would be enough. Evidently TWO of his canvassers were responsible for 3/4 of the signatures. Nah, nothing smells like Denmark here….. :)

GWB on May 14, 2014 at 9:37 AM

But yeah what difference does it make, the eventual winner of the seat will be a money-tossing demorat supported by a populace whose collective IQ is lower than a pallet of cinder blocks.

Bishop on May 14, 2014 at 9:37 AM

But if preprinted stickers are allowed (I don’t know if they are in Michigan, but they are in some other states), the literacy of the populace won’t matter.

Steve Eggleston on May 14, 2014 at 9:18 AM

Second look at literacy tests? This isn’t post Civil War times, and if you can’t write in the name of the person you want to be your representative, well maybe you shouldn’t have a vote.

rbj on May 14, 2014 at 9:44 AM

The ACLU can file all the suits it wants to change the law, but that takes a legislature if the law itself isn’t unconstitutional or overwhelmingly unreasonable.

You may remember now that legislatures are optional. If a judge or the executive says the legislature is ‘wrong’ and orders otherwise, well… tell me Conyers won’t be on the ballot if a federal judge steps in and orders it.

Midas on May 14, 2014 at 9:48 AM

But if preprinted stickers are allowed (I don’t know if they are in Michigan, but they are in some other states), the literacy of the populace won’t matter.

Steve Eggleston on May 14, 2014 at 9:18 AM

Second look at literacy tests? This isn’t post Civil War times, and if you can’t write in the name of the person you want to be your representative, well maybe you shouldn’t have a vote.

rbj on May 14, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Racist.

/

Midas on May 14, 2014 at 9:48 AM

He is 84. His staff can’t be bothered and “presumes” he can be on the ballot. 84.

Fleuries on May 14, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Suffer a loss and try to change the rules after the fact. I’m so surprised to see that reaction.

The Schaef on May 14, 2014 at 9:36 AM

In 2004, MA Democrats changed the law, at Teddy Kennedy’s request, to prevent the Governor (Mitt Romney) from appointing a Senator in the case of a Senate absence (they were hoping John Kerry would win the Presidency in 2004, and didn’t want a Republican Governor to pick his Senate replacement).

In 2009, when Teddy Kennedy died and Democrats lost their 60th vote in the Senate, MA Democrats changed the law again to allow the Governor to appoint a Senator for the interim between the vacancy and a special election. Without that law change, and the seating of Teddy Kennedy’s right-hand-man Paul Kirk, Democrats would not have had the 60 votes they needed for the Dec 23, 2009 Senate cloture vote on Obamacare. Remember that Scott Brown won the special election in January 2010.

The only way that Democrats were able to get the 60 votes for cloture on Obamacare was by the combination of:
1) Stealing an election (Al Franken)
2) Changing the law in MA (Paul Kirk)
3) The vote of a senile man practically on his death bed (Robert Byrd)

And THEN using the reconciliation process (which Robert Byrd had vehemently opposed back when he wasn’t senile and Bill Clinton wanted to use the reconciliation process to pass Hillarycare) to pass the House “fixes”. (The House would not have passed the Senate bill without absolute assurances from the Senate would use the reconciliation process to bypass cloture and pass the House “fixes”.)

ITguy on May 14, 2014 at 9:53 AM

Minority and a democrat … already know how this ends. Laws are only for white right leaning people.

watertown on May 14, 2014 at 8:49 AM

Hey, whatever happened to Thaddeus McCotter?

Fallon on May 14, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Relying on write-ins to win could be problematic since a good many of those likely to vote for Conyers can neither read nor write.

Maybe he could get an emergency name change to John X, so all they have to put on the ballot is an X

txdoc on May 14, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Sure. Why should this guy have to follow the rules which apply to any regular person? Plus, we can’t expect him to be familiar with this process, having never undertaken it before.

Lastly, i note the ACLU has filed suit. They are always there to stand up for the little guy.

Hucklebuck on May 14, 2014 at 10:03 AM

Could every single Right candidate catch a clue, by this ??
CHALLENGE EVERY DEM PETITION, EVERY TIME !

Who here would be surprised to find this type of ‘fumble of the basics after 50 years in Congress and 25 campaigns’.
Sorry, not buying any ‘oops’ excuse .. Hubris, straight up.

pambi on May 14, 2014 at 10:05 AM

But yeah what difference does it make, the eventual winner of the seat will be a money-tossing demorat supported by a populace whose collective IQ is lower than a pallet of cinder blocks.

BAZINGA!

Hucklebuck on May 14, 2014 at 10:06 AM

Hey, whatever happened to Thaddeus McCotter?

Fallon on May 14, 2014 at 9:59 AM

If memory serves, got beat, retired?

Bmore on May 14, 2014 at 10:06 AM

Conyers actually died 3 years ago, but his brain is so dull and slow it hasn’t caught up to his body yet!!

Deano1952 on May 14, 2014 at 10:08 AM

In 2004, MA Democrats changed the law, at Teddy Kennedy’s request, to prevent the Governor (Mitt Romney) from appointing a Senator in the case of a Senate absence (they were hoping John Kerry would win the Presidency in 2004, and didn’t want a Republican Governor to pick his Senate replacement).

In 2009, when Teddy Kennedy died and Democrats lost their 60th vote in the Senate, MA Democrats changed the law again to allow the Governor to appoint a Senator for the interim between the vacancy and a special election. Without that law change, and the seating of Teddy Kennedy’s right-hand-man Paul Kirk, Democrats would not have had the 60 votes they needed for the Dec 23, 2009 Senate cloture vote on Obamacare. Remember that Scott Brown won the special election in January 2010.

The only way that Democrats were able to get the 60 votes for cloture on Obamacare was by the combination of:
1) Stealing an election (Al Franken)
2) Changing the law in MA (Paul Kirk)
3) The vote of a senile man practically on his death bed (Robert Byrd)

And THEN using the reconciliation process (which Robert Byrd had vehemently opposed back when he wasn’t senile and Bill Clinton wanted to use the reconciliation process to pass Hillarycare) to pass the House “fixes”. (The House would not have passed the Senate bill without absolute assurances from the Senate would use the reconciliation process to bypass cloture and pass the House “fixes”.)

ITguy on May 14, 2014 at 9:53 AM

Let me sum up the Demoncrats’ ethical standards in 2 Bidenesque words: “Just win, baby!”

non-nonpartisan on May 14, 2014 at 10:10 AM

Don’t you all realize – some politicians are more than equal – they’re special?

katiejane on May 14, 2014 at 10:15 AM

To add just a little more context to what I wrote above…

When Democrats lost the Kennedy/Kirk 60th Senate seat in January 2010 to Republican Scott Brown, Democrats could no longer break filibusters. And the House did not want to pass the Senate bill. For a while, it looked like a stalemate, and looked like Obamacare would die.

But the Dems finally agreed amongst themselves to couple two actions together:

1) Pass the Senate bill in the House (with weak promises not to fund abortions with taxpayer money), then

2) Pass a new bill in the House with “Fixes”, including the takeover of the student loan industry, and then pass that new bill through the Senate using the Reconciliation process, requiring only 51 votes. (A reconciliation process named after Senator Robert Byrd, who made it absolutely clear in 2001 that the reconciliation process should NEVER be used to pass something as massive as a huge health care bill!)

All of that was necessary for Democrats to pass Obamacare, against the wishes of the majority of Americans and against the will of every single Republican in Congress.

The whole process, from start to finish, epitomizes the very, very worst of politics in this country, especially the corrupt practices of the Democrat Party.

ITguy on May 14, 2014 at 10:38 AM

I would not be surprised if the other Democrat candidate were to suddenly drop out of the race. The party may convince the other guy that he needs to spend more time with his family, or there are some skeletons in the closet, or something of that nature. In a D+34 district, a write in candidate has a pretty good chance when there is no opposition from his own party.

DAT60A3 on May 14, 2014 at 10:41 AM

Hey, whatever happened to Thaddeus McCotter?

Fallon on May 14, 2014 at 9:59 AM

…he has a radio talk show spot ….on Saturdays in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

KOOLAID2 on May 14, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Legal challenges to the petition-gathering rule are likely, though. The American Civil Liberties Union has already challenged that law in federal court, saying it’s unconstitutional to require signature-gatherers to be registered voters.

…it’s an “entitlement” thing!
and

pastor Horace Sheffield III

is to the left of Conyers… even with his dementia!

KOOLAID2 on May 14, 2014 at 10:49 AM

Conyers’ expert staff couldn’t be bothered to check the CVs of their petition gatherers despite state law requiring it, which tells us plenty about the quality of people Conyers has in his employ

His “expert” staff is probably as old and senile as he is.

crankyoldlady on May 14, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Law is meaningless when it’s against democrats.

ConstantineXI on May 3, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Ricard on May 14, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Heh, Heh, Ho, Ho! Strange things are happening! (special thanks Red Buttons)

Herb on May 14, 2014 at 11:05 AM

No friend of Conyers here, but the people of his district should have the corruptocrat of their choice. I’m not a fan of election legal hair-splitting.

Immolate on May 14, 2014 at 11:07 AM

This was probably not the first time Conyers made it to the ballot with bogus signatures. It’s just the first time he got caught by another black democrat.

Joseph OHenry on May 14, 2014 at 11:08 AM

His ‘intelligent’ constituents will vote for him even if he isn’t on the ballot.

Schadenfreude on May 14, 2014 at 11:14 AM

He’ll get the law changed, retroactively of course. But honestly at 84 shouldn’t he be thinking about retiring or is he thinking of dying in office and letting the Republican governor make an appointment?

COgirl on May 14, 2014 at 11:15 AM

But honestly at 84 shouldn’t he be thinking about retiring or is he thinking of dying in office and letting the Republican governor make an appointment?

COgirl on May 14, 2014 at 11:15 AM

…according to a Detroit News article…he doesn’t know where he is…or what he’s doing…’his people’ lead him around…and answer all his questions!

KOOLAID2 on May 14, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Translation:

Maybe Franken and Gregoire can loan me a couple of boxes of signatures.

formwiz on May 14, 2014 at 11:28 AM

You have been there since 1965.

Shut up and go home.

Moesart on May 14, 2014 at 11:33 AM

The law doesn’t matter to this mongrel reprobate.

Murphy9 on May 14, 2014 at 11:34 AM

Typical Democrat crybaby. Conyers has benefited and prosper under this system for 50 years. Then he screws up and suddenly the system is unconstitutional? Give me a break.

Captain Kirock on May 14, 2014 at 11:43 AM

The American Civil Liberties Union has already challenged that law in federal court, saying it’s unconstitutional to require signature-gatherers to be registered voters.

…um…how is it unconstitutional? It seems that Article 1 Section 4 controls:

“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 [sic] Senators.”

Ricard on May 14, 2014 at 11:50 AM

If neither he nor his staff were competent enough to get this basic thing right, how could they claim to have been competent to read, evaluate, vote for and defend with credibility ObamaCare?

Blaise on May 14, 2014 at 12:02 PM

If memory serves, got beat, retired?

Bmore on May 14, 2014 at 10:06 AM

Nope.

…(Thaddeus) McCotter … failed to qualify for the 2012 Republican primary in his congressional district after massive fraud by his staff resulted in the rejection of approximately 85% of his petition signatures as invalid…

Fallon on May 14, 2014 at 12:13 PM

He must not have had enough bribe money stashed away in his freezer this time to get the signatures he needed.

Next time John Conyers needs twice the $90,000 he had last time.

Honestly, why would someone vote for anyone who stashed bribe money in the freezer anyway!!!!

He’s 84, so he isn’t really doing anything. Why don’t we have an age limit if we can’t get a term limit?

Obviously, an 84 year old is depending on unelected aides to do the actual work of what ever it is Democrat Congressmen do to destroy our lives.

I expect Democrats will pull out all the stops to get him on the ballot and re-elected, he is an automatic vote for them forever. They’d probably be fine if he wasn’t even alive anymore. They just need his name to keep up the charade.

petunia on May 14, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Bye bye, moron ….

Chuck Ef on May 14, 2014 at 12:20 PM

… but that takes a legislature if the law itself isn’t unconstitutional or overwhelmingly unreasonable.

Ed, that is so “old school”.

Carnac on May 14, 2014 at 12:21 PM

Actually… since his name isn’t on the ballot, just a space to you have to fill in the name on… maybe the people will actually get to decide if they want the guy who stashes money in the freezer.

It seems it would be harder to throw the election with a write in ballot.

You have to spell it right and everything.

petunia on May 14, 2014 at 12:22 PM

The 84-year-old Detroit Democrat is power mad. He should retire and enjoy vacation all over the world with the pension he’d get. A perfect example of why we need term limits.

sadatoni on May 14, 2014 at 12:24 PM

It seemed fantastical that a man who won 25 terms in office could get tripped up on such a basic issue [like not having enough signatures to get on the ballot], but here we are.

Nah, that’s why prospective candidates generally gather at least twice what is required…

Newtie and the Beauty on May 14, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Fallon on May 14, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Thanks Fallon. I always liked the cut of his jib. ; )

Bmore on May 14, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Jazz raised this possibility almost two weeks ago, and Mary Katharine noted it in passing last night. It seemed fantastical that a man who won 25 terms in office could get tripped up on such a basic issue, but here we are. Apparently, Conyers’ expert staff couldn’t be bothered to check the CVs of their petition gatherers despite state law requiring it, which tells us plenty about the quality of people Conyers has in his employ.

To be fair, those requirements were never meant to apply to the ruling class. They’re supposed to keep out the riff-raff.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 14, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Guess it will be a Thaddeus precedent.

Bmore on May 14, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Relying on write-ins to win could be problematic since a good many of those likely to vote for Conyers can neither read nor write.

NixTyranny on May 14, 2014 at 8:55 AM

No problem. The dead voters write very well.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 14, 2014 at 1:51 PM

So, I’m fully expecting that the Democrats will find a way to return John Conyers to Congress for another term. We are no longer a Republic, governed by the rule of law. We have become a Democracy Autocracy, governed by the rule whim of the majority Elites. And if a majority of voters in Conyers’ district want Conyers as their representative, it will happen… the law be damned.

ITguy on May 14, 2014 at 9:08 AM

ReWrite™ engaged for reality. We are, after all, neither a Republic nor a Democracy.

Steve Eggleston on May 14, 2014 at 9:23 AM

If by “Democracy” you mean, “Rule by the Democratic Pary,” then we’re already there.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 14, 2014 at 1:53 PM

If by “Democracy” you mean, “Rule by the Democratic Party,” then we’re already there.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 14, 2014 at 1:53 PM

And there are no significant differences between the program of the Democratic Party and the Program of the Communist Party USA: “The Road to Socialism USA”.

ITguy on May 14, 2014 at 2:36 PM

KOOLAID2 on May 14, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Link please. Sounds interesting.

cptacek on May 14, 2014 at 3:54 PM

Disgusting. An 84 year old who has been in Congress for 50 years never heard of retiring?

He’s the poster boy for term limits.

cat_owner on May 14, 2014 at 4:49 PM

CBC Dope.

Jaibones on May 14, 2014 at 5:25 PM

If you can win in the field, do so. If you can’t win in the field, fight in the courts. If you lose in the field and in the courts, scream RACISM!

wagnert in atlanta on May 14, 2014 at 5:45 PM