Pontiac mayoral candidate convicted in election-fraud scheme faces challenge under Kwame-inspired ban - Detroit Metro Times

Pontiac Mayoral Candidate's Eligibility to Run for Office Called into Question Over Felony Convictions.

A Wayne County Circuit Court motion filed by Pontiac activist Marcus Kelley questions whether the city's mayoral candidate, Michael McGuinness, is eligible to run for office under a constitutional amendment inspired by former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's corruption scandal. The motion seeks to unseal McGuinness's court records, which were sealed following his conviction in 2011 on charges of uttering and publishing and perjury.

McGuinness was chairman of the Oakland County Democratic Party during the 2010 campaign cycle, when he became involved in an election-fraud scheme. He was accused of forging documents and placing three Tea Party candidates on the ballot under a third party to mislead voters and draw votes away from Republicans in several local races. McGuinness was sentenced to probation, community service, and a $1,000 fine.

The constitutional amendment, approved by Michigan voters in 2010, prohibits former public officials convicted of a felony involving "dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or breach of the public trust" from holding elected office or a high-level public job for 20 years. Kelley argues that McGuinness's past convictions bar him from seeking public office under this amendment.

McGuinness's eligibility to run is uncertain due to the ambiguity surrounding his role as chairman of the Oakland County Democratic Party and whether it qualifies as a position in local, state, or federal government under the amendment. His attorney, Todd Russell Perkins, says that the case raises important questions about public integrity and transparency.

Perkins notes that McGuinness has publicly acknowledged his mistakes and is seeking to reform. However, he emphasizes that the court's decision will determine whether McGuinness meets the constitutional requirements for office-holding. The outcome of this motion could have significant implications for the 2025 Pontiac mayoral election, which features McGuinness as a candidate.

Kelley's efforts aim to ensure that voters in his community can trust the electoral process and are not misled by individuals with a history of dishonesty. If the court unseals McGuinness's records, it will reveal further details about the 2010 election-fraud scheme, which could shed light on the circumstances surrounding his conviction.

The case highlights concerns about corruption and integrity in local politics, particularly in Michigan, where the Kwame Kilpatrick scandal has had a lasting impact. The outcome of this motion will be closely watched by voters and election officials alike, as it determines whether McGuinness can participate in the democratic process without compromising public trust.

The whole thing with Michael McGuinness is just really messy . So, I'm reading through all this stuff about his felony convictions back in 2011, and I'm trying to wrap my head around how it all connects to him running for mayor now. The problem is, the constitutional amendment that's supposed to keep him from holding public office seems kinda fuzzy on what exactly constitutes a "position of government" .

I mean, McGuinness was chairman of the Oakland County Democratic Party during the 2010 campaign cycle, which sounds like a pretty big deal . But is that even considered a position in local, state, or federal government under this amendment? It's hard to say without more context . And if it doesn't count, then why should his felony convictions disqualify him from running for mayor?

On the other hand, I totally get where Marcus Kelley is coming from . As a voter, you want to know that your elected officials are trustworthy and won't compromise public integrity for personal gain . If McGuinness's records are sealed, it could reveal some pretty juicy details about his past misdeeds .

But at the end of the day, this whole thing just highlights how complicated politics can be . There's no clear-cut answer here, and I think that's what makes it so concerning . Can a candidate with a history of dishonesty really be trusted to lead a city? It's a question that needs answering .

omg like i'm literally watching this drama unfold and i'm so confused about michael mcguinness's eligibility to run for office i mean he got caught up in some shady stuff back in 2010 but 15 years later is it really fair to keep holding him accountable? i think the activist, marcus kelley, has a point tho like we need to make sure our politicians are above reproach and not just some dude who got lucky with his conviction but at the same time, isn't this kinda setting a precedent for a lot of people who have made mistakes in their past? my friend's cousin is actually running for city council right now and i hope they didn't get into any sketchy dealings lol anyway, it'll be super interesting to see how this all plays out and what the court decides

So now we've got this whole thing about Michael McGuinness's eligibility to run for office . I mean, come on, a felony conviction is a big deal, right? 20 years out of the game just because you made some mistakes in the past? That doesn't sound like a fair punishment to me. I think it's time we re-examine this amendment and consider loosening up the rules so people can get back into politics after serving their time.

And what's with all these activist groups trying to call out McGuinness for his past actions? It just seems like they're trying to block him from running because he doesn't fit their party's ideal candidate. But what about rehabilitation? What about second chances? Don't we want to see people move forward and make a positive impact on their communities?

This whole thing is just another example of how politics can be so polarizing and partisan . I mean, some folks are saying McGuinness should be barred from running because he's not "clean" enough. But what does that even mean? Are we really going to let someone like him dictate who can and can't run for office based on a few past mistakes?

I think this whole debate highlights the need for more transparency and accountability in local politics . We need to make sure our elected officials are being held to high standards, but also that they're given opportunities to grow and learn from their mistakes. Otherwise, we'll just be stuck in a never-ending cycle of controversy and gridlock .

OMG what's good I gotta say I'm low-key surprised that someone with a felony conviction is even running for office tbh... like, I get it people can change and all, but this kinda stuff makes me go "hold up, let's make sure we're not putting a wolf in sheep's clothing" 20 years is a pretty long time to be out of the game though, so if he gets cleared or whatever, I guess that's cool. But what's with the party politics drama? Like, wasn't he part of some election-fraud scheme with his own party?

OMG is this guy for real? I mean, I get it, we all make mistakes, but a felony conviction for trying to mess with elections? That's some serious stuff! And now he's running for mayor? It's like he thinks voters are blind or something . I don't know if I trust him to make good decisions for the city. The fact that his record is sealed and all we know is what happened in 2010 is really weird. Why can't they just give us some answers already? This whole thing is giving me major election anxiety

I MEAN, IT'S JUST REALLY WEIRD WHEN SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN IN TROUBLE BEFORE GETS TO RUN FOR OFFICE AGAIN . I FEEL LIKE WE NEED MORE TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC INTEGRITY IN LOCAL POLITICS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE RUNNING FOR A JOB THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT SERVING THE COMMUNITY NOT JUST GETTING REELECTED.

AND I'M NOT SAYING MICHAEL MCGUINNESS IS BAD GUY OR ANYTHING, BUT HE DID MAKE SOME BIG MISTAKES IN 2010 AND IT LOOKS LIKE HE'S TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE. BUT IF THE COURT DECIDES THAT HE CAN'T RUN BECAUSE OF HIS PAST, THEN I THINK THAT'S A GOOD CALL. WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT VOTERS AREN'T BEING LED ASTRAY BY SOMEONE WITH A HISTORY OF DISHONESTY.

I don't think it's fair to call out someone's past mistakes like this . Michael McGuinness has served his time and is trying to make a positive change now . I'm not saying he's perfect, but 20 years is a long time, you know? It feels like people are just being too hard on him about the whole Tea Party thing . The constitution says what it says, but doesn't say how we should handle past mistakes in public life . Maybe instead of focusing on whether or not he's eligible to run, we could try to understand why these kinds of things happen and how we can prevent them in the future .

I'm totally confused about this whole thing. If Michael McGuinness was involved in some shady stuff back in 2010, shouldn't that have been a bigger deal at the time? Like, why wasn't he kicked out of office or something? Now it's only 15 years later and his past is being scrutinized again... I think this whole thing just shows how politicians are always looking for ways to stay in power and that's not okay. We need more transparency and accountability, you know? And can we talk about the fact that the city's activist, Marcus Kelley, is just trying to protect the voters from people like McGuinness who might try to deceive them again? It's like, he's just doing his job, but it's also good for everyone else to be aware of these things.

man... this whole thing is so messed up . like how can we even know if he's trustworthy if his past convictions are still shady? I get that everyone makes mistakes, but if you've been in trouble with the law before, shouldn't that be public knowledge? it's not fair to voters who don't have all the info. and what about the 2010 election-fraud scheme? that's some serious stuff right there . how can we trust him now when we know he was involved in something like that? I think this case is a good reminder that transparency is key, especially in politics .

I'm kinda worried about this one... if the court rules that McGuinness can't run, it's like, what happens to his chance at making a difference? He's already made some mistakes and seems genuinely sorry for 'em. It's not just about whether he's "eligible" or not, but also about accountability & transparency in our politics... 20 years is a long time, but it doesn't mean someone can never make amends. What do you guys think?

This situation is a perfect example of how past actions can come back to haunt you in the present, especially when it comes to public office . The fact that Marcus Kelley is questioning Michael McGuinness's eligibility to run for office due to his felony convictions highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in politics .

It's interesting to note that while McGuinness has publicly acknowledged his mistakes and is seeking reform, the ambiguity surrounding his role as chairman of the Oakland County Democratic Party raises questions about whether he meets the constitutional requirements for office-holding . The fact that the case could have significant implications for the 2025 Pontiac mayoral election is a reminder that voters must be vigilant in ensuring that those who seek public office are honest and trustworthy .

Overall, I think this case is a timely reminder of the importance of ethics and integrity in politics . It's crucial that we have robust systems in place to ensure that individuals with a history of dishonesty are not given a platform to lead, especially when it comes to public office

Im surprised the courts havent just given him a green light already , 20 years is kinda long to keep people from running for office after theyve served their time, and its not like hes been locked up or anything McGuinness has admitted to his mistakes so he should be held accountable but also not unfairly punished for it. Its all about finding a balance between integrity and moving forward

OMG, this is getting super interesting!!! I mean, I think we should all be concerned about the integrity of our elections, you know? If Michael McGuinness is indeed barred from running for office due to his past convictions, it would be a huge deal! His attorney says he's learned from his mistakes and wants to reform, but that's not enough... yet . We need transparency and accountability in our politics, especially when it comes to public officials with a history of dishonesty. Fingers crossed the court unseals those records so we can get to the bottom of this!

this is like deja vu... another public official trying to get away with some shady stuff michael mcguinness's past doesn't exactly scream "trustworthy" leadership... and now people are questioning his eligibility to run for office it's a bit frustrating that we have to go through this again, but i guess it's better to be safe than sorry maybe the fact that he's trying to reform is a good sign? but at the same time, 20 years seems like a pretty long time to wait if you've committed some serious offenses... or did we just learn nothing from the kwame kilpatrick scandal?

I don't think this is fair lol . He's done his time and paid his fine, you know? 20 years is a long time. I'm not saying he's innocent or anything, but come on, we've all messed up in life, right? It's not like he committed some major crime, just some election-fraud stuff that wasn't too serious. And now this motion is gonna throw his whole campaign into doubt... it's just not cool . Can't we just move on from the past and give people a chance to grow?

Ugh , another politician trying to sweep their dirty past under the rug . I mean, come on Michael McGuinness, owning up to your mistakes is great and all, but actually being held accountable for them? That's the real issue here . And now this activist Marcus Kelley is trying to fight for transparency by unsealing his court records...about time someone did .

I'm not sure what's more concerning, McGuinness's past convictions or that he's still running for office despite those mistakes . And the ambiguity surrounding his role in the Oakland County Democratic Party is just a whole other can of worms . It's like, if you're gonna run for public office, own it and be honest about what happened .

This case is just another reminder that corruption and integrity are still major issues in local politics . And let's be real, the Kwame Kilpatrick scandal was a huge wake-up call for Michigan...it's about time we're holding people accountable .

this whole thing just smells like politics to me... i mean, come on, a 20 year ban from office for some stuff that happened over 10 years ago? seems kinda harsh McGuinness has said he's learned from his mistakes and is trying to reform, which is cool, but at the same time, you gotta wonder if it's just all part of his campaign strategy . Kelley's concerns about voter trust are valid, but can't we just focus on his qualifications for the job instead of digging up old dirt?

omg what's going on with mcguinness he was accused of something super shady during the 2010 campaign cycle and now some activist is trying to stop him from running for mayor in pontiac like, i'm a huge fan of mcguinness btw but this stuff is kinda crazy his lawyer says he's been open about his mistakes and wants to reform, which is cool i guess, but what if the court decides against him? it would be such a bummer for michigan in general, we've had enough corruption scandals already like remember the kwame kilpatrick thing? anyway, i'm keeping my fingers crossed that mcguinness can prove he's legit and run for office without any issues

this whole thing is just a mess. I mean, come on, someone's gotta do some actual fact-checking here . A conviction for uttering and publishing and perjury doesn't exactly scream 'public integrity' to me . And what's with the ambiguity around his role in the Oakland County Democratic Party? It seems like a way to weasel out of accountability . Either McGuinness is fit to hold public office or he's not, no need for all this back-and-forth .