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.
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.
. 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" 
.
. And if it doesn't count, then why should his felony convictions disqualify him from running for mayor? 
. 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 
.
. Can a candidate with a history of dishonesty really be trusted to lead a city? It's a question that needs answering 
.
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? 
anyway, it'll be super interesting to see how this all plays out and what the court decides 
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?
. 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'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 
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? 
. 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 
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... 
. 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 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 
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 
His attorney says he's learned from his mistakes and wants to reform, but that's not enough... yet 
michael mcguinness's past doesn't exactly scream "trustworthy" leadership... and now people are questioning his eligibility to run for office 
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? 
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 
. 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 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 
.
.
. 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? 
it would be such a bummer for michigan in general, we've had enough corruption scandals already 
. 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