Pontiac Mayoral Candidate's Conviction Raises Questions Over Eligibility to Run for Office Under Kwame-Kilpatrick Inspired Amendment.
A Michigan activist has filed an emergency court motion questioning whether Pontiac mayoral candidate Michael McGuinness is eligible to run for office under a state constitutional amendment inspired by former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's corruption scandal. The proposed change, approved by voters in 2010, prohibits individuals with felony convictions involving dishonesty or deceit from holding elected office for 20 years.
McGuinness, who currently serves as the president of Pontiac City Council and was chairman of the Oakland County Democratic Party during the 2010 campaign cycle, has been accused of forging documents and placing Tea Party candidates on the ballot to mislead voters. In 2011, he was convicted of uttering and publishing and perjury in connection with the case and sentenced to probation, community service, and a $1,000 fine.
An activist has questioned whether McGuinness's past felony conviction bars him from seeking public office under the amendment. A Wayne County Circuit Court judge must determine if McGuinness is eligible to run for office based on his convictions and any potential exemptions under the law.
McGuinness's eligibility to run for office remains uncertain, with some arguing that serving as a party chairman may not be considered a position in local government under the amendment. The activist who filed the motion aims to ensure transparency and accountability in the voting process, stating that voters must know the details of the candidates' convictions before casting their ballots.
The case raises questions about public integrity and transparency, with experts suggesting that McGuinness's past actions could potentially disqualify him from holding public office.
A Michigan activist has filed an emergency court motion questioning whether Pontiac mayoral candidate Michael McGuinness is eligible to run for office under a state constitutional amendment inspired by former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's corruption scandal. The proposed change, approved by voters in 2010, prohibits individuals with felony convictions involving dishonesty or deceit from holding elected office for 20 years.
McGuinness, who currently serves as the president of Pontiac City Council and was chairman of the Oakland County Democratic Party during the 2010 campaign cycle, has been accused of forging documents and placing Tea Party candidates on the ballot to mislead voters. In 2011, he was convicted of uttering and publishing and perjury in connection with the case and sentenced to probation, community service, and a $1,000 fine.
An activist has questioned whether McGuinness's past felony conviction bars him from seeking public office under the amendment. A Wayne County Circuit Court judge must determine if McGuinness is eligible to run for office based on his convictions and any potential exemptions under the law.
McGuinness's eligibility to run for office remains uncertain, with some arguing that serving as a party chairman may not be considered a position in local government under the amendment. The activist who filed the motion aims to ensure transparency and accountability in the voting process, stating that voters must know the details of the candidates' convictions before casting their ballots.
The case raises questions about public integrity and transparency, with experts suggesting that McGuinness's past actions could potentially disqualify him from holding public office.
, like, how can we trust someone who has a felony conviction under their belt to make decisions for our city? I mean, come on, 20 years of ineligibility is pretty standard, you know? It's not just about the crime itself, it's about the lack of integrity and accountability that comes with it. And now this activist is questioning if McGuinness can even run because of his party chairman gig 
... like, what's next? Are we gonna start letting people with shady pasts into office just because they've done some community service or something? 
I don't get why some folks are trying to make excuses for him, it just reeks of corruption. Can't we just stick to the rules and ensure that our elected officials have clean hands? 
. I mean, who hasn't lied or done something shady in the past? It's like we're trying to create a whole new class of people who are ineligible for public office because they've made one mistake. And what's with all these exemptions and loopholes? It's like trying to solve a puzzle blindfolded 
. I think we should be focusing on more pressing issues, like the state's actual corruption problems, rather than picking apart some old conviction from 10 years ago. Come on, guys, let's not get too hung up on this 
. If Michael McGuinness has a felony conviction, he should be open about it and not try to sneak around the rules 
. Let's get all the deets out there so voters can make informed decisions 
. This whole thing raises so many red flags 
... like, how could someone get away with forging documents and still be considered for a public office? 
. Can't wait to see what the judge decides 
He got off with probation, community service, and a $1k fine. I don't get why this is such a big deal now that he's running for office.
I don't know, man... it just seems like there's a lot of grey area here and not enough transparency.
It's like, how do we balance those two things? 
And now he's trying to run for office? 
AND NOW THIS FELLOW IS TRYING TO WEASEL HIS WAY INTO THE MAYORAL RACE WITH A PROBATIONARY SENTENCE!!! IT JUST DON'T ADD UP!!!
. I get that voters want transparency & accountability, but come on, let's not be too harsh 
the fact that he's got a law inspired by his own corruption trying to keep another guy from running is like, ahahaha, nice try, Detroit!
this is getting real in Pontiac. Michael McGuinness, a well-known face in local politics, is facing a big question mark over his eligibility to run for mayor. I mean, we know he's got a history of trouble with the law - forging docs and lying on ballots... it's not exactly reassuring. And now this amendment comes into play, which is meant to keep folks like him from holding public office for 20 years after committing dishonesty or deceit. It's hard not to wonder if McGuinness's past actions will be enough to knock him off the ballot. I'm all for transparency and accountability in voting - it's a fundamental right we should have, but it seems like we need to make sure our leaders are on the up-and-up. 
.
. This whole thing just feels super fishy 
, but at the same time... maybe we should be scrutinizing all candidates' pasts? IDK, man 