Michigan election law is pretty persnickety about the paperwork submitted by candidates for elective office. Among other things, to run for a spot on the city council, or for mayor, you need to timely submit an Affidavit of Identity and Nominating Petitions signed by at least twenty but not more than forty registered voters (the number of signers is a Clarkston charter requirement – see Section 3.8 of the charter). All candidate paperwork was due to the Clarkston city clerk by 4:00 p.m. on July 23 this year for the November 5 general election. The Affidavits of Identity were forwarded to the Oakland County Clerk. (I don’t know if the Nominating Petitions were also forwarded to Oakland County Elections though Oakland County does not verify signatures – our local clerk does that.)
Peg Roth (incumbent), Mark Lamphier (incumbent), Al Avery, Lisa Paterczak, Erica Jones, and Lily McLean filed paperwork for a city council seat; Sue Wylie (incumbent) filed paperwork for mayor. Their Affidavits of Identity were forwarded to Oakland County Elections on July 24. On August 8, Oakland County Elections advised Clarkston that six of the seven Affidavits of Identity were deficient and counseled the Clarkston Election Commission to not certify their names for placement on the November General Election ballot. The only candidate whose Affidavit of Identity did not contain errors was Erica Jones. More on her later. (The comments from Oakland County Elections were limited to the affidavits.)
What kind of errors are we talking about? Most are small, but Michigan election law requires strict compliance with the details.
I always ask for copies of the filings, and I can tell you what was missing from the documents I received on July 30 in response to a FOIA request:
-
- Two candidate affidavits didn’t include the name of the office they were running for (city council).
- Four candidate affidavits didn’t include the name of the jurisdiction (Clarkston)
- Four candidate affidavits didn’t fill in the date of the election (November 5 General Election)
- Three candidate affidavits didn’t have the box checked certifying campaign finance filings and fees have been filed and paid (not checking the box doesn’t necessarily mean they weren’t filed and paid; it can just mean the candidate didn’t check the box)
- One candidate affidavit didn’t list the filing method (by petition)
To summarize, one candidate affidavit contained one error, two candidate affidavits contained two errors, and three candidate affidavits contained three errors.
I told you the requirements were persnickety, didn’t I? Only Erica Jones completed her Affidavit of Identity with no errors and only her name will appear on the November 5 ballot for city council. (The ballot space for mayor will be completely blank.) As a result of their affidavit errors, if the other six candidates want to run for office, they’re going to have to run as write-ins – without their name appearing on the ballot. To do that, they will need to complete a Write-In Candidate Declaration of Intent form. The state has specific rules for dealing with write-ins.
Voting for a write-in candidate requires an extra step (assuming that voters even know that someone is running as a write-in, something that needs to be brought to their attention by the city, the candidate, or both). For example, if you want to write in a candidate for city council, you will need to darken the oval next to a blank line in the city council candidate section and then write in the candidate’s name on the blank line. (The Michigan Secretary of State website explains the process here in an FAQ. This FAQ is listed under the presidential primary, but the procedure is the same for city council voting.)
Have you ever wondered why all the Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck write-in votes aren’t counted at election time, even though we know people often write these names in as a protest vote? It’s because neither Mickey Mouse nor Donald Duck ever completes and files a Write-In Candidate Declaration of Intent form. 😉
As I mentioned, only Erica Jones submitted an Affidavit of Identity with no errors. But that was only half of the requirement. Her Nominating Petitions did contain errors, and whether those errors were sufficient to keep her off the ballot was a decision for the Clarkston Election Commission.
Wait, what? Tiny Clarkston has an Election Commission? Why yes. Yes, we do. Section 3.4 of the Clarkston charter states our Election Commission consists of the clerk plus two people designated by the city council – an appointive officer (section 5.1 of the charter refers to these people as administrative officers) and one “qualified registered elector” (i.e., a registered Clarkston voter).
Who are these three people? You won’t find their names listed on the Clarkston website under “Boards and Commissions” because it’s apparently not something the city feels like publicizing, and you must really be paying attention to figure it out. I’ll save you the trouble and tell you who they are.
Who is the clerk? Well, we don’t have a clerk, but we do have a deputy clerk. Evelyn Bihl was appointed to this newly created office at a special council meeting on August 1 after the last clerk resigned. We don’t really know what Bihl’s actual title is – budget materials over the years have referred to her as both an administrative assistant and a treasurer assistant. She was described as the “office administrator,” whatever that is, at the August 1 city council meeting when she was appointed as the deputy clerk. (Titles, schmitles, who needs accurate titles, right? Not in Clarkston!) Using the city manager’s budget materials presented on Jun 10, 2024, as a guide, Bihl works around 20 hours a week and is the least paid person in the city office.
Who is the appointive officer? Bihl was originally selected for this role on January 22, 2024, but at the time, she wasn’t eligible for the appointment because she wasn’t an “officer” (she is now, because the city council created the deputy clerk office for her). I privately brought the error to the attention of a former clerk by email, and city manager Jonathan Smith was substituted for Bihl at the February 26, 2024, city council meeting, claiming the substitution was just a “formality.” (Surprised the city didn’t tell you who brought the error to their attention? You shouldn’t be. And, as you’ll see later on, these appointments are more than formalities.)
Who is the qualified registered elector? If you were interested in this role, you are SOL, as they say. Even though this is considered a paid position under Section 3.4 of our charter, the opening was not announced to the public (other than as an agenda item) and expressions of interest from Clarkston registered voters were not solicited. This meant the pool of choices was limited only to those people who happened to be present at the January 22, 2024, city council meeting, and councilmember Amanda Forte nominated meeting junkie Cara Catallo for the job. What are Cara Catallo’s qualifications to be an election commissioner? First, Catallo has worked during elections (only a handful of people are chosen to fill this paid position, which is also not generally advertised to the public because an open process would mean the clerk likely wouldn’t be able to choose her special favorites); second, Catallo came to the January 22, 2024, meeting to make inane comments (as she does at every meeting); and third, people don’t like her, so she fits the bill (her words, not mine).
So, our three-person Election Commission consists of Bihl, Smith, and Catallo.
Let’s look more closely at Erica Jones’ petitions, shall we? Because I always find nominating petitions a fascinating read. (I’ve removed the home addresses of the petition signers even though they are a public record. You can make your own FOIA request if you’d like to see them.) Aside from the errors that I’ll discuss in a moment, I found some interesting things within these two pages.
Both petitions were carried by Nancy Moon. Jones seemingly didn’t care enough about running for the city council to personally ask any individual voter for support by signing her petitions (apparently not even her roommate). People claim not to know who Jones is, but she was able to garner some interesting signers:
-
- Joe Luginski, former Clarkston mayor and former city council member
- Melissa Luginski, Joe’s wife and current Historic District Commission (HDC) member (Melissa’s name was struck from Jones’ petition because she is no longer a registered Clarkston voter and signed anyway. So why exactly is she still on the HDC since her intention apparently is to reside elsewhere?)
- Nancy Moon, Clarkston Historic District Study Commission chair
- Michael Moon, current HDC member
- James Meloche, former HDC chair
- Eric Haven, former mayor
- Jennifer Radcliff, current HDC member
- Laura Rodgers, current city councilmember
- Amanda Forte, current city councilmember
- Robert Hauxwell, current HDC chair
- Carol Eberhardt, former city councilmember and former city manager
Noticing a pattern here? I sure do. Ostensibly unknown candidate Jones has a lot of current and former administration officials who support her, particularly those affiliated with the HDC. Think these people know something we don’t?
Well, what do we know about Jones? Apparently not as much as the Clarkston insiders. Jones lists the same Main Street address as Margaret Sans, she registered to vote in Clarkston in June 2022, and an Erica Jones of Clarkston claims twenty years of experience in the communications field on her LinkedIn page. (If Sans’ name sounds familiar, it’s because she played a very active part in creating a grass roots campaign opposing the medical marijuana charter proposal a few years ago and is on the parking committee that floated the idea the city should enter into a “co-share” or “cost sharing” lease to provide “free” employee reserved parking in private parking lots at taxpayer and private business expense. As previously noted, Sans did not sign Jones’ petition.)
You’ll also notice Jones’ petitions were pulled together at the last minute. Petitions and affidavits were due by 4:00 p.m. on July 23, yet 16 of the 28 signatures on Jones’ petitions were obtained on July 22, the day before the due date. The petitions were delivered on July 23 at 1:19 p.m., and it appears that Bihl, Smith, and Greg Coté (city treasurer) each initialed both pages for some reason (see the upper right-hand corner of the petitions and the purple highlighting).
We noticed some issues with Jones’ petition and raised a challenge with Bihl and Oakland County Elections on August 16, 2024; we copied city attorney Tom Ryan. Specifically, we noticed Jones’ petitions didn’t specify whether Jones was running for city or township office, the office expiration date was omitted, and the preprinted form states that the signatures are for a primary election, not a general election. (I’ve put a red box around the problem areas on the attached petitions.)
Think we were being picky? I don’t. You’ll recall that six candidates for city council and mayor were kicked off the ballot for small things, including not listing the office they were running for, not filling out the jurisdiction (Clarkston), not filling in the date of the election, and not checking a campaign finance filing box.
Though I don’t see any posted public meeting of the Election Commission on the city’s calendar during August or September, I presume they must have met because city attorney Tom Ryan announced that Jones will be on the ballot at the August 12 city council meeting, Bihl repeated that claim at the August 26 city council meeting, and Jones is the only candidate listed on Oakland County’s posted “official” candidate list.
Want to know what happened with our election challenge? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It was ignored.
Know what else is interesting?
You’ll recall that our Election Commission is made up of Jonathan Smith, Evelyn Bihl, and Cara Catallo. Bihl and Catallo signed Jones’ petitions (see pink highlighting on the attached) and are both Election Commissioners making the decision whether our election challenge should be upheld. If our challenge were upheld, Jones would also be forced to run as a write-in candidate – just like everyone else who made similar, small errors in their candidate paperwork.
Does this mean Bihl or Catallo have done anything wrong? Nope. I have no evidence of that. After all, the Michigan Secretary of State oversees elections when her name is on the ballot, though I would note I think there’s a difference between state-wide and small-town elections, and the Michigan Secretary of State didn’t publicly attack my husband at a recent city council meeting – Bihl and Catallo did. (Smith has a history of attacking me, and I don’t have any evidence he’s done anything wrong with regard to this petition either.)
Even though I can’t prove anyone did anything wrong, I’m entitled to raise questions about what appears to me to be disparate treatment in the way the candidate filing paperwork was treated. Six candidates get the flyspeck treatment, are kicked off the ballot, and will have to run a more difficult campaign as a write-in. One candidate no one has ever heard of, who oddly managed to get boatloads of support from insiders associated with Clarkston government and the HDC, remains on the ballot despite errors on her petition and an election challenge the city has chosen to ignore. Jones will be the only person whose name is printed on the ballot, a significant advantage that almost guarantees her a seat on the city council (unless voters reject her and write in their preferred candidates). Two of the three people on the Election Commission signed Jones’ petition, all three of them have openly expressed hostility towards my husband and/or me, and all three have completely ignored our election challenge to date.
Anyone can file an election lawsuit challenging Jones’ right to be on the ballot, and she’ll have to hire an attorney at her own expense if she wants to defend against that. I have other fish to fry now and don’t plan on doing that, but nothing is stopping anyone else from doing it. (Maybe one of the candidates who was kicked off the ballot would be interested in challenging Jones’s right to have her name on the ballot.) One thing is certain – without a lawsuit (since election challenges will be ignored), Jones will be the only person in the privileged position of having her name on the ballot, despite her petition errors, while six other candidates must work twice as hard and run as write-in candidates.
I’ll let you decide if this result is fair and transparent.