Pontiac Mayoral Candidate's Conviction Sparks Election Integrity Questioning Under Kwame-Inspired Ban.
A Wayne County Circuit Court emergency motion filed by local activist Marcus Kelley is challenging Pontiac mayoral candidate Michael McGuinness's eligibility to run for office, citing a 2010 Michigan constitutional amendment inspired by former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's corruption scandal.
Kelley argues that McGuinness's past felony convictions bar him from seeking public office under the measure. The motion claims McGuinness served as chairman of the Oakland County Democratic Party during an election-fraud scheme in 2010, which resulted in his conviction on charges of uttering and publishing and perjury.
McGuinness was convicted in 2011 and sentenced to probation, community service, and a $1,000 fine. However, Kelley's motion cites that McGuinness's court records have since been sealed, raising questions about the candidate's eligibility for public office under the 2010 constitutional amendment.
Michigan voters approved the measure in November 2010 following public outrage over corruption scandals, including Kilpatrick's conviction and sentence. The amendment aimed to restore confidence in government and prevent disgraced officials from returning to power.
McGuinness is currently serving as president of the Pontiac City Council. If found ineligible, he would be required to step down or forgo his mayoral campaign.
Detroit attorney Todd Russell Perkins represents Kelley and emphasizes that this case raises important questions about public integrity and transparency.
Perkins notes that McGuinness's felony convictions were related to attempts to affect election outcomes, sparking concerns about the candidate's eligibility under the amendment.
A Wayne County Circuit Court emergency motion filed by local activist Marcus Kelley is challenging Pontiac mayoral candidate Michael McGuinness's eligibility to run for office, citing a 2010 Michigan constitutional amendment inspired by former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's corruption scandal.
Kelley argues that McGuinness's past felony convictions bar him from seeking public office under the measure. The motion claims McGuinness served as chairman of the Oakland County Democratic Party during an election-fraud scheme in 2010, which resulted in his conviction on charges of uttering and publishing and perjury.
McGuinness was convicted in 2011 and sentenced to probation, community service, and a $1,000 fine. However, Kelley's motion cites that McGuinness's court records have since been sealed, raising questions about the candidate's eligibility for public office under the 2010 constitutional amendment.
Michigan voters approved the measure in November 2010 following public outrage over corruption scandals, including Kilpatrick's conviction and sentence. The amendment aimed to restore confidence in government and prevent disgraced officials from returning to power.
McGuinness is currently serving as president of the Pontiac City Council. If found ineligible, he would be required to step down or forgo his mayoral campaign.
Detroit attorney Todd Russell Perkins represents Kelley and emphasizes that this case raises important questions about public integrity and transparency.
Perkins notes that McGuinness's felony convictions were related to attempts to affect election outcomes, sparking concerns about the candidate's eligibility under the amendment.
so like michael mcguiness was involved in some shady stuff back in 2010 and now he wants to be mayor? that's just wild... i mean i get it, people make mistakes but this is pretty serious and i gotta wonder if the courts are being too lenient with him. i don't know about his eligibility or whatever but i do know i don't want my mayors to have a history of doing messed up stuff like that in the first place... anyway, this case is super interesting and i'll def be keeping an eye on it - can you imagine the drama if he does end up getting kicked off the ticket? 
]
]
]
]
"]
]
I'm loving how this is all unfolding in Pontiac right now... like remember when Kwame Kilpatrick was involved in a corruption scandal and Michigan voters just wanted to make sure that sort of thing wouldn't happen again? 
Now, we've got Michael McGuinness facing an emergency motion for his eligibility, and it's raising some serious questions about election integrity. 
It just feels like a whole big mess, you know? 
. First of all, how did McGuinness's court records get sealed? That's like somethin' outta a movie 
. And what's with Kelley's motivation? He's just gonna start questionin' anyone he doesn't like 
. I mean, come on, let the guy run his campaign and then we worry about election integrity later 
. This whole thing smells like a setup to me 
. And don't even get me started on the amendment itself 
... it's just another way for them powers that be to control what people can and can't do 
He got convicted for stuff like uttering and publishing and perjury back in 2011, but now a local activist is questioning whether he's eligible to run for office cuz of that. And it gets even more complicated when you find out his court records have been SEaled 
... like what even? How can we be sure he's not trying to hide something?
. Im all for transparency in government, but lets not jump to conclusions here 
.
... would love to see the court records now that they're unsealed 
This is so weird! 
Someone's trying to take away someone's chance at a mayoral seat just 'cause of some old felony stuff 
and the guy's been out of trouble 
What's next?! 
. I mean, I get that we need people to be held accountable, but can't we just focus on the issues and not try to tear down someone's career over some old convictions? It's just so... politics-y 
it's not like he was just messing around or anything. but on the other hand, he got off with probation and a fine, which is pretty chill considering what he was accused of... 
should we be looking at mcguinness's entire history or just the one time he got caught up in an election thing? 
. but also, isnt it kinda harsh 2 strip someones rights cuz of a mistake from like 10 yrs ago? 
. And what's with the 2010 constitutional amendment anyway? Sounds like more like a knee-jerk reaction to Kilpatrick's whole ordeal 
.
... if McGuinness was really guilty, why hide that info from the public? 
I guess this whole thing just shows how serious we need to be about ensuring public integrity in our elections – it's all about trust and transparency, right?