Dear Wayne County Election Commission :
This letter is a demand for a clarity review hearing as required by Michigan election law (168.952 of MCL Act 116 of 1954). This letter contains the petition language and shall also serve as said submission in the event that you fail to meet in the time period required by the law (168.952 (3)).
Section 168.952 states, “(3) The board of county election commissioners, not less than 10 days or more than 20 days after submission to it of a petition for the recall of an officer, shall meet and shall determine whether each reason for the recall stated in the petition is of sufficient clarity to enable the officer whose recall is sought and the electors to identify the course of conduct that is the basis for the recall. Failure of the board of county election commissioners to comply with this subsection shall constitute a determination that each reason for the recall stated in the petition is of sufficient clarity to enable the officer whose recall is being sought and the electors to identify the course of conduct that is the basis for the recall.”
On May 1st Warren Raftshol and I met with the commission to discuss the following wording for clarity review:
The reason given for the recall (to be printed on the petition) is, “He co-authored and introduced S.1867 (the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012) which provides for the military arrest, and indefinite detention, of U.S. citizens without Constitutional due process (Subtitle D). He voted in favor of the final version (H.R. 1540). In so doing, he violated his oath or affirmation.”
This wording is was rejected by the commission based on the assertion that a portion of it was in some respect similar to language rejected in the case of MOLITOR v. MILLER. Rather than appealing the Commissions ruling, we have chosen to resubmit alternative wording that removes language that may have been viewed by the Commission as overly conclusory.
The last sentence of 168.952 (6) reads: “This subsection does not prohibit a person from resubmitting a recall petition for a determination of sufficient clarity under this section.”
New proposed wording:
“He co-authored and introduced an amendment regarding detention provisions (Subtitle D Section 1031) to S.1867 (the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012). He voted in favor of the final version (H.R. 1540) which contained the detention provisions in section 1021.”
A co-sponsor for this petition is:
Scott Avery Boman
4877 Balfour Rd.
Detroit, MI 48224
CC: The Honorable Milton L. Mack, Jr., Chair. The Honorable Cathy M. Garrett, Secretary to the Commission.
The Honorable Raymond J. Wojtowicz, Member
Recall Carl Levin NOW.
The first hearing on May 1, 2012, before the Wayne County Election Commission, although it did not result in approval of the petition language, was a partial success because it
This last point is important because around 500,000 signatures of registered Michigan voters need to be collected within a 180 day time frame in order to hold a special recall election. The basic strategy at this point (unless large money donations start to pour in) will be to scan the petition and post the scan online at this site so that those wishing to can sign as both petitioner and circulator and possibly at the same time gather signatures from friends and relatives.
Undismayed after the first hearing, Scotty Boman said
“The properly conducted hearing was an important first step in the recall process. Now that the officials recognize the application of Michigan law to a Federal officer, we may move forward and submit alternative wording that is undeniably clear to all concerned.”
(Detroit. 5/3/2012) Following an approximately 45 minute hearing May 1, the Wayne County Election Commission found the proposed petition language submitted by petitioner and US Senate Candidate Scotty Boman to be “unclear”. The vote was 2-0 against approval, with Commission member and Wayne County Clerk Cathy Marie Garrett not present for the meeting.
The language proposed by Boman reads
He [Levin] co-authored and introduced S.1867 (the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012) which provides for the military arrest, and indefinite detention, of U.S. citizens without Constitutional due process (Subtitle D). He voted in favor of the final version (H.R. 1540). In so doing, he violated his oath or affirmation.
The meeting opened with discussion by an attorney representing Carl Levin who argued that Michigan’s recall statute MCL168.121 was not constitutional because he claimed that it conflicted with the US Constitution. Boman objected that the issue being raised was outside the scope of the hearing which was solely for the purpose of review the language clarity of the proposed petition.
Following this objection, discussion moved on to the clarity issue. An attorney advising the Commission stated that she found the last sentence of the proposed wording to be vague and unclear, and similar to language which was rejected in the case Molitor v Miller, 102 MichApp 144. Following her presentation and after hearing no public comment, the Commission voted to reject the petition language.
Attending in support of Boman’s petition was Warren Raftshol of Suttons Bay and 2 individuals that learned of the hearing from the internet identified as Ken from the Detroit area and Bill from Livingston County. The Committee to Recall Carl Levin wishes to commend Ken and Bill for putting on their patriot pants and showing up.
After the hearing, Scotty Boman indicated his intention to resubmit the petition in an altered form.
If you would like to recall Carl Levin on your own, you can use the letter below for some basic information. Of course, you’ll have to fill in your own reason(s) in the space provided.
A clearer version is at this link: recall levin letter
Get it witnessed by a notary. Make a copy for yourself, and then send it registered with return receipt requested.
You should get a clarity hearing in about 20 days.
Levin will send a lawyer to the hearing. This lawyer will try to divert the discussion to questioning the constitutionality of the recall law, even though the statute, MCL168.952, is clear that the hearing is solely for the purpose of reviewing the clarity of your petition wording. Don’t get sucked into an argument with this bozo. Instead say “Objection-this hearing is to review the petition language only!” He will shut up and sit down at that point.