Grosse Pointe Farms City Council member Joseph Leonard, has filed a complaint with the Michigan Secretary of State's Office against write-in candidate Elizabeth Vogel, according to a report in the the Detroit Free Press.
Leonard says that candidate signs must have a "paid for" notation on the sign to indicate how the signs are funded. "Hers has no identification whatsoever," Leonard said in the Free Press story. "So I sent a complaint form to the Michigan Secretary of State's Office."
"The omission of the ‘paid for…’ verbiage on my lawn signs was a simple oversight and was remedied immediately," Vogel said in a written statement.
". . . .It is time for a breath of fresh air on our City Council, where clarity and vigilant communication are the hallmark. This is what my campaign is all about. My commitment to bring these skills to Kerby Road will not be distracted by petty politics. The people of Grosse Pointe Farms deserve better.”
Vogel was spurred to launch a write-in campaign for the Farms council after the city's Her write-in campaign means there are four candidates for three seats on council.
The include Vogel, two incumbents, Leonard and Therese Joseph, who are are seeking re-election to the council, and newcomer Lev Wood.
Also in the Farms' November election, current Mayor James Farquhar is seeking re-election for the mayoral seat. He is running uncontested.
Editors note of disclosure: Elizabeth Vogel is a contributor for Grosse Pointe Patch. She writes a history column about the Grosse Pointes.
Someone made a good point on the Free Press article: If running as a write-in candidate, do the same rules apply? There has been no formal declaration of intent to run with the state and her name doesn't appear on ballot. Therefore, do campaign finance laws actually apply?
Liz, I noticed the new sign on my lawn, I thought you changed them just to make the "Write In" part larger, never noticed the "paid for" mumbo jumbo (nor do I care).
Thank you for your comments. Yesterday was, needless to say, a very interesting day. This is the only comment I will leave due to the fact that I am a Patch contributor and wish to respect this forum. I would welcome all further contact though my email, elizabeth.m.vogel@gmail.com or my facebook page (mini URL tiny.cc/LizVogel). Farms resident has asked a very good question that I do want to answer. In 1972 there was a Michigan Supreme Court case, Petrie v. Curtis. To summarize, Petrie was the official write-in candidate against the lone incumbent, Curtis. Petrie lost by a small margin because som of the votes for him were tossed out. The election officials threw them out because voters had only written his last name. This decision was over-ruled by the Supreme Court because, according to the opinion, a voter's intent should never be incumbered by a legal technicality. "The court granted the motion for summary judgment, basing its decision on the fact 'that a voter's intention should not be frustrated by a legal technicality,' and concluded that 'there can be no other logical explanation of those votes.'" A vote for Liz Vogel and a vote for Elizabeth Vogel all count. See the full ruling here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4434182844377701600&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr See also: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/IV_Write-In_Candidates_265989_7.pdf Best regards, Liz