Buy Photo

Mayoral candidate Kevin Lindke delivers remarks during a hearing regarding his qualifications to run for mayor Tuesday, July 28, 2020, in the Municipal Office Center in Port Huron. Port Huron's election commission agreed unanimously to reject his qualifications to run for mayor based on the city's one-year residency requirement.(Photo: Brian Wells/Times Herald)

The Port Huron mayoral hopeful whose qualifications to run for office were rejected by an election commission this summer is seeking to have that decision reversed in court.

Kevin Lindke, whos picked up a local social media following for being critical of officials, filedto run for mayor by the July deadline. Days after a fraud investigation by police, however, the citys election commission ruled he was ineligible to run because he didn't meet thecitys one-year residency requirement.

Now, a hearing is set for Sept. 14 beforeCircuit Judge Michael West.

Lindke is asking the court to reverse the commissions decision.

The issue for me is, the burden is on them, Lindkesaid last week. Like you ask for leases, I gave you leases. You ask for a verified statement, I gave you a verified statement. You don't get to then tell me where I live (and) where I don't live.

The city is asking the courtto dismiss Lindkes request, reiterating concerns from officials over alleged discrepancies among the multiple addresses he provided to the city as his place of residence.

Todd Shoudy, contracted attorney for the city of Port Huron, speaks during a hearing regarding mayoral candidate Kevin Lindke's qualifications to run for mayor Tuesday, July 28, 2020, in the Municipal Office Center in Port Huron.(Photo: Brian Wells/Times Herald)

In the citys reply to Lindkes courtfiling and in a July police report, the cityalleges Lindke provided addresses on 21st, 23rd and Minnie streets on separate occasions while trying to confirm residency in petition forms to file to run for mayor. It also reported he registered to vote using a commercial address on Poplar Street.

According to the city, officials were unable to verify concrete residency at any of them. They pointed to interviews of neighbors and other associates, lack of utility use and real estate changes.

During their July 28 hearing, members of Port Hurons election commission asked if Lindke could provide other evidence he resides in the city. Candidates for mayor and City Council must live in the city for at least a year before the election to be eligible.

But Lindke told officials he didnt believe he had to provide additional proof.

In his circuit court request, Lindke claims the investigation didnt disprove residency and that the commission very suspiciously convened and conspired to deny his candidacy.

The citys reply maintains the city clerk had received information from Lindke that cast serious doubt on whether he met requirements. It also mentions that Lindke did not obtain an order to show cause or set the matter for a timely hearing.

Todd Shoudy, the citys attorney, said they had requested the hearing, expecting to move forward with the Sept. 14 date despite time constraints on when election ballots would be printed.

Lindke, who is litigating the issue without a lawyer, said he thought the citys fraud investigation of his addresses seemed to confirm his fear that officials would use reported residences to put me under surveillance. On Friday, he acknowledged hes always used the address of a relatives house in East China for court documents for the same reason.

Lindke also has two open federal lawsuits one against Port Huron City Manager James Freed and another against Circuit Judge Cynthia Lane. Both involve social media and First Amendment rights.

The latter was first filed in June 2019 after Lane granted a personal protection order against Lindke for an ex-spousal relative.It was over Facebook posts referencingthat relative and the proximity of a sex offender to his young daughter while visiting amid an ongoing custody dispute.

The original complaint called Lanes granting the PPO a social media injunction that constitutes a content-based legal prohibition on constitutionally protected free speech. Philip Ellison, Lindkes attorney in both lawsuits, called it a gag order.

An amended complaint later incorporated St. Clair County Sheriff Tim Donnellon as an additional defendant over enforcement of the PPO.

Circuit Judge Cynthia Lane speaks during a sentencing hearing in February 2017.(Photo: JEFFREY M. SMITH, TIMES HERALD)

St. Clair Countys reply to the complaints rejected the claims, maintaining officials acted on statute and adding that Lindke should be required to complete a pending hearing on his motion to terminate the PPO.

After Lindkes complaint was twice updated, Shoudy, whose firm also represents the county, said another motion to dismiss is still pending.

But he said theres also another underlying question about the case.

When should a federal court get involved in a state circuit court ruling where the allegation is that a PPO violated Mr. Lindkes First Amendment rights? Shoudy said. So, it'd be like the ex parte PPO that was entered. So, the question is, if he wants to challenge that, should he go to the Michigan Court of Appeals? Or can he go to the federal United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan? That's the procedural issue that is currently awaiting a judicial ruling. And I don't expect a ruling any time soon.

The lawsuit against Freed is more recent.

Port Huron City Manager James Freed discusses measurements being taken by the city to prevent the spread of coronavirus during a media briefing Thursday, March 12, 2020, in the Municipal Office Center in Port Huron.(Photo: Brian Wells/Times Herald)

It was filed in April after comments by Lindkeon Freeds Facebook page were deleted and Lindke was blocked. That complaint alleges Lindkes First Amendment rights were once again violated and that Freed only deleted comments about the citys response to COVID-19 to suppress dissent in a public forum.

In its reply to the complaint, the city admits Freed has kept a Facebook page categorized as a public figure but that, despite sharing some local goings-on about the city, he also posts personal items, such as pictures of his family. Shoudy said there remained a question of how personal the page was, entitling Freed to discretion.

Currently, Shoudy said that case is in its discovery phase and that hes awaiting more information after requesting details on Lindkes own social media use.

Lindkes reply asked the federal court to reject that request questioning relevancy and keeping the focus on Freeds Facebook. In response, the citys alleges a long history of Lindke using cyberbullying or cyberstalking tactics in an attempt to harm or destroy the personal life of both private and public individuals on social media.

Ellison said his client is trying to hold people accountable who are generally not, and that in one case, to question those who put a wedge minimally between him and his daughter.

I think what's important behind it is if Kevin was alone in his own thinking, he wouldn't have the following that he has, Ellison said, referring to Lindkes Facebook following. And I think the fact that his following, for the Port Huron area itself, is large and continues to grow is a reflection of (the) disenchantment by citizens of the area who probably have been suffering from the same sort of discontent from their local leaders as Kevin has.

Contact Jackie Smith at (810) 989-6270 or jssmith@gannett.com. Follow her on Twitter @Jackie20Smith.

Read or Share this story: https://www.thetimesherald.com/story/news/2020/08/31/hearing-set-lindkes-appeal-port-huron-election-commission-decision/5677465002/

The rest is here:

Hearing for Kevin Lindke's appeal of Port Huron election commission decision set for Sept. 14 - The Times Herald