Macomb County Attorney Peter Lucido asked a district court judge to dismiss his lawsuit against the county’s top attorney for donating $100 to his opponent’s campaign in November.

Lucido’s attorney, Todd Perkins, asked Judge James Maceroni to disqualify himself from Republican Lucido’s lawsuit against District Attorney John Schapka because Maceroni donated to Democrat Christina Hines’ campaign last November in her attempt to oust Lucido from office this November.

During a hearing Monday morning, Perkins told Maceroni that the donation represented an “actual bias” and the “appearance of impropriety” in the case.

“There is a clear bias or inclination because this is a donation to a political opponent of Mr. Lucido as a favor to that person and not to Mr. Lucido,” Perkins said.

Schapka, who is representing himself in the case, countered that the law states that Lucido must prove actual bias, not merely create the appearance of bias, and that the $100 donation does not reach that amount.

According to the latest campaign report dated July 26, Hines has raised $192,000.

He pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court case Caperton v. Massey ruled in 2009 that a $3 million donation to a campaign that dwarfed every other donation resulted from a federal appeals court judge’s dismissal from a case. That amount represented 300% of all donations to the candidate and was $1 million more than the two candidates had raised combined, Schapka said.

This ruling shows “how extreme the facts have to be for an appearance of bias to become an actual bias,” he said.

He added that the $100 donation was made seven months before the lawsuit was filed.

Perkins, however, countered that the $100 was effectively an “announcement” of his opinion of Hines in relation to Lucido.

A campaign donation, no matter how small, “is a statement of where we stand in relation to other people,” Perkins said.

Maceroni challenged Perkins.

“You will agree that this is a fairly typical, minimal amount,” said Maceroni.

“This is not about money,” Perkins said.

Maceroni interrupted. “That’s right. It’s about a donation of $100, right? If there had been no donation, your proposal would be…”

“Touche, Your Honor,” said Perkins.

Maceroni noted that both he and other judges in other districts have argued litigation involving the county board, county executive and other public officials.

“Keeping that in mind, I don’t think the court is in a position to disqualify itself,” he said.

However, he added that he would issue a written statement “shortly”.

Schapka also noted that Perkins and Lucido had not presented any evidence of a personal relationship between the judge and Hines.

Lucido’s request for a temporary restraining order from the judge in his favor was scheduled for Monday, but has been postponed because Maceroni must first rule on the disqualification request.

Lucido’s lawsuit against Schapka concerns his advisory role on the county’s five-member ethics committee, which referred an ethics complaint against Lucido for a hearing.

Lucido is trying to block the complaint from moving forward by accusing Schapka of bias and a conflict of interest with respect to Lucido. Luido says Schapka also represented him, but Schapka says he does not, even though his office advises assistant district attorneys on complaints against them.

Lucido also accuses Schapka and the board of violating the state’s Open Meetings Act, and an ethics complaint has been filed against Schapka. He has denied a conflict of interest and bias and filed a motion that the judge immediately dismiss the Open Meetings Act charges.

Lucido points out that the Ethics Board is appointed by Democratic County Executive Mark Hackel, with whom Lucido has had several conflicts since taking office in 2021. Ethics Board appointments must be confirmed by the Board of Commissioners.

Maceroni has also not yet decided on an interim injunction to prevent the Ethics Council from pursuing the complaint against Lucido, although it is voluntarily delaying the proceedings pending the outcome of the litigation.

The ethics complaint, filed by Democratic attorney and former state Democratic Party chairman Mark Brewer, accuses Lucido of improperly using county resources and continuing to do so in a photo on his campaign website of himself at his desk in the district attorney’s office in the county administration building in Mount Clemens.

If the committee finds a violation, it could impose a fine of up to $500 on Lucido.

Brewer also filed a complaint with the state elections office this year alleging that Lucido violated state campaign finance law through several alleged actions, including using a work email address to send Macomb employees a newsletter to their county email addresses that included a headline with a link to his campaign website and distributing campaign merchandise — a tote bag with his campaign website address printed on it — at a county-sponsored senior citizen event in fall 2023 while using county employees and resources for campaign activities.

The election office is investigating.

Lucido’s opponent criticizes him for his performance in harassment and discrimination training

Lucido: Record number of new hires of women breaks glass ceiling

Originally published: August 19, 2024 at 12:52 pm