The Michigan Supreme Court on Friday ruled that PA4, the state’s controversial emergency manager law, be put on the November ballot for Michigan voters to decide it's fate in the November election.

But now that the law has been put to a vote of the people, it is technically not a law (quite yet) anymore until the people decide. So the emergency manager law may be suspended until November, although lawsuits are set to fly on whether it should be.

Gov. Rick Snyder  has said that everything done thus far under PA4 will not suddenly be erased, but no new developments cannot be made until the November vote. Current emergency managers will have to take a demotion for a few months and go back o the the powers they had under the former emergency manager law, passed in 1990.

The 1990 law does not give emergency managers as much power. One key difference is that it forbids an E.M. to shape collective bargaining agreements.

The Detroit Free Press report quoted one lawyer, John Philo, legal director of the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice in Detroit saying:

“…Going forward, anything under the consent agreement that is ostensibly under Public Act 4 can’t be taken – anything that’s clearly a Public Act 4 power is suspended. It raises serious questions about any continuing powers for the Financial Advisory Board and some of the powers granted to the program management director.”

There are other lawyers like Donato Lorio, a lawyer for the Detroit Police Officers Association, who believe city’s recent pay and benefits cuts imposed on city labor unions are now “null and void.”

Whatever the case, Detroit is in for another round of turbulent debates and Michiganders will face a big decision come November. No more bickering from the sidelines, people get a chance to once and for all put this controversial law to rest.

But it does raise the question: If there's no strong emergency manager law, then what's in store for DPS and other cities facing financial crisis?

Does Benny Napoleon Want to be Sherriff or Mayor? 

Wayne County Sherriff Benny Napoleon has a lot on his plate. As sheriff, he serves a county with one of the highest crime rates in the nation. Plus, in order to keep his job, he’s running for re-election in next week’s primary for a four-year term. But that’s not all. Napoleon is also considering a run for Mayor of the City of Detroit.

Has Napoleon bitten off more then he can chew?

Eyeing two public offices at once sure seems like it. How can he convince voters he’s committed to his job as sheriff if he plans to run for mayor in a matter of months after being elected?

Voters need to know that their county sheriff wants the job and isn’t distracted by another political race.

It’s not that Napoleon isn’t qualified for either job. It just seems like the honorable thing to do for voters and supporters is to stick to one goal. If he is elected as mayor next year, someone else will replace him as sheriff who was appointed and not elected into the position.

There are many who believe Napoleon could be a viable candidate in the 2013 mayoral race.

When asked who would be the next mayor of Detroit, Congressman Gary Peters had his answer ready: Benny Napoleon.

For voter’s sake, pick one public office to run for and commit to it.

What’s the big deal? If judges are going to dismiss legal challenges to the consent agreement so easily, why all the fuss?

Krystal Crittendon tried it. Then she tried it again—that is, filing a lawsuit deeming Detroit’s Financial Stability Agreement void according to her interpretation of the city charter due to some disputed revenue sharing dollars and unpaid bills.

Both times, an Ingham County judge tossed Crtittendon’s lawsuit without a blink.

But it was too late: at that point city’s top attorney’s legal argument had raised such a ruckus from the state and supporters of the agreement, that city bond ratings dipped along with other financial speculations, driving the city further into a financial hurricane.

With all that mess, it seemed like the Corporation Counsel’s lawsuit actually carried some water. Or, at very least, enough for a judge to consider it and not toss it out with the same knee-jerk revulsion reserved for rotten tomatoes.

Then three local AFSCME union leaders tried it. Detroiters Rose Roots, Yolanda King and Yvonne Ross filed a lawsuit making the same argument as Crittendon: the consent agreement is void per the City Charter due to debts the state owes the City.

Wayne County Circuit Judge Amy Hathaway swiftly ruled that the City had no proof that the State owed it any money, and that revenue sharing dollars that are not shared do not count as debts.

The Detroit Free Press Reports: 

"'The revenue-sharing money ... is not a debt, and we all know it's not a debt because corporation counsel issued an opinion to that effect back in 2006,' Hathaway said, referring to an opinion by a former top city attorney in the administration of former Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick."

While the city charter has been revised since the Kilpatrick days, this ruling puts forth a solid reason not to appeal, or makes the chance of any appeal unlikely to succeed.

Crittendon still has time to appeal as well as the three AFSCME musketeers. But it would be silly to let these lawsuits send the city and it’s fragile finances into another tailspin. To supporters of the consent agreement: Don’t buy the hype and everything will be fine.