Comments on: Clerk: Dascola Not Eligible for Ward 3 Council

By: Glacial Erratic

Glacial Erratic — Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:30:09 +0000

Vivienne, I really value your dedication to making certain that every reader of the Chron knows your views on every issue of any kind without having to go to your own blog.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Sun, 16 Mar 2014 01:31:38 +0000

I was horrified to hear that some are quoting Tom Wieder (who no longer lives in the city) as saying that no residence requirement should be in place at all, that is, anyone from anywhere could run for Ann Arbor City Council.

I hope that this is not being contemplated. That would fly in the face of the very concept of local representative government.

I don’t have an opinion on the Dascola case, but I assume that in both the residency and the registration issues, the focus was on the length of status, not on the requirement for residency within the city and the ward from which the candidate is running.

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:41:50 +0000

Re: “Did the court rule in 1971 or 1972?” I’ve corrected the article to match the hand-written notation on the newspaper scan for the Daniel Feld case, which is 1971. That was a simple mistake, not a belief, based on some other reason, that the year was different from 1971.

Re: “Are these [Human Rights Party case and Daniel Feld case] two separate cases and decisions?” Yes, I believe they are.

Based on Tom Wieder’s comment [2], it sounds like the U.S. District Court first struck down the residency part of the city charter requirement in late 1971, then a few months later, struck down the registered voter part in 1972. We’re trying to track down some details on that, as well as the 2001 Wojack case, when Scott Wojack was allowed to run for Ward 1 after filing a lawsuit when he was first told he could not, based on the charter’s eligibility requirement. According to a July 30, 2005 Ann Arbor News article, after the November 2001 election, judge Timothy Connors [22nd Circuit Court] upheld the charter’s residency requirement in the Wojack case. That doesn’t seem to square up with the 1971 federal court ruling on exactly that question. So we continue to scrape together more information.

Somewhat tangentially: The current city council does not seem enthusiastic about taking the necessary steps to establish a charter commission to review the city charter and recommend changes that could then be put in front of voters. But maybe we could settle for some direction from the council to the city attorney’s office to annotate the existing charter so that those sections that are no longer applicable (because they’ve been superseded or struck down) are footnoted.

By: Jack Eaton

Jack Eaton — Sat, 15 Mar 2014 13:16:28 +0000

The update notes “The ruling for one case … was handed down on Dec. 30, 1972 … according to Ann Arbor News coverage at the time.” and links to a scanned news article that has a hand written date of December 31, 1971. Did the court rule in 1971 or 1972?

The linked article notes that the Human Rights Party was not involved directly in the suit. Mr. Wieder’s comment (2) mentions a case named Human Rights Party v. Ann Arbor decided in March 1972. Are these two separate cases and decisions?

Thanks for the timely news and especially the update.

By: Tom Wieder

Tom Wieder — Sat, 15 Mar 2014 02:41:17 +0000

The Charter requirement that a candidate for city office must be a registered voter in the city for one year before the election was found to be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and declared “unconstitutional and void” in the case of Human Rights Party, et al v. City of Ann Arbor, decided by the United States District Court in March 1972. It has no force and effect and cannot be used to keep Bob Dascola off the ballot. It is our hope that the city will recognize this. If not, we will be filing suit in the District Court to compel the city to accept and process his nominating petitions and will seek an award of attorney fees for the violation of Mr. Dascola’s constitutional rights.

By: David Cahill

David Cahill — Sat, 15 Mar 2014 00:00:02 +0000

I’m glad that Dascola has excellent representation. I hope he gets to run.