As long as you pointed out that connection, Mark, it’s worth making explicit how this was handled procedurally by the court. There’s a docket entry with notice to the parties about the relationship. Here’s further clarification from Rod Hansen, Media Information Officer United States District Court, who responded to a query from The Chronicle:

Magistrate Grand is not assigned to the case in any way, so there is no conflict – this is the most important point. I believe Magistrate Grand advised the assigned judge of the situation in the interest of total transparency. Judge Zatkoff then disclosed the matter to the parties as is evidenced by the docket entry. That disclosure then gives the parties the opportunity to argue for disqualification, change of venue, or any other relief they might feel is appropriate. Generally, the judges are bound by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges which you can find on uscourts.gov. For example, Canon 3(A)(6) states in part that a judge should not make public comment on a matter pending or impending in the court.

[.pdf of docket entry with notice to parties]

(1) One of Mr. Dascola’s briefs makes reference to the fact that Larry Kestenbaum ran for Ann Arbor City Council in 1999 (he eventually lost to GOP nominee Marcia Higgins in the November election by a narrow margin)without apparently meeting the durational residency requirements at issue herein – this shows that the City Clerk treated the City Charter requirement as void and unenforceable in apparent recognition of the federal court ruling issued in 1972 by Judge Gubow;

(2) One of the key points raised by Mr. Dascola is that Judge Gubow’s order striking down of the City Charter provision at issue as void and unenforceable must be vacated before that provision can be enforced, in other words, the voided provision cannot be resurrected in a separate case – assuming this argument is valid, all the city would have had to have done to enforce the provision is amend the City Charter to reinstate the voided provision if a separate court had felt the voided provision was now constitutional due to an intervening change in the law;

(3) Mr. Dascola is seeking an award of attorney fees under federal law – this could end up costing the City of Ann Arbor tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees if he attains a “prevailing party” status under the Federal Civil Rights Act – the AATA forked over money to the ACLU in settlement of the “Boycott Israel” First Amendment litigation after the plaintiff therein obtained a preliminary injunction against the AATA;

(4) Postema is seeking attorney fees against Mr. Dascola in his Motion to Dismiss – this seems odd the City Attorney would seek a fee award against a citizen who simply wants his name on the City Council Democratic primary ballot – this smacks of hardball tactics by City Hall;

(5) An irony is that Mr. Dascola is getting plenty of free publicity for his City Council candidacy via this litigation;

(6) A second ironic twist is that Julie Grand’s husband is a magistrate judge in the same United States District Court as Judge Zatkoff – although Judge Grand sits in the Ann Arbor federal building while Judge Zatkoff hears cases in Detroit.