The August open primary would have to be on the non-partisan section of the ballot. This is where, for example, judge candidates will be found this coming August. The November election would also be on the non-partisan section.

I have come to favor this idea, for many reasons. The point made about increased participation in November elections is one (there will be unanticipated consequences, of course).

I heartily oppose making terms 4 years, which would exacerbate all the other problems, such as importance of money in elections, and promote entrenchment of established candidates so that even more money and effort is necessary. It would also make the commitment for an individual much more than now, and thus promote election of political careerists.

No it doesn’t.

There is a practical correlation between how many doors a candidate tries to reach and the amount of money needed to supplement that effort. In a primary campaign, a Council Ward candidate tries to identify the likely voters in the Ward. Typically, that would be between 3,000 and 4,000 doors. These low numbers reflect the low turn out for primaries.

A candidate can reach a primary election audience of 3,000 to 4,000 voters by going door to door 3 or more hours each day. A general election would require reaching two or three times as many voters. A candidate would be hard pressed to reach that many homes. The effort to visit voters individually would likely need to be supplemented by mailing information to those who are expected to vote. Mailing campaign materials is much more expensive than replacing a pair of walking shoes.

Higher voter turnout requires a candidate to reach more voters during the campaign. Reaching more voters often entails using expensive mailings or media advertising. This is in part the reason why local campaigns continue to increase in cost year after year.

Who are you referring to by “some”, Chuck?

The disadvantages you listed are matters of choice. There is no campaign season except that which each candidate chooses for him- or herself. Similarly, money in elections (campaigns, actually) is another choice, again by the candidates (though they don’t control others). The effort to knock on a door is unconnected to money or turnout. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by that.

Advantages:
* reduce systemic student disenfranchisement (though for some this is a disadvantage)
* Increase participation
* Ensure majority support for elected candidate (we may have a mayor elected with ~30% of the vote in the primary and no general election challenger)
* May save money if only two candidates face each other and would only be on November ballot, not August and November.

Disadvantages:
* Longer campaign season may push away people from serving (campaign season would be April-November instead of April-August).
* Increases role of money in election. Higher turnout elections make it harder for a candidate to knock every door and increase the impact of direct mail, paid canvassers, and paid advertising, especially in high turnout presidential years.
* potentially less attention on the election as national races dominate debate.

Disadvantage 1 could be mitigated by going to 4 year terms, there may be ways to address disadvantage 2 with some sort of clean money campaign finance reform, but I haven’t researched local options for that sufficiently.

The key effect of this is disenfranchise college students, many of whom are validly registered in the City of Ann Arbor.

As for Dascola, let’s put the poor guy on the ballot.

Does the City Attorney really want to seek an award of legal fees against him? Will they enforce it if they can get an award?

“Similarly, the decision to defend against the Dascola litigation began without express direction from a majority of Council.”

I had earlier made the point that we do not know who is calling the shots in the Dascola litigation for the City. Is the City Council aware that Postema is seeking attorney fees against Mr. Dascola in conjunction with his motion to dismiss? Should a City Attorney seek an award of legal fees against a citizen honestly attempting to put his name on a partisan ballot? Is it good public policy?

“The job of the City Attorney, or any attorney, is not to decide for the client……”

Agreed.

Is some reform needed in the way the City Attorney’s office operates vis a vis the City Council?

This case underscores the necessity of City Council placing the City Attorney on, figuratively, “a tighter leash”.

Mr. Weider is quoted as saying “What I heard at the time [of the Wojack dispute] was that councilmembers weren’t too comfortable with the idea of keeping somebody off the ballot based on the legal position that the city had at the time…” Apparently, without formal action of the Council, a decision was made in private to simply allow Wojack on the ballot.

Similarly, the decision to defend against the Dascola litigation began without express direction from a majority of Council.

It may have been that when there was a clear and well organized majority view on Council, anyone from that majority could convey the general sense of the Council to the administration or legal staff. That easy majority does not exist any longer.

It is important to note that a City Attorney violates his or her ethical obligation to his or her client (the entire Council) if the Attorney represents the views of a minority portion of the Council. This is explained in an April 3, 1996 Michigan State Bar ethics opinion, RI-254.

After the Court rules on the Dascola matter, the Council will need to review the decision to litigate this dispute. If the City Attorney believed that he needed to defend his understanding of the validity of the voided Charter clause, that would be better than learning that he was following the preferences of a minority group of Council members.

Additionally, without regard to who wins the Dascola dispute, it is time to revisit the Charter candidate eligibility clause. Perhaps Council can draft something more accurate and more clear than that which was proposed in 2003.