Wieder actually included your experience in his response to the city’s motion to dismiss, pointedly contrasting the way you (a Democrat) were treated, compared to the way that Scott Wojack (a Republican) as treated just three years later. From the brief:

For example, Democrat Lawrence Kestenbaum was allowed to run for Fourth Ward Councilmember in 1999, even though he had not lived in the ward for one year. In 2001, Scott Wojack filed petitions to run for Council as a Republican against incumbent Democrat Robert Johnson in the city’s First Ward. Although he had been a registered voter in the city for some time, he had moved within the city during the previous year and had not been residing in the First Ward for a year. Unless Mr. Wojack appeared on the ballot, Mr. Johnson would be running unopposed.

We followed up this short brief with more detailed coverage late yesterday: [link]

It appears this decision to suddenly enforce the invalid law against Dascola was more of a political decision than a legal one.

In 1999, I was able to run for city council from the 4th ward, even though I had not been a registered voter in that ward for the supposedly required one year. In other words, the city used the rule against Bob Dascola, but not against me!

Kudos to Tom Wieder for his handling of this case.

Thanks also to the judge for a timely ruling. We will soon be printing ballots for the August 5th primary.

“In sum, the Defendants have provided absolutely no authority as to why this Court should simply abandon the basic principles of law that have formed the foundation of the United States legal structure for over two hundred years. The Court refuses to do so at this time.”