Judge: Dascola on Ward 3 Ballot
Judge Lawrence Zatkoff has ruled in an election lawsuit filed by Bob Dascola against the city of Ann Arbor that the city cannot bar Dascola from the Ward 3 city council Democratic primary ballot based on city charter eligibility requirements that were ruled null and void in the early 1970s.
From the opinion: “Plaintiff has provided compelling evidence that Defendants have used void provisions of the Charter in an attempt to preclude him from running for City Council. Further, remedies available at law would not compensate Plaintiff for his inability to run for City Council. Finally, as established above, the balance of hardships between the parties – and the public interest at large – warrant this Court enjoining Defendants from enforcing a void law when the City has failed to re-enact that law.” [Dascola v. City of A2: Opinion] [Dascola v. City of A2: Judgment]
Dascola has already submitted sufficient valid signatures to be eligible to appear on the Aug. 5, 2014 Democratic primary ballot, along with Julie Grand and Samuel McMullen.
We will follow up this report with more detailed coverage.
Sounds like it’s time for a new City Attorney with a better grasp of the law.
This is an unusually vigorous opinion, accusing Postema of trying to subvert the federal system and of a variety of other political and legal sins. It’s well worth reading in detail.
From the opinion:
“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.”
It’s not every day that a court cites all the way back to Marbury v. Madison (an 1803 Supreme Court opinion) for the proposition that the judiciary is responsible for interpreting the law.
I was happy to see that the city will pay legal fees.
I am very pleased to see this result, and I am just baffled as to why the city government sought to enforce this void requirement.
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 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!”
It appears this decision to suddenly enforce the invalid law against Dascola was more of a political decision than a legal one.
Larry,
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:
We followed up this short brief with more detailed coverage late yesterday: [link]
Dascola made the ballot? Now THAT was a close shave.