This simply isn’t true. When the ballots were delivered to the A2 Clerk’s Office, the Clerk had a full opportunity to review the ballots before sending 392 defective ones to absentee voters. The Clerk didn’t make the only mistake, but she made the final one – failing to inspect – that put ballots without Dascola’s name on them in the hands of voters.

The City WAS responsible for the pointless lawsuit to keep Mr. Dascola off the ballot in the first place, a decision that appears to be more politically rather than legally based. There is plenty of blame to share over this undemocratic fiasco but it all started with the City Attorney.

Page 16 of the opinion and order clearly awards Mr. Dascola all further costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred in conjunction with these post-judgment proceedings filed by his counsel – so expect the Ann Arbor City Attorney’s office to be requesting an updated cost and fee itemization from Tom Wieder. If the city and Mr. Wieder cannot agree on a reasonable figure, the court will have to hold an evidentiary hearing – but that is unlikely to happen.

The article correctly indicates that the City of Ann Arbor’s response to the order to show cause why the City of Ann Arbor should not held in contempt of court is due on July 23rd. I look forward to the City Attorney’s response.

@Janis Bobrin:

“…..I think it’s important to note the City had nothing to do with the error on the ballot…..”

Judge Zatkoff has already found otherwise since the City Clerk staff stuffed the envelopes with the erroneous ballots apparently without inspecting them to ensure they were in compliance with the court’s prior order. An argument can be made that the City Attorney’s office should have compared the ballot content with the substance of the trial court’s order before the ballots were mailed out to absentee voters.

It also is apparent that someone at City Hall “dropped the ball” in not giving adequate assurances to Mr. Dascola’s counsel that incorrect ballots would not be counted – and that resulted in the filing of the motion that granted further costs and attorney fees to Mr. Dascola’s counsel. Tom Wieder has claimed he contacted the City Attorney’s office on this matter for such assurances – and received none.

Did Jack Eaton say a City Council annual performance review is “around the corner” for the City Attorney…………….?