The city lost both phases of the litigation, which began when the city sought to enforce city charter eligibility requirements against Dascola to prevent him from being a candidate in the Ward 3 city council Democratic primary race. The election was won by Julie Grand in a three-person field that included Samuel McMullen.

The $35,431.75 amount is the total agreed to for the initial phase of the lawsuit on city charter eligibility requirements ($30,731.75), plus half the amount that was agreed to in the second phase, which involved the counting of misprinted ballots ($9,400). The other half of the $9,400 will be paid by the state of Michigan, which intervened in the second phase of the lawsuit. So the total paid to Dascola’s attorney, Tom Wieder, will be $40,132, which includes court costs.

Fees for the initial phase of the lawsuit were settled on June 19, 2014 – at $30,731.75. That total includes attorney fees in the amount of $30,306.25 – which was the result of 93.25 hours billed at an hourly rate of $325. The remainder of that total was $425.50 – costs for filings and document retrieval.

The motion for fees in the second phase of the lawsuit was filed by Wieder on Aug. 19, 2014 and asked for a total of $12,320 based on 30.80 hours of work at $400 per hour. Wieder’s filing parcels out each item of work to either the city or the state or to both jointly. The amount was reduced to $9,400 through back-and-forth among Wieder, the state and the city, with the final settlement splitting the amount evenly between the city and the state. [.pdf of Aug. 19, 2014 motion for fees]

The initial phase of the lawsuit was decided in favor of Dascola on May 20, 2014. At issue were city charter durational requirements on voter registration and residency – that require city councilmembers to be registered to vote in the city and to be a resident of the ward they want to represent for at least a year prior to taking office. Dascola contended he met the residency requirement, but conceded that he fell short of the voter registration requirement. He did not register to vote in the city until Jan. 15, 2014. The court ruled that the requirements were not enforceable, because they’d been ruled unconstitutional in the early 1970s, and never re-enacted by the city. Dascola submitted sufficient signatures to qualify, so the impact of the ruling was that Dascola was supposed to appear on the Ward 3 ballot.

However through a series of errors, his name did not appear on the printed ballots and nearly 400 of the misprinted ballots were sent to Ward 3 absentee voters. A dispute arose over how ballots would be counted if someone did not return one of the replacement ballots. The state of Michigan intervened on behalf of the Bureau of Elections, which told the city to go ahead and count the ballots. But on July 22, 2014 the federal court ruled that such ballots should not be counted.

The kind of city charter eligibility requirements that triggered the lawsuit in the first place should not become an issue in the future, if Ann Arbor voters approve charter amendments that the city council has voted to place on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot.

And now the ballot language for the two proposed Ann Arbor city charter amendments has been certified by Michigan’s attorney general as meeting the requirements of the Home Rule City Act. The AG’s office communicated its conclusion in an Aug. 8, 2014 letter to Gov. Rick Snyder’s office.

The existing charter language imposes a one-year durational requirement of voter registration on elected and appointed officials in the city. But the federal court ruled that the city’s requirements were not enforceable, because they had been struck down as unconstitutional in two different court cases dating from the early 1970s. Similar durational requirements have – in the intervening years – been found constitutional in various jurisdictions. However, the court ruled on May 20 this year that the city could not enforce its requirements against Ward 3 Democratic primary candidate Bob Dascola – because the city had not re-enacted its requirement using a standard legislative process. The placement of a ballot proposal in front of voters on Nov. 4 will use the legislative process of a popular referendum on the charter to establish eligibility requirements that are enforceable.

The language approved by the council at its July 21 meeting imposes a requirement that in order to be mayor, someone would need to be a registered voter in the city, and to serve on the city council someone would need to be a registered voter in the ward they seek to represent – at the time they submit their paperwork to appear on the ballot.

For example, a potential candidate for the city council would need to be a registered voter in the ward they seek to represent at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk. And a potential candidate for mayor would need to be a registered voter in the city at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk.

With paperwork for partisan primaries due in April – for November elections – the new requirements would translate practically speaking to something similar to a six-and-a-half-month durational requirement. For independent candidates, that timeframe would be closer to three and a half months. In the case of a vacancy that needs to be filled by appointment, the new charter requirement would require the person to be a registered voter in the geographic area they are being appointed to represent – at the time of appointment.

A second amendment to the charter to be decided by voters on Nov. 4 would acknowledge state law with respect to residency requirements for paid appointed officials. With a few exceptions, local municipalities can’t impose geographic requirements on the residence of paid officials. The amendment would also stipulate that unpaid appointed officials must be registered voters in the city, unless that requirement is waived by a seven-vote majority on the 11-member city council.

These are non-partisan positions, with four-year terms starting Jan. 1, 2015. The seats are currently held by Newman, Surovell and Barbara Murphy, who decided not to seek re-election. Voters will be able to choose up to three of the four candidates on the ballot.

Leija is director of education and community engagement at the University Musical Society, a position he’s held since 2011. He’s worked for UMS in various roles since 2008.

Hart served as planning manager for the city of Ann Arbor from 1992-2004, and later was planning and development director for the city of Ypsilanti from 2006-2008. Her tenure as Ann Arbor’s planning manager overlapped with Surovell’s service on the city’s planning commission. Surovell owned an eponymous real estate firm until it was acquired by Howard Hanna in 2012. He has served on the AADL board since 1996, when he was elected to the first board after the library system separated from the Ann Arbor Public Schools.

Newman, who currently serves as board treasurer, is retired. Her professional background includes founding two Ann Arbor-based businesses: Aristoplay, an educational game company; and Learning Express, an educational toy store. She’s seeking her third term on the AADL board, having been elected for the first time in 2006 and re-elected in 2010.

Positions on the seven-member AADL board are elected by voters in Ann Arbor and portions of seven townships that are covered by the library’s district – Pittsfield, Scio, Ann Arbor, Lodi, Webster, Salem and Superior. Those are the same boundaries served by the Ann Arbor Public Schools, with the exception of Northfield Township, which is partly within the AAPS district but has its own library system.

City council races were actively contested in only three of Ann Arbor’s five wards in the Democratic primary: Ward 1 (orange), Ward 2 (green) and Ward 3 (teal).

November will see at least three newcomers to the 11-member council – Kirk Westphal in Ward 2, Julie Grand in Ward 3, and Graydon Krapohl in Ward 4. Westphal and Grand won their respective Democratic primaries that featured no incumbents. Both candidates were coming off unsuccessful council campaigns last year – against Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), respectively.

Westphal received 1,819 votes (59%) to Nancy Kaplan’s 1,261 (41%) in a race that was anticipated to be somewhat closer. Grand received 1,516 votes (51.1%) compared to Bob Dascola’s 794 (26.8%) and Samuel McMullen’s 616 (20.8%). That gave a decisive result to a Ward 3 race that had been fraught with legal disputes – about Dascola’s eligibility to appear on the ballot in the first place; and then about how to count misprinted absentee ballots, which omitted Dascola’s name.

Krapohl’s race did not even appear on the Aug. 5 ballot – because he was unopposed in the Democratic primary and no Republican qualified for the ballot. The omission of the race from the ballot under those conditions is stipulated in a clause of the city charter.

Krapohl will be filling the seat to which Democrat Margie Teall did not seek re-election. Westphal will almost certainly be filling the Ward 2 seat that Sally Petersen left to pursue an unsuccessful mayoral campaign. And Grand will almost certainly be elected to fill the seat vacated by Christopher Taylor, who ran a successful campaign for mayor.

Taylor, who’s currently a councilmember representing Ward 3, will be the Democratic nominee in the Nov. 4 general election against independent Bryan Kelly. Assuming Taylor does prevail, he will remain on the council as mayor. And among the 10 councilmembers who represent one of the five wards, he’ll almost certainly see a total of seven returning faces, including the two incumbents who prevailed in the Aug. 5 primaries.

That’s because those two incumbents, like the new Democratic council nominees, will also be unopposed on the November ballot. First-term Ward 1 councilmember Sumi Kailasapathy prevailed over Don Adams, who was seeking elected office for the first time. Kailasapathy received 1,113 votes (56.8%) compared to 840 (42.8%) for Adams.

And first-term Ward 5 councilmember Chuck Warpehoski prevailed over Leon Bryson, who had announced he was withdrawing from the race after the deadline to remove his name from the ballot. Bryson still collected 674 votes (18.6%), but Warpehoski’s total was 2,936 (81%).

Those three newcomers and two incumbents will join the five councilmembers who are currently in the middle of their two-year terms: Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) – as well as Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who were unsuccessful in their mayoral bids.

Below are some maps illustrating the geographic distribution of votes in the three actively contested city council races, as well as some limited analysis of the Ward 2 race in terms of questions that were part of a pre-election poll conducted by Public Policy Polling.

Ward 1 Maps

In the Aug. 5, 2014 Democratic primary, first-term Ward 1 councilmember Sumi Kailasapathy prevailed over Don Adams, who was seeking elected office for the first time.

Maps are shaded by precinct based on the percentage of votes received by each candidate. Kailasapathy’s percentages are shown in red; Adams’ percentages are shown in blue.

Kailasapathy received 1,113 votes (56.8%) compared to 840 (42.8%) for Adams. That’s a similar percentage breakdown to the 2012 Democratic primary race that Kailasapathy won against Eric Sturgis. In the 2012 race, Kailasapathy received 863 votes (58%) compared to 628 (42%) for Sturgis.

Kailasapathy lost one precinct to Adams – Precinct 1-10. The tally there was 273 for Adams compared to 211 for Kailasapathy. That precinct includes Arrowwood Hills Cooperative Housing, where Adams lives.

When The Chronicle dropped by the Precinct 1-10 polling station on its Election Day tour of the polls, Adams indicated he’d be spending the whole day at that precinct, saying “This is my family.”

In the color-shaded maps that are included in this article, Precinct 1-10 stands out in the central northern part of the ward.

In 2012, Kailasapathy was not as strong in Precinct 1-10 as she was in other parts of Ward 1, but still prevailed there against Sturgis. That year she lost a different precinct to Sturgis – Precinct 1-5, just to the south of Precinct 1-10 – by a tally of 123 to 157. That precinct was the home precinct of Sturgis. This year she prevailed there against Adams – by a tally of 177 to 136. Sturgis worked for Kailasapathy’s campaign this year.

Ward 1 Maps: Adams

Ward 1 Maps: Kailasapathy

Ward 2 Maps

In the Ward 2 city council race, Kirk Westphal received 1,819 votes (59%) to Nancy Kaplan’s 1,261 (41%) in a primary that was anticipated to be somewhat closer.

Westphal currently serves on the city planning commission, with a term ending in July 2015. In November each year, the city council makes an annual appointment from its own members to the planning commission – a position currently held by Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Regardless of how the council handles that appointment this year, an additional appointment will need to be made to the planning commission from the citizenry at large – to fill the spot that Westphal will be giving up to serve on the council.

Ward 2 precincts color-shaded according to percentage of the vote received: Westphal (blue) and Kaplan (red).

Westphal’s decisive margin in the Aug. 5 primary – of nearly 3 to 2 – saw Kaplan receiving about the same percentage of the vote as Westphal did last year in the 2013 November election in Ward 2 – a race in which Jane Lumm prevailed.

One of the two precincts Westphal won that year was percentage-wise especially strong for him this year against Kaplan – Precinct 2-1 in the middle of the ward. In 2-1, Westphal received 73% of the vote this year. But it was comparatively lightly voted – with the actual tally just 77 to 28 votes. The neighboring Precinct 2-8, just to the west of 2-1, was also nearly as strong for Westphal percentage-wise at 68%, but offered a much greater plurality. The tally was 289 to 136.

Kaplan did not win any precincts. The sparsely voted 2-2 was split three votes apiece for both candidates. Kaplan’s home base of support in the southern part of the ward near Huron Hills golf course delivered the closest meaningful total for Kaplan – at 48%. Kaplan had campaigned in part on her participation in an effort a few years ago to defend Huron Hills golf course from a future that’s different from its status as a public park.

Ward 2: Poll Question Breakdown

Westphal had campaigned in part by contrasting himself with Kaplan with respect to three points: (1) attitude toward downtown development (as a planning commissioner, Westphal voted to recommend 413 E. Huron for approval); (2) public transportation (Westphal supported the recent AAATA millage, which was approved by voters in on May 6); and (3) development of rail-based transportation options (Westphal supports investment in a new rail station).

Two of those issues were touched on in a pre-election poll of Ann Arbor voters, which was conducted by Public Policy Polling (PPP). Voters were asked their opinions about recent downtown development and their perceptions of a need for a new train station.

In general, do you support or oppose the increased development being approved and built downtown in recent years?

Do you think Ann Arbor should build a new train station/transit center, or do you think the current train station is adequate?

Base on those poll results, Westphal’s general position on those topics seems to resonate with more Ann Arbor voters citywide than not. A slim majority of Ann Arbor residents think Ann Arbor needs a better train station: The need for a new train station polled at 52%, while the alternate view – that the current station is adequate – polled at 35%. The poll indicated 46% support for the downtown projects that have been approved and built in recent years, and with opposition at 39%.

The poll had 435 respondents citywide, which means that the numbers for each of the individual five wards were fairly small. So conclusions about each ward’s cut of the data would need to be viewed with even more caution than the poll’s overall results.

But the breakout by ward on those two pre-election poll questions showed a great deal more ambiguity amongst Ward 2 voters than among voters citywide. Contentment with the current train station polled two points better in Ward 2 than a perceived need to build a better one – 44% to 42%. And support for recent downtown developments showed a split of 43% to 42%. Westphal’s ultimately successful campaign strategy did not appear to try to straddle the fence on those issues. Those results are presented in Charts 1 and 2 below.

Chart 1: From July 28-29, 2014 pre-election survey of 435 likely Democratic primary voters by Public Policy Polling. Chart by the Chronicle.

Chart 2: From July 28-29, 2014 pre-election survey of 435 likely Democratic primary voters by Public Policy Polling. Chart by the Chronicle.

Also part of the Ward 2 campaign was an explicit association of Westphal with mayoral candidate Christopher Taylor by the Michigan Talent Agenda’s set of endorsements. Westphal and Taylor also shared several donors to their campaigns. To the extent that voters perceived Westphal as similar to Taylor, that may have worked to Westphal’s benefit – because according to the PPP poll, voters have a favorable opinion of Taylor – not just citywide, but also in Ward 2.

Poll respondents were asked a different question about current mayor John Hieftje – related to job performance, as opposed to a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the person. But on that question Hieftje’s approval showed a different pattern from Taylor’s. Both men polled positively citywide, but more Ward 2 voters disapprove of Hieftje’s job performance than approve of it. There’s been a smattering of commentary over the last few years attempting to associate Westphal with Hieftje – based on the fact that it was Hieftje who nominated Westphal to the planning commission. Based on the outcome of the primary, that appears to be an association that is not felt strongly enough by voters to make a difference.

Results by ward on poll questions about Taylor and Hieftje are presented in Chart 3 and Chart 4.

Chart 3: From July 28-29, 2014 pre-election survey of 435 likely Democratic primary voters by Public Policy Polling. Chart by the Chronicle.

Chart 4: From July 28-29, 2014 pre-election survey of 435 likely Democratic primary voters by Public Policy Polling. Chart by the Chronicle.

Ward 2 Maps: Westphal

Ward 2 Maps: Kaplan

Ward 3 Maps

In the three-way Ward 3 race, Julie Grand received 1,516 votes (51.1%) compared to Bob Dascola’s 794 (26.8%), and Samuel McMullen’s 616 (20.8%).

Grand (green), Dascola (red), and McMullen (orange).

That gave a decisive result to a Ward 3 race that had been fraught with legal disputes – about Dascola’s eligibility to appear on the ballot in the first place; and then about how to count some misprinted absentee ballots, which omitted Dascola’s name.

Concern about how to count those ballots – if a voter did not send in a replacement ballot – had been heightened by the fact that Ward 3 has historically featured close races. The 2009 primary race was decided by just six votes, which triggered a recount.

In the end, Grand eked out an actual majority of votes, comfortably outpolling Dascola and McMullen.

That outcome was based in part on Grand’s strength in the two precincts nearest to the center of the city near the Burns Park area – 3-3 and 3-4. Grand’s support in those precincts approached 60%. Grand also won Precinct 3-3 in her race against Kunselman last year, which she narrowly lost overall.

Like last year, Grand was not quite as strong in the mid-outer precincts of 3-8, 3-7 and 3-6, but still had more votes than Dascola and McMullen in every precinct in the ward.

The pattern of Grand’s support in the ward was similar but not identical to that of mayoral candidate Christopher Taylor’s in Ward 3 – his home ward. Precinct 3-6 was the only precinct won by Stephen Kunselman in the mayoral race (his home precinct). Grand still polled 41% there, after losing the Democratic primary to Kunselman last year. Grand had publicly endorsed Taylor in his mayoral race.

Precinct 3-6 was also one of the strongest precinct for Bob Dascola – among those precincts with a significant turnout. Dascola had publicly endorsed Kunselman in his mayoral race.

In the 2013 primary, Grand had also won Precinct 3-5 in the south of the ward. And that precinct was one of her stronger precincts again this year. Grand received nearly 58% of the vote in that precinct.

McMullen’s strongest precinct was 3-7, where he received nearly 28% of the vote. That’s the home neighborhood of Jeannine Palms, a long-time parks and environmental activist who had publicly endorsed McMullen and campaigned on his behalf.

Ward 3 Maps: McMullen

Ward 3 Maps: Dascola

Ward 3 Maps: Grand

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local elections. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already voting for The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Precincts are shaded by strength of each candidate. Kunselman (red), Taylor (green), Briere (blue) and Petersen (orange).

Incumbent mayor John Hieftje is not seeking re-election, and there is no Republican candidate. Taylor will face independent Bryan Kelly in the Nov. 4 general election.

Some observers felt the four-way race could be won with as little as 35% of the vote. Taylor achieved a near majority, but fell a couple of percentage points short of 50% citywide. Taylor received 7,070 votes (47.6%) compared to Sabra Briere’s 2,967 (20%), Stephen Kunselman’s 2,447 (16.5%) and Sally Petersen’s 2,364 (15.9%).

The 16,591 ballots cast translated into a turnout of 16.67% registered voters citywide.

The ranking and clustering of the four candidates was roughly consistent with the amount of money each campaign raised in the pre-primary period – if the self-funded portion of Petersen’s campaign is discounted.

The rank order and clustering of candidates was also consistent with the results of a poll conducted by Public Policy Polling about a week before  the election. That poll also showed Taylor as a clear favorite over the other three candidates, who were grouped significantly behind, with Briere slightly stronger than Kunselman and Petersen.

Outgoing Democratic mayor John Hieftje never lost any of the city’s 48 precincts in seven election cycles. Taylor prevailed in 39 precincts. Briere won seven of them, while Kunselman won his home precinct in Ward 3. Briere and Petersen tied for most votes in one precinct – splitting the two votes in the lightly voted Precinct 1-1.

Taylor had the highest vote totals in each of the city’s five wards, with a majority of votes in three of them. In Ward 3, Ward 4 and Ward 5, Taylor received 50.4%, 52% and 50.6%, respectively.

All four candidates did best on their home turf – Briere in Ward 1, Petersen in Ward 2, Kunselman in outer Ward 3. But Taylor was strong not just in the Burns Park neighborhood of Ward 3, but also citywide, achieving better than 50% in 13 of 48 individual precincts, while winning 39 of them.

Charts of results by ward, as well as dynamic color-coded maps for each mayoral candidate, are presented below.

Charts by Ward

Ward 5 mirrored the citywide trend and rank order of candidates. Ward 4 and Ward 3 were similar – except that Kunselman did slightly better than Briere in both of those wards. The results in Ward 2 showed Petersen ahead of Briere and Kunselman but still behind Taylor. And in Ward 1, Taylor only narrowly outpolled Briere – by 29 votes.

           W1     W2     W3     W4     W5
Briere    740    384    467    389    987 
Kunselman 239    447    703    437    621 
Petersen  260    949    355    329    471 
Taylor    769  1,363  1,551  1,254  2,133

-

Chart 1: By ward including total citywide. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from Washtenaw County clerk’s office.)

Chart 2: By ward only. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from Washtenaw County clerk’s office.)

Dynamic Maps

Maps for each candidate are colored by precinct based on percentage of the vote they received.

Maps: Briere

Maps: Kunselman

Maps: Petersen

Maps: Taylor

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local elections. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already voting for The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Other District 5 Democratic candidates were Keith Jason, Wilma Gold-Jones, and Victor Dobrin. According to unofficial results on the Washtenaw County elections division website, Jamnick received 1,025 votes (36.39%) compared to 903 votes (32.06%) for Jason, 656 votes (23.29%) for Gold-Jones, and 232 votes (8.24%) for Dobrin.

In November, Jamnick will face Republican Timothy King, who was unchallenged in Tuesday’s primary. The current commissioner from that district, Democrat Rolland Sizemore Jr., did not seek re-election.

Incumbents in all other of the nine county board seats are running for re-election and were unchallenged in the primary. They are: Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1), Dan Smith (R-District 2), Alicia Ping (R-District 3), Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6), Andy LaBarre (R-District 7), Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Conan Smith (D-District 9).

Dan Smith and Alicia Ping are unchallenged in the Nov. 4 general election. All Democratic incumbents will face opponents in November, however, running against candidates who were also unchallenged in Tuesday’s primary. They are: Republicans Larry Murphy (District 1),  Stanley Watson (District 4), David Raaflaub (District 6), Joe Miriani (District 7), Jeffrey Gallatin (District 8) and John Floyd (District 9).

In this file The Chronicle will record summarized tabulations of early, informally-reported, completely unofficial election results – in city of Ann Arbor races for mayor and city council.

The city of Ann Arbor is divided into five wards.

The headline is drawn from a tradition in Ann Arbor’s Internet culture dating back to the mid 2000s – the days of the now defunct community blog, ArborUpdate. At the moment the polls closed, local attorney Dave Cahill would reliably post a three-word comment: alea iacta est (the die is cast).

The Latin phrase is attributed to Julius Caesar as he crossed the Rubicon.

The results reported here come directly from individual precincts as the paper tapes are printed out by voting machines. They should be considered informal and unofficial.

Unofficial results will also be reported by the Washtenaw County clerk’s office on its Aug. 5, 2014 election results page.

The following block of text will be replaced with a time-stamped, updated version about every 10-15 minutes. To see the most recent results, please refresh the page manually.

Latest informal, unofficially reported results, as of 9:37:50 PM [This is the last update of informally reported results. For complete unofficial results, The Chronicle directs readers to the county clerk's website. The Ward 1 race looks clearly decided in favor of Kailasapathy. The Ward 2 race looks very likely  to go Westphal's way. The Ward 3 race looks very likely to go Grand's way. And the mayor's race will almost certainly go to Taylor.]

In the Ward 1 city council race, with 10 of 10 in-person precincts informally reporting, including absentee ballots, ADAMS has received 840 votes (43%), and KAILASAPATHY has received 1113 votes (56.9%).

In the Ward 2 city council race, with 7 of 9 in-person precincts informally reporting, including 2 of 2 absent voter count boards, KAPLAN has received 1163 votes (41.8%), and WESTPHAL has received 1615 votes (58.1%).

In the Ward 3 city council race, with 4 of 9 in-person precincts informally reporting, including absentee ballots, DASCOLA has received 572 votes (27.3%), GRAND has received 1126 votes (53.8%) and MCMULLEN has received 394 votes (18.8%).

In the Ann Arbor mayor’s race, with 32 of 48 in-person precincts informally reporting, and 7 of 7 absent voter count boards reporting in, BRIERE has received 2411 votes (20.1%), KUNSELMAN has received 1931 votes (16.1%) PETERSEN has received 1830 votes (15.3%), and TAYLOR has received 5785 votes (48.3%).

Preliminary Charts of Partial Results

The charts below were generated from the data reported informally through 9:37 p.m.

Ward 1 Initial Informal Partial Results

Ward 2 Initial Informal Partial Results

Ward 3 Initial Informal Partial Results

Mayoral Initial Informal Partial Results

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already voting for The Chronicle please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Example of an Ann Arbor voter machine results tape from 2013.

We’d like to improve on that “delay.”

We’re asking regular folks throughout the city to visit a precinct after the polls close at 8 p.m. – and report the numbers from the publicly posted paper results tape.

Augmenting the civic satisfaction you’ll get from helping to report on our local democratic doings, you can also earn 1,000 points in the Ann Arbor District Library’s Summer Game. The mechanics of retrieving the game code are included below.

Most naturally, but not necessarily, voters would re-visit the place they voted earlier in the day. Or some voters might choose to vote close to 8 p.m. and then just stick around while the polls shut down, waiting for that magical sound of the voting machine printing off the results tape.

We’ll log the early results in a publicly visible Google spreadsheet, so that residents citywide can track the earliest possible (albeit completely unofficial) results as they come in. [That spreadsheet could currently be populated with some test data; please do not be alarmed.]

If you’d like to help out, then please let us know that you’re planning to lend a hand: leave a comment on this article; shoot me an email (dave.askins@annarborchronicle.com); Tweet at me (@a2chronicle), or flag me down if you spot me traveling through town.

Below we’ve included a list of polling places and a map, as well as some basic instructions for those who have never picked up early results before. 

Basic Guidelines at Poll Closing

Here are some basic guidelines – worth remembering even if you’ve done this before:

• Do not intrude. Every polling place is supposed to have a blue sign designating the “Public Area.” If you arrive at the polls to pick up early results before 8 p.m., then head for the blue sign. But even after 8 p.m. the “Public Area” is a good place to stay – because it will keep you out of the way of election workers.
• Respect the election workers. An election worker’s day starts at 6 a.m. So at 8 p.m. when you’re at the polls picking up early results, they will have already logged a 14-hour day, at least. Be polite. Do what they tell you. If they ask you what you’re doing there, explain that you’re picking up early results. They have myriad tasks to complete – so don’t  make gratuitous small talk with them.
• Just one tape. Accommodating the public’s desire to find out early results is reflected in just one election worker task: Printing out one public paper results tape to post at the polling place door. Don’t ask them to print out your own private tape. There will be others there collecting results – campaign volunteers and media. So you’ll have a chance to band together and collaborate. Maybe one of you will read off the results to the others, making it easier for everybody. Not cool is to grab the tape and head off to a corner where nobody else can see it until you’re done.
• Be patient. If everything goes perfectly, the tape could be printed off 10 minutes after the polls close. If not everything goes smoothly, it could be longer. Much longer. Don’t ask, “How much longer?” or “Why is it taking so long?” And don’t ask if you can help – because you can’t help. You will only make things worse. Everything that has to be done must be done by an election worker.

Reporting Mechanics, AADL Game Codes

If you’re planning to help out, then please let us know in advance – because that will help me get familiar with the cast of characters who might be contacting me on Election Night: leave a comment on this article; shoot me an email (dave.askins@annarborchronicle.com); Tweet at me (@a2chronicle); call or text me (734.645.2633).

You can use any of those methods to report the results on Election Night. We’re focusing on the Ann Arbor mayor’s race and the city council races in Ward 1, Ward 2 and Ward 3.

How do you get your game code for Ann Arbor District Library’s summer game? If you send in an early election results report from a precinct, then I’ll send you the game code. If you report by email, I’ll send the code by email. If you send it by text, I’ll text-reply the game code. If you Tweet it at me, I’ll direct-message you the game code on Twitter. If you leave a voicemail, I’ll call you back and give you the game code.

Polling Place Locations

Here’s a dynamic map of polling locations in the city of Ann Arbor.

In the list below, we’ll indicate in bold  those locations for which at least one person has volunteered to pick up early results and report them to The Chronicle. Don’t let that dissuade you from targeting that location, too. But ideally, we’d like to get coverage as broad as possible.

• 1-1 Michigan Union –530 S. State St.
• 1-2 Michigan Union – 530 S. State St.
• 1-3 Community High School – 401 N. Division
• 1-4 Community Center – 625 N. Main St.
• 1-5 Northside School – 912 Barton Dr.
• 1-6 Northside School – 912 Barton Dr.
• 1-7 Northwood Comm Cntr (Family Housing) – 1000 McIntyre Dr.
• 1-8 Skyline High School – 2552 N. Maple Rd.
• 1-9 Clague Middle School – 2616 Nixon Rd.
• 1-10 Arrowwood Hills Comm Center – 2566 Arrowwood Trl.
• 2-1 Northwood Comm Cntr (Family Housing) – 1000 McIntyre Dr.
• 2-2 Palmer Commons – 100 Washtenaw Ave.
• 2-3 Angell School – 1608 S. University
• 2-4 Angell School – 1608 S. University
• 2-5 AA Assembly of God – 2455 Washtenaw Ave
• 2-6 Clague Middle School – 2616 Nixon Rd.
• 2-7 King School – 3800 Waldenwood Ln
• 2-8 First United Methodist Church – 1001 Green Road
• 2-9 Thurston School – 2300 Prairie St.
• 3-1 Michigan League – 911 N. University
• 3-2 Michigan League – 911 N. University
• 3-3 Tappan Middle School – 2251 E. Stadium Blvd
• 3-4 Allen School – 2560 Towner Blvd
• 3-5 University Townhouses Center – 3200 Braeburn Cir
• 3-6 Scarlett Middle School – 3300 Lorraine St.
• 3-7 Allen School – 2560 Towner Blvd
• 3-8 Pittsfield School – 2543 Pittsfield Blvd.
• 3-9 Scarlett Middle School – 3300 Lorraine St.
• 4-1 Michigan Union – 530 S. State St.
• 4-2 Mary St. Polling Place – 926 Mary St.
• 4-3 U-M Coliseum – 721 S. Fifth Ave.
• 4-4 Pioneer High School – 601 W. Stadium Blvd.
• 4-5 St. Clare Church/Temple Beth Emeth – 2309 Packard St.
• 4-6 Cobblestone Farm – 2781 Packard St.
• 4-7 Dicken School – 2135 Runnymede
• 4-8 Pioneer High School – 601 W. Stadium Blvd.
• 4-9 Lawton School – 2250 S. Seventh St.
• 5-1 Ann Arbor District Library – 343 S. Fifth Ave.
• 5-2 Bach School – 600 W. Jefferson St.
• 5-3 2nd Baptist Church – 850 Red Oak Rd.
• 5-4 Slauson Middle School – 1019 W. Washington
• 5-5 Slauson Middle School – 1019 W. Washington
• 5-6 Eberwhite School – 800 Soule Blvd.
• 5-7 Dicken School – 2135 Runnymede
• 5-8 Lakewood School – 344 Gralake Ave.
• 5-9 Haisley School – 825 Duncan St.
• 5-10 Abbot School – 2670 Sequoia Pkwy
• 5-11 Forsythe Middle School – 1655 Newport Rd.
• AVCB Ann Arbor Justice Center – 4th Floor Conf. Room 301 E. Huron St.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local elections. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already voting for The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

“Vote Here” sign designating an Ann Arbor polling location for a previous election.

No Republicans are running for mayor or in any of the city council races. Only one independent candidate – Bryan Kelly, who’s running for mayor – will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot.

Races for probate judge and circuit court judge offer fields of five and three candidates, respectively.

This article provides a roundup of Chronicle election coverage, for anyone who’s still studying up on the candidates. It includes links to reports and recordings of candidate forums, campaign finance data, analysis and other information. Links are also provided to candidate websites and League of Women Voters candidate profiles.

If you’re not sure whether you’re registered to vote or you’re not sure which ward you live in, Michigan’s Secretary of State website offers an easy way to check. The site also lets you look at a sample ballot. To give you a general idea of what ward you live in, check out this ward boundary map.

Polls open on Tuesday morning at 7 a.m. and close at 8 p.m. Readers can follow along during the day as The Chronicle goes poll-hopping, checking in at locations throughout the city. We’ll also be posting updates with results starting soon after the polls close. The Washtenaw County elections division website also provides unofficial results on election night.

Below you’ll find more information on the Ann Arbor mayoral and city council candidates, as well as judicial candidates for the probate and 22nd circuit courts.

Ann Arbor Mayor

Competition for the Democratic Party’s mayoral nomination is a four-way race: Stephen Kunselman, Sabra Briere, Christopher Taylor, Sally Petersen. All are current city councilmembers. Incumbent mayor John Hieftje is not seeking re-election, and there is no Republican candidate. The winner of the Aug. 5 primary will face independent Bryan Kelly in the Nov. 4 general election.

The League of Women Voters provides written candidate profiles with responses to questions on its Vote411.org website. [Mayoral Vote411.org profiles]

Here are links to Chronicle coverage of mayoral candidate forums, campaign finance reports, and other analysis:

• Poll: Clear Favorite for Ann Arbor Mayor
• Local Candidates Sketch Views on the Arts
• Live Mayoral Forum: Affordable Housing
• Chronicle Column: Mayoral Folk, Easy Listening
• Mayoral Candidate Forum: CTN Broadcast
• Chamber Forum: Ann Arbor Mayoral Race
• Ann Arbor Dems Mayoral Candidate Forum
• Live from Literati: Mayoral Candidate Debate
• Candidate Forum Focuses on Downtown
• 2014 Pre-Primary Finance: Donor Analysis
• Mayoral Election Finance 2014: Charts, Maps
• Council, Mayor Primary Election Lineups Set

Ann Arbor City Council

There are five wards in Ann Arbor, with two councilmembers from each ward serving two-year terms. Each year, one of those ward seats is up for election. This year, races are actively contested only in Wards 1, 2 and 3.

In Ward 4, Graydon Krapohl – a Democrat who is currently vice chair of the park advisory commission – is the only person who has qualified from either party for the primary, so that race will not appear on the Ward 4 primary ballot. There are no Republican or independent candidates running for that seat. Incumbent Democrat Margie Teall is not seeking re-election.

Ward 5 voters will see two names on the Democratic primary ballot: one-term incumbent Chuck Warpehoski and Leon Bryson. Bryson has announced that he’s withdrawn his candidacy and won’t campaign for the seat. However, Bryson’s name will still appear on the ballot. As in Ward 4, there is no Republican or independent candidate running for the Ward 5 seat.

Ann Arbor City Council: Ward 1

The Ward 1 Democratic primary features one-term incumbent Sumi Kailasapathy and Don Adams, who is seeking elected office for the first time. There are no Republicans or independents in this race.

The League of Women Voters provides written candidate profiles with responses to questions on its Vote411.org website. [Ward 1 Vote411.org profiles]

Here are links to Chronicle coverage of candidate forums, campaign finance reports, and other analysis:

• Council Candidates Live: Ann Arbor Dems
• Council Election Finance 2014: Charts, Maps
• 2014 Pre-Primary Finance: Donor Analysis
• Ward 1 Candidate Forum: CTN Broadcast
• Sound Bites: Two for Ward 1, One for Mayor

Ann Arbor City Council: Ward 2

In Ward 2, there are two candidates in the Democratic primary: Nancy Kaplan, a current trustee of the Ann Arbor District Library; and Kirk Westphal, who until recently served as chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission. The incumbent, Sally Petersen, is running for mayor rather than seeking re-election to that council seat. There are no Republican or independent candidates in Ward 2.

The League of Women Voters provides written candidate profiles with responses to questions on its Vote411.org website. [Ward 2 Vote411.org profiles]

Here are links to Chronicle coverage of candidate forums, campaign finance reports, and other analysis:

• Council Candidates Live: Ann Arbor Dems
• Council Election Finance 2014: Charts, Maps
• 2014 Pre-Primary Finance: Donor Analysis
• Live from the Library: Ward 2 Council Forum
• Ward 2 Candidate Forum: CTN Broadcast

Ann Arbor City Council: Ward 3

This year’s Ward 3 contest features Julie Grand, Bob Dascola and Samuel McMullen, who are all competing for the seat that Christopher Taylor is leaving in order to run for mayor.

In addition to the candidates’ websites, more information is provided in the League of Women Voters written candidate profiles with responses to questions on its Vote411.org website. [Ward 3 Vote411.org profiles]

Here are links to Chronicle coverage of candidate forums, campaign finance reports, and other analysis:

• Council Candidates Live: Ann Arbor Dems
• Council Election Finance 2014: Charts, Maps
• 2014 Pre-Primary Finance: Donor Analysis
• Ward 3 Candidate Forum: CTN Broadcast
• Court: Don’t Count Ward 3 Defective Ballots
• Dascola Mistakenly Left Off Ward 3 Ballot
• Dascola Election Lawsuit Fees Settled: $30,731
• Judge Puts Dascola on Ward 3 Ballot

Links to more coverage related to Dascola’s lawsuit against the city can be found here.

Probate Judge

Five candidates are seeking to be the next Washtenaw County probate judge: Jane Bassett, Tamara Garwood, Constance Jones, Tracy Van den Bergh and recently appointed judge Julia Owdziej. The nonpartisan primary will narrow the race to two candidates for the Nov. 4 general election.

Owdziej was appointed to the seat by Gov. Rick Snyder just last month, on June 2, 2014, to fill the vacancy on the court left by Nancy Wheeler’s retirement. The announcement of that retirement came on May 1, after candidates had filed to run. Wheeler was expected to retire at the end of the year, but it came earlier than expected due to health reasons. Bassett, Garwood and Jones currently work in private practice while Van den Bergh is a staff attorney for a legal services nonprofit.

On its Vote411.org website, the League of Women Voters has posted candidates’ written responses to questions: [Probate court candidate responses]

Here are links to Chronicle coverage of the probate judicial race:

• Five Candidates Vie for Probate Judgeship
• Washtenaw Dems Host Judicial Forum
• Chronicle Column: Get Your Sign Outta My Yard

22nd Circuit Court Judge

Pat Conlin, Veronique Liem and Michael Woodyard will compete in the nonpartisan Aug. 5 primary for 22nd circuit court judge. The top two candidates will advance to the Nov. 4 general election. The winner of that contest will fill the open seat left by judge Donald Shelton, who turned 70 in June. According to Michigan state law, only a person under the age of 70 can be appointed or run for the position of judge.

Conlin and Liem are local attorneys, while Woodyard works in the Wayne County prosecutor’s office. A second seat on the court is also up for election, as judge David Swartz is at the end of a six-year term. He is running uncontested to retain his 22nd circuit court incumbent seat.

On its Vote411.org website, the League of Women Voters has posted candidates’ written responses to questions: [22nd circuit court candidate responses]

Here are links to Chronicle coverage of the 22nd circuit court judicial race:

• Circuit Court Race: Conlin, Woodyard, Liem
• Washtenaw Dems Host Judicial Forum

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local elections. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already voting for The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!