Colored areas correspond to city wards. Clockwise, starting from the top dark green are Ward 1, Ward 2, Ward 3, Ward 4 and Ward 5. All but Ward 3 had contested Democratic primaries on Aug. 7.

When Sally Petersen challenged Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), and Jack Eaton challenged Margie Teall (Ward 4) in the Democratic primary, the number of possible new councilmembers rose to four.

And when Albert Howard filed successfully in mid-summer as an independent candidate for mayor, challenging sitting Democratic mayor John Hieftje, it meant a turnover on the council of potentially five members – because the mayor is a member of the council.

Yesterday’s Aug. 7 primary election results helped clarify the council’s future makeup. Petersen defeated Derezinski by a 55-45 percentage split, and Eaton came within a whisker (18 votes) of beating Teall.

In the Ward 5 Democratic primary, Chuck Warpehoski polled 56.5% to Vivienne Armentrout’s 43.5% to win a place on the ballot in November next to Republican Stuart Berry. And in Ward 1, 58% of Democrats chose Sumi Kailasapathy compared to 42% who preferred Eric Sturgis.

In Ward 3, Christopher Taylor was not challenged in the Democratic primary, and does not face a partisan opponent in November. The lack of a partisan opponent applies to wards 1, 2 and 4 as well.

So after the Nov. 6 general election, the council will likely include new members Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, either Chuck Warpehoski or Stuart Berry, and possibly Albert Howard instead of John Hieftje.

After the break, we provide a statistical breakdown of the election and some colored maps to illustrate the results.

Ward 1

In Ward 1, Eric Sturgis likely outperformed the expectations of many observers by getting 628 (42%) of the votes, compared to Kailasapathy’s 863 (58%). She had polled 45% against Sandi Smith in 2010 and was seen as the favorite in the race. But Sturgis actually won two precincts – even though one of them (Precinct 1-1) was only lightly voted with a total 9 votes cast. Sturgis got 6 of them.

But the other precinct won by Sturgis (Precinct 1-5) brought him 157 votes – compared to 123 for Kailasapathy. That’s in the middle of the ward, home to Northside Elementary School, part of Sturgis’ home turf. Precinct-by-precinct results:

PRECINCT NAME	   Kailasapathy	Sturgis
Ward 1, Precinct 1	  3	  6
Ward 1, Precinct 2	  3	  0
Ward 1, Precinct 3	 11	  8
Ward 1, Precinct 4	 88	 71
Ward 1, Precinct 5	123	157
Ward 1, Precinct 6	 56	 42
Ward 1, Precinct 7	 19	  9
Ward 1, Precinct 8	186	123
Ward 1, Precinct 9	189	 74
Ward 1, Precinct 10	185	138
===================================
TOTAL	                863     628

-

2012 Democratic primary Ward 1 voting results by Kailasapathy’s percentage. Darker purple areas are precincts where Kailasapathy was strongest. Lighter areas correspond to areas where Sturgis was strongest.

Ward 2

In Ward 2, the incumbent Tony Derezinski eked out a win in just one precinct, achieving an overall vote total of 938 (44.7%) votes, compared to 1,160 (55.3%) for Petersen.  The win came in Precinct  2-9, which is in the northern part of the Ward, home territory to a political ally of Derezinski’s – Stephen Rapundalo.

Rapundalo lost his Ward 2 seat last year, when he was defeated in the 2011 general election by Jane Lumm, who ran as an independent. With Derezinski’s defeat, it means a complete replacement of Ward 2 representation on the council in the minimum time, given the two-year terms and alternating year elections for one of every ward’s two seats.

Derezinski and Petersen split two of the smaller precincts exactly 50-50. Precinct-by-precinct results:

PRECINCT NAME	   Derezinski  Petersen
Ward 2, Precinct 1	 42       42
Ward 2, Precinct 2	  1        1
Ward 2, Precinct 3	 44       47
Ward 2, Precinct 4	164      222
Ward 2, Precinct 5	152      232
Ward 2, Precinct 6	118      189
Ward 2, Precinct 7	148      161
Ward 2, Precinct 8	129      141
Ward 2, Precinct 9	140	 125
====================================
TOTAL	                938     1160

-

2012 Democratic primary Ward 2 voting results by Petersen’s percentage. Darker green areas are precincts where Petersen was strongest. Lighter areas indicate areas where Derezinski was strongest.

Ward 4

Ward 4 was for most observers a surprising result – an extremely close race this year after the Jack Eaton had managed just 30% of the vote when he’d challenged Teall two years ago in 2010. This year he fell just 18 votes shy of winning – getting 848 (49.4%) votes, compared to 866 (50.5%) for Teall.

Eaton actually won more precincts than Teall, but two of them were the lightly voted precincts 4-1 and 4-2. He was strongest in the outer fringe of the ward, which includes an area of the city that has experienced severe localized flooding issues, which residents blame at least partly on the city. Precinct-by-precinct results:

PRECINCT NAME      Eaton   Teall
Ward 4, Precinct 1     2     1
Ward 4, Precinct 2    13    11
Ward 4, Precinct 3    58   123
Ward 4, Precinct 4   128   185
Ward 4, Precinct 5    68    83
Ward 4, Precinct 6   121   118
Ward 4, Precinct 7   253   162
Ward 4, Precinct 8    56    66
Ward 4, Precinct 9   149   117
==============================
TOTAL                848   866

-

2012 Democratic primary Ward 4 voting results by Teall’s percentage. Darker blue areas indicate precincts where Teall was strongest. Lighter blue areas correspond to areas where Eaton was strongest.

Ward 5

In Ward 5, Chuck Warpehoski won all but three of the ward’s precincts and wound up with 1,709 (56.5%) votes, compared to 1,320 (43.5%) votes for Armentrout. And one of those three precincts went Armentrout’s way by just a single vote.

Based on Armentrout’s showing in the Ward 5 Democratic council primary against Carsten Hohnke in 2008, when she received 1,552 (49%) votes to Hohnke’s 1,610 (51%), she was picked by many to win this year’s contest.

She enjoyed greater strength on the western edge of the ward, as well as the very tip of the “pie wedge” center, near downtown. Precinct 5-7 was one where she outpolled Warpehoski. That’s a precinct where the Ward 5 councilmember Mike Anglin was particularly strong in the 2009 August primary, which he won against Scott Rosencrans. Anglin was seen as an ally for the South Maple Group, which had fought a development in the precinct called 42 North. And Anglin had endorsed Armentrout – due in part to her strong positions on the preservation of neighborhoods.

In her campaign, Armentrout stressed her experience, knowledge and study of policy issues.

Warpehoski ran a campaign that featured “deep listening” as a theme, and that was reflected in part by an adherence to one of the basics of local campaigning – knocking on doors to hear what was on people’s minds. Encountered by The Chronicle at the precinct 5-4 and 5-5 polls at Slauson Middle School, Warpehoski described how he’d knocked on “every knockable door” in the ward. Precinct-by-precinct results:

PRECINCT NAME    Armentrout  Warpehoski
Ward 5, Precinct 1      36         21
Ward 5, Precinct 2     159        219
Ward 5, Precinct 3      98        124
Ward 5, Precinct 4     152        259
Ward 5, Precinct 5     108        142
Ward 5, Precinct 6     102        170
Ward 5, Precinct 7      47         33
Ward 5, Precinct 8      82         81
Ward 5, Precinct 9     182        191
Ward 5, Precinct 10    116        146
Ward 5, Precinct 11    238        323
=====================================
Totals                1320       1709

-

2012 Democratic primary Ward 5 voting results by Warpehoski’s percentage. Darker brown areas indicate areas where Warpehoski was strongest. Lighter brown areas indicate areas where Armentrout was strongest.

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