At his downtown barbershop, shortly after getting the news that the court had ruled in his favor, Bob Dascola showed The Chronicle photos of himself as a clown participating in Ann Arbor’s Fourth of July parade – something he has done for several years. He will be participating again this year – also as a clown, not as a city council candidate, because he’s already registered his parade entry that way.

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. Dascola submitted sufficient signatures to qualify, so the impact of the ruling is that Dascola will appear on the Ward 3 ballot.

Dascola was represented in the case by local attorney Tom Wieder.

Both of the Ann Arbor city charter requirements were ruled unconstitutional, null and void in federal cases from the early 1970s. But the city of Ann Arbor sought to enforce those charter requirements against Dascola based on subsequent decisions on eligibility requirements in other jurisdictions in the intervening period. Those included an Ann Arbor case in 2002 (Wojack v. City of Ann Arbor) that resulted in a finding by the local state circuit court upholding the residency requirement. But that finding came only after Republican Scott Wojack was allowed on the Ward 1 city council ballot – a race he did not win. Wojack’s attorney was Tom Wieder.

Based on subsequent case law and a shifted standard of judicial review, one-year durational requirements of the kind that the Ann Arbor city charter includes would almost certainly be found constitutional, if the 1970s cases were to be litigated today. But the May 20, 2014 ruling by Zatkoff found Dascola’s argument convincing: That in order for the city to enforce the charter requirements – which had been found unconstitutional, null and void in separate rulings in 1971 – it would have needed to re-enact those requirements.

From the opinion: “Plaintiff [Dascola] has provided compelling evidence that Defendants [the city of Ann Arbor] 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]

That means all the Aug. 5, 2014 ballots for partisan primaries for Ann Arbor mayor and city council are finally set. On the non-partisan side, Bryan Kelly took out petitions for city council in Ward 1, but was informed by the city that he did not meet the charter’s durational eligibility requirements. The ruling on the Dascola case would clear the way for Kelly to run. And as an independent, he’d have until July 17 to submit signatures. But in responding to an emailed Chronicle query, he indicated that he’s content with the representation of Ward 1 on the city council, saying they are “good people,” and he is no longer contemplating running at this time.

The city does have the option to appeal the ruling, but council sources indicate that is not probable. More likely is that the council would vote to place a charter amendment on the ballot this fall so that voters could ratify some set of eligibility requirements. The May 20 ruling from Zatkoff permanently enjoins the city from enforcing either of the former charter requirements prior to re-enacting them.

The background of the case and a review of the opinion are presented below, as well as the complete set of briefings from the case.

Ann Arbor City Charter Durational Requirements

The words printed in the Ann Arbor city charter include two types of one-year durational requirements for city council candidates: voter registration in the city, and residency in the ward they seek to represent. From the Ann Arbor city charter [emphasis added]:

Eligibility for City Office – General Qualifications
Section 12.2. Except as otherwise provided in this charter, a person is eligible to hold a City office if the person has been a registered elector of the City, or of territory annexed to the City or both, and, in the case of a Council Member, a resident of the ward from which elected, for at least one year immediately preceding election or appointment. This requirement may be waived as to appointive officers by resolution concurred in by not less than seven members of the Council.

The Complaint: Feld and HRP

Dascola contended he has lived in Ward 3 since about Sept. 15, 2012, but he allowed that he did not register to vote in the city of Ann Arbor until Jan. 15, 2014. So according to Dascola, he met the residency requirement but did not meet the voter registration requirement.

Ann Arbor’s residency requirement was struck down in federal court as unconstitutional in January 1972 [Feld v. City of Ann Arbor]. The voter registration requirement was struck down in March of the same year [HRP v. City of Ann Arbor].

Dascola’s complaint was based on findings by the U.S. District Court in both the Feld and the HRP cases that the durational requirements were null and void. From Dascola’s complaint: “Neither the Feld, nor the Human Rights Party, decision was appealed, nor has either been overruled, vacated or modified in any way.” [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Complaint]

Dascola’s Request for Summary Judgment

Immediately after filing the complaint, Dascola’s attorney Tom Wieder filed a motion for summary judgment – asking the court to find in Dascola’s favor without a full trial. The brief makes essentially the same arguments in the initial complaint: The city’s charter requirements were ruled unconstitutional in Feld and HRP.

From the motion for summary judgment: “The Defendants [city of Ann Arbor] are improperly and illegally relying and acting upon one or more former provisions of the City Charter which are void and of no effect and, in so doing, are depriving Plaintiff of his constitutional right to seek elective office, as well as depriving the electors of the Third Ward of their right to vote for Plaintiff.” [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Motion for Summary Judgment]

The part of the argument on which the ruling in Dascola’s case eventually turned is the idea that once charter provisions have been explicitly ruled unconstitutional and declared null and void – as in Feld and HRP – they are not merely dormant, possibly to be awakened, but rather do not exist at all, and it’s as if they’d never been written. The brief cites a body of Michigan case law in support of that notion.

City’s Response to Motion for Summary Judgment

The city’s response to the motion for summary judgment included a potential factual dispute. The city pointed out that in spite of Dascola’s claim that he has resided in Ward 3 since about Sept. 15, 2012, he didn’t change his voter registration or driver’s license to an Ann Arbor address until Jan. 15, 2014. And when Dascola filed an application on Dec. 1, 2013 to be appointed to the city’s pedestrian safety task force, he gave a Grass Lake address as his home address and marked “No” on the application’s question about city of Ann Arbor residency. [.pdf of Dascola's application to the pedestrian safety task force]

The application was included as an exhibit in the city’s brief. But the brief does not appear to mention that in the same application, Dascola seems to indicate a habitual lodging at the Baldwin Avenue address in Ward 3, where he contends he’s been a resident since Sept. 15, 2012: “I walk to work every day from Stadium and Packard area and have to use crosswalk at Baldwin. I have witnessed an accident because a driver wasn’t paying attention and was almost hit by car.”

Under Michigan election law, for purposes of voting and registration, habitual lodging is one way to determine residency:

168.11 “Residence” defined.
Sec. 11. (1) ”Residence”, as used in this act, for registration and voting purposes means that place at which a person habitually sleeps, keeps his or her personal effects, and has a regular place of lodging. If a person has more than 1 residence, or if a person has a residence separate from that of his or her spouse, that place at which the person resides the greater part of the time shall be his or her official residence for the purposes of this act. This section does not affect existing judicial interpretation of the term residence.

Also supporting Dascola’s contention of residency at the Baldwin address for a year before the 2014 election was his application for renewal of his barber’s license on Aug. 8, 2013, which gives his Baldwin address. [.pdf of Dascola's barber's license renewal] The city’s response to the motion for summary judgment does not appear to include the barber’s license renewal.

Factual issues aside, the city’s legal position, as conveyed in the response to the motion for summary judgment, is that the Feld and HRP decisions from the early 1970s are no longer the controlling law in the matter. Among the decisions the city contends should be used to judge the current case is a 2002 Washtenaw County circuit court case [Wojack v. City of Ann Arbor opinion], which relied nearly exclusively on a 1981 federal court decision [Joseph v City of Birmingham (ED Mich 1981)].

The Wojack case involved Republican candidate Scott Wojack, who sought to run for Ward 1 city council. Wojack met the voter registration requirement – because he’d been registered to vote in the city for more than a year – but did not meet the ward residency requirement, because he’d moved, within the city, to Ward 1 under a year before the election. Wojack was allowed to appear on the ballot, but lost the election. The Wojack decision, upholding the Ann Arbor city charter’s durational residency requirement, came after the election.

Also among the cases that the city of Ann Arbor wanted the court to use in deciding Dascola’s lawsuit was a Detroit case from 2013 [Barrow v Detroit Election Commission]. That involved a challenge by Tom Barrow to the eligibility of Mike Duggan to appear on the ballot for mayor, because Duggan did not meet Detroit’s one-year durational voter registration requirement. One wrinkle in the Barrow case is that the Detroit requirement dates from the time of filing petitions, not the date of election. Duggan was ultimately ruled ineligible, even though he would have been eligible if he had waited a few days to file his petitions [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Response to Motion for SJ].

Dascola’s Reply to City’s Response to Motion for Summary Judgment

Dascola’s reply to the city’s response to the motion for summary judgment reviewed much of the ground covered previously.

The argument on which the case could possibly turn was reiterated: The idea that once charter provisions have been explicitly ruled unconstitutional and declared null and void – as in Feld and HRP – they are not merely dormant, possibly to be awakened, but rather do not exist at all, and it’s as if they’d never been written. A second part of that argument is to question by what orderly process charter provisions could be revived – whatever it is, the contention is that the city had not followed one [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Reply in Support of Motion for SJ].

Other Motions, Briefs

The city also filed a motion to dismiss along with a supporting brief. That got a response from Dascola and a reply from the city. Much of the material in those briefs covered ground also addressed in the briefs on the motion for summary judgment.

Zatkoff also ordered supplemental briefs that were to focus exclusively on the question: If a law is found “unconstitutional and void” by a federal district court, must that law be officially re-enacted before it is enforced?

All of those briefs are included in the complete set of briefs in the final section of this report.

Opinion: Finding for Dascola

The first four pages of Zatkoff’s 17-page opinion recite the historical background of the case. One highlight from that description is Zatkoff’s characterization of the status of the Feld and HRP decisions [emphasis added]:

Both parties agree that neither the Feld nor Human Rights Party decisions were appealed by the City. Further, neither party argues that the Feld and Human Rights Party decisions were ever explicitly overruled, vacated, or modified; indeed, these decisions have never been reviewed or reversed, and thus remain intact.

The analysis section begins with the controlling question on which Zatkoff had asked the parties to file supplemental briefs: If a law is found “unconstitutional and void” by a federal district court, must that law be officially re-enacted before it is enforced?

Zatkoff concludes that on both sides, much of the briefing material that had been submitted had no relevance to that controlling point. About the city’s argument that the charter requirements are, in fact, constitutional, Zatkoff states: “Deciding the constitutionality of the language contained in Section 12.2 of the Charter as if it had been passed today is not the question before the Court.” The opinion continues by noting that the Wojack decision was also not relevant to the question to be decided.

In evaluating the arguments on the basic question, Zatkoff concludes: “Additionally, the Court has not found – nor has either party presented – a case from any circuit indicating that a law found unconstitutional and void that remains intact need not be re-enacted prior to enforcement.”

Zatkoff analyzes three of the city’s arguments, as put forward by city attorney Stephen Postema. First, the city contended that the Feld and HRP decisions did not “repeal” the Ann Arbor city charter requirements, but rather found them null and void – as “repealing” a charter requirement was something that only a city could do through a legislative process under Michigan’s Home Rule City Act. The judiciary was not empowered to “repeal” a charter requirement, the city argued. Zatkoff rejected that argument, saying:

Furthermore, Defendants’ argument is premised on the flawed notion that the term “void” is materially different than “repeal,” and that the only way a law may become unenforceable is if the law is officially “repealed.” The 4th edition of Black’s Law Dictionary defines “void” as “[n]ull; ineffectual, nugatory; having no legal force or binding effect; unable, in law, to support the purpose for which it was intended.” Regardless of the definition of “repeal,” this definition of “void” demonstrates that the intent behind the Feld and Human Rights Party decisions was to give the Charter provisions “no legal force or binding effect.”

The city’s next argument analyzed by Zatkoff is one based on the idea that a federal court order applies only to the plaintiff in a particular case: “By arguing that prior federal court orders are only effective for the plaintiff(s) in those cases, Defendants are incorrectly attempting to apply a rule exclusively based on the Declaratory Judgment Act to all decisions made by federal courts.”

The argument is fatally flawed, Zatkoff concludes, because, it creates an “individual challenge” requirement, which would be inconsistent with the basic principles of the federal judicial system. Those basic principles include one expressed in Marbury v. Madison from 1803: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” The city of Ann Arbor’s argument “seeks to destroy this pillar of the legal system,” Zatkoff writes.

Zatkoff then characterizes the city’s position as reserving for itself to say what the law is:

The Court is deeply troubled by this proposition. First, the Defendants fail to indicate any authority granting the City the power to say “what the law is.” Further, the Defendants have provided no indication as to when exactly these voided provisions of the Charter “became” constitutional again. Additionally, the Defendants provided no evidence that notice as to “what the law is” was ever given to the public. 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.

The order from the court permanently enjoins the city from enforcing the city charter eligibility requirements – unless they are re-enacted. That means the council will need to put those or some different requirements before voters to enact – if the city of Ann Arbor wants to be able to enforce eligibility requirements on elected officials.

In explaining why he is issuing a writ of mandamus, Zatkoff points to the city’s failure to follow the federal court’s orders in the HRP and Feld cases:

Additionally, taking into consideration the Defendants’ demonstrated inability (or unwillingness) to follow the explicit orders issued by federal courts with regards to the constitutionality of the provisions at issue, the Court finds that issuing a writ of mandamus is necessary to guarantee Plaintiff receives the relief to which he is entitled.

Briefs

Here are links to .pdf files of the briefs and opinion:

• 03.28.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Complaint]
• 03.29.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Motion for Summary Judgment]
• 04.14.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Motion to Dismiss]
  
• 04.14.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Response to Motion for SJ]
• 04.18.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Reply in Support of Motion for SJ]
• 04.18.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Response to Motion to Dismiss]
• 04.23.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Reply to Response to Motion to Dismiss]
• 05.06.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief]
• 05.06.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Defendant's Supplemental Brief]
• 05.08.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint]
• 05.09.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Response to Motion for Leave to File AC]
• 05.11.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Reply to Response to Motion for Leave]
• 05.20.14 [.pdf of Dascola v. City of A2: Opinion]
• 05.20.14 [.pdf of Dascola v. City of A2: Judgment]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. We sit on the hard bench so that you don’t have to. 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!

Bob Dascola, who owns a barbershop in downtown Ann Arbor, has filed a lawsuit to run for Ward 3 city council.

That same day, Dascola filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Michigan’s U.S. District Court to assert his right to compete in the Aug. 5 Democratic primary election. [.pdf of March 28, 2014 complaint Dascola v. City of Ann Arbor]

Even though Dascola has more than the required 100  signatures to stand for election, the city clerk previously informed Dascola that he does not meet the city charter eligibility requirements for candidates.

And city clerk records still indicate in red type that Dascola does not meet the eligibility requirements.

The city has two different eligibility requirements for city council candidates. The first requires one year of residency in the ward that a candidate seeks to represent, prior to election. The second requires one year of voter registration in the city of Ann Arbor, prior to election.

Dascola’s lawsuit is based in part on the fact that each of Ann Arbor’s charter requirements were explicitly struck down in federal court in the early 1970s. [Feld v. City of Ann Arbor] [Human Rights Party et al v. City of Ann Arbor]

The complaint indicates that the city apparently believes Dascola doesn’t meet either of the requirements. Dascola contends that he actually meets the city charter’s residency requirement.

Previous coverage from The Chronicle includes: “Dascola to Assert Right to Run in Ward 3.”

Residency Requirement

The lawsuit, filed on Dascola’s behalf by local attorney Tom Wieder, contends that Dascola has been a Ward 3 resident since about Sept. 15, 2012, which would meet the one-year residency requirement. On that question, the court may need to make a determination as to the facts.

In an application Dascola filled out on Dec. 1, 2013 to be appointed by the city council to a pedestrian safety task force, he checked an item on the application indicating he was not a city resident. [.pdf of Dascola's application to the pedestrian safety task force] That would put him a few weeks outside the city charter’s one-year residency requirement. But on the same form, Dascola seems to indicate a habitual lodging at the Baldwin Avenue address in Ward 3, where he contends he’s been a resident since Sept. 15, 2012: “I walk to work every day from Stadium and Packard area and have to use crosswalk at Baldwin. I have witnessed an accident because a driver wasn’t paying attention and was almost hit by car.”

Under Michigan election law, for purposes of voting and registration, habitual lodging is one way to determine residency:

168.11 “Residence” defined.
Sec. 11. (1)  ”Residence”, as used in this act, for registration and voting purposes means that place at which a person habitually sleeps, keeps his or her personal effects, and has a regular place of lodging. If a person has more than 1 residence, or if a person has a residence separate from that of his or her spouse, that place at which the person resides the greater part of the time shall be his or her official residence for the purposes of this act. This section does not affect existing judicial interpretation of the term residence

Also supporting Dascola’s contention of residency at the Baldwin address for a year before the 2014 election is his application for renewal of his barber’s license on Aug. 8, 2013, which gives his Baldwin address. [.pdf of Dascola's barber's license renewal]

Voter Registration Requirement

On the question of voter registration, there does not appear to be any dispute on the facts. Dascola did not register to vote in the city of Ann Arbor until Jan. 15, 2014. So he falls about two months short of the one-year charter requirement on voter registration.

In defending the charter requirements, the city of Ann Arbor is likely to point to a ruling in the Washtenaw County circuit court from 2002 by judge Tim Connors on the Wojack case. However, the ruling from Connors focused on the residency requirement, not the voter registration requirement.

The Wojack case – also handled by Wieder – involved the 2001 candidacy of Republican Scott Wojack to run in Ward 1. Wojack was told he could not run based on the in-ward residency requirement. He was allowed to run. But after the 2001 election, Connors issued an opinion upholding the charter residency requirement. [Wojack v. City of Ann Arbor opinion] In that ruling, upholding the charter’s residency requirement, Connors relied on a 1981 federal court decision: [Joseph v City of Birmingham, 510 F Supp 1319, 1327 (ED Mich 1981)]

Status of Voided Charter Provisions

The complaint filed in federal district court on March 28, 2014 gives some indication of the city’s likely approach to the case, by quoting a March 24 email sent by city attorney Stephen Postema: “[W]e believe that they [city charter requirements] are no longer void in light of subsequent changes in federal and Michigan jurisprudence.” So a key question before the federal district court will likely be whether subsequent rulings in jurisdictions other than Ann Arbor can in some way revive Ann Arbor charter provisions that were explicitly ruled void by a federal court.

The complaint asks the court to enjoin the city permanently from enforcing the city charter provisions on eligibility of candidates for city office. The complaint further asks the court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the city clerk “to accept and process any nominating petitions submitted by [Dascola] and determine his eligibility without regard to the voided provisions of [the city charter].”

In a phone interview on March 29, Wieder indicated he would be filing a motion for summary judgment in the case.

Context of Ward 3 Race

The only other candidate so far to take out petitions to run in the Ward 3 Democratic primary is Julie Grand, who also competed in the August 2013 primary. Incumbent Stephen Kunselman received more votes than Grand in that race.

Kunselman is not up for re-election in 2014, but is running for mayor, along with three other councilmembers: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Because he cannot simultaneously run for mayor and run to retain his Ward 3 seat on the council, Taylor’s decision to run for mayor will leave that seat without an incumbent on the ballot.

Petitions for the partisan primary in August 2014 must be turned in by April 22. For councilmembers, 100 signatures are required from their ward. For mayor, the requirement is for 50 signatures from each of the city’s five wards, for a total of 250 signatures.

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 supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Bob Dascola sitting in the audience of the April 19, 2011 Ann Arbor city council meeting. On that occasion, he addressed the council during public commentary on the topic of panhandling in the State Street area, where his downtown barbershop is located. (Image links to Chronicle report of that council meeting.)

But Dascola was subsequently notified by the city clerk that he did not meet city charter eligibility requirements to represent Ward 3 on city council for this election cycle.

Dascola will be challenging the city clerk’s conclusion based on court cases from the early 1970s.

The Ann Arbor city charter includes two time-based eligibility requirements for city office: (1) a requirement that any local elected official must have been registered to vote in the city for a year before election to office; and (2) a requirement that a city councilmember must have been a resident of the ward they’re elected to represent for at least a year before being elected.

Dascola has lived on Baldwin Avenue in Ward 3 for about a year and a half, he told The Chronicle, but he did not register to vote in the city until Jan. 15, 2014. So he appears to meet the residency requirement, but not the voter registration requirement.

However, both of those Ann Arbor city charter provisions were explicitly ruled unconstitutional in federal court cases dating from the early 1970s.

So Dascola will be asserting his right to compete in the Ward 3 primary. He is represented in the matter by attorney Tom Wieder.

In a telephone interview on March 15, Wieder indicated that if “friendly persuasion” does not result in a change to the city’s position, then he’s prepared to move forward to file a lawsuit to ensure that Dascola can run.

And in the meantime, Wieder told The Chronicle, Dascola will be collecting signatures and submitting them to the city clerk as soon as possible. Dascola confirmed by phone that he was collecting signatures on the afternoon of March 15 – a change from an earlier strategy of waiting until the matter is sorted out.

Wieder ventured it is possible that based only on the charter language, someone might in good faith think that Dascola would not be eligible to represent Ward 3 if he were elected this year. But two separate federal court orders – one from Jan. 12, 1972 and the other from March 29, 1972 – struck down as unconstitutional the Ann Arbor city charter residency requirement and voter registration requirement, respectively.

It does not appear likely that a July 30, 2002 ruling by 22nd circuit court judge Timothy Connors might play any role in the resolution to Dascola’s case. The Wojack case – also handled by Wieder – involved the 2001 candidacy of Republican Scott Wojack to run in Ward 1. Wojack was told he could not run based on the in-ward residency requirement. He was allowed to run. But after the 2001 election, Connors issued an opinion upholding the charter residency requirement.

However, according to Wieder: “A state court cannot overturn an existing, binding decision of a federal court on the same subject.” Further, the Wojack case involved the residency requirement, not the voter registration requirement. And it is the voter registration requirement that appears to be the basis of the city’s conclusion on Dascola’s ineligibility.

Ann Arbor City Charter: Two Requirements

The charter provisions on eligibility for office come from Chapter 12: “Officers.” Two one-year requirements are included – the first on voter registration and the other on in-ward residency.

The phrase “registered elector of the city” can be glossed as “registered to vote in the city.” From the charter [emphasis added]:

Eligibility for City Office – General Qualifications
Section 12.2. Except as otherwise provided in this charter, a person is eligible to hold a City office if the person has been a registered elector of the City, or of territory annexed to the City or both, and, in the case of a Council Member, a resident of the ward from which elected, for at least one year immediately preceding election or appointment. This requirement may be waived as to appointive officers by resolution concurred in by not less than seven members of the Council.

According to Dascola, he moved to his Ward 3 address on Baldwin Avenue from Grass Lake, Mich., about a year and a half ago. So Dascola appears to meet the requirement that he be a resident of Ward 3 for at least a year immediately preceding election.

However, Dascola indicated that he did not register to vote in the city until Jan. 15, 2014. That would put him outside the charter requirement for voter registration in the city – by about two months.

City’s Position: Residency or Voter Registration?

It’s not completely clear if the city’s position is that Dascola doesn’t meet the residency requirement or that he doesn’t meet the voter registration requirement, or both. The document maintained by the city clerk’s office to track petitions includes an asterisk by Dascola’s name with the notation: “Not eligible doesn’t meet one year residency requirement.”

City clerk staff provided that document to The Chronicle – with its asterisk and note – on March 13, the day after Dascola took out petitions to run. That came in the course of a regular in-person visit by The Chronicle to the clerk’s office to check on recent petition activity. At the office counter, city clerk Jackie Beaudry indicated that her conclusion that Dascola was not eligible was based on his voter registration date, which is public information that can easily be verified.

Wieder described the language in a letter Dascola received from the clerk’s office as somewhat unclear on the question of residency or voter registration. But he indicated that it suggests that the city’s conclusion is based on the one-year voter registration requirement.

Federal Court Cases

Two separate federal court cases from almost a half-century ago – about three months apart – struck down first the residency requirement and then the voter registration requirement of the Ann Arbor city charter.

The first case was brought by Daniel J. Feld, Charlene Parker Stern and Bruce S. Kahn. From Ann Arbor News coverage on Dec. 31, 1971:

In October, Feld attempted to take out nominating petitions to run for city council from the Second Ward. However, within the previous 12 months he had moved temporarily to the Fourth Ward and was ruled ineligible to run for the Second Ward by City Clerk Harold Saunders. Miss Stern and Kahn were involved in the suit as registered city voters who claimed they would be deprived of their rights to vote for the candidate of their choice if Feld was not allowed to enter the election.

From the court order by U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Gubow, filed on Jan. 12, 1972 [emphasis in bold added]:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and declared that the portion of Section 12.2 of the Ann Arbor City Charter which requires all candidates for the office of councilman to have been residents of the ward from which they are elected for at least one year immediately preceding their election violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, unconstitutional and void. [From court order for Feld v. City of Ann Arbor]

The Ann Arbor News coverage of the Feld case highlights the difference between the residency requirement and the voter registration requirement:

Judge [Lawrence] Gubow ruled only on the one-year residency requirement, and did not rule unconstitutional the charter language requiring that a person be a registered voter for at least a year before assuming elective office. [City attorney Jerold] Lax said persons seeking elective office will have to have the one year of voter registration, stating that he asked Judge Gubow specifically if his ruling went beyond the residency requirement. The answer was “no.”

Even though Gubow’s ruling on the Feld case struck down only the Ann Arbor city charter’s residency requirement, just two and a half months later, the voter registration requirement was also struck down – by U.S. District Judge Ralph Freeman. That came in a ruling on a case brought by the Human Rights Party, David Black and Mark Dickman. Black was the HRP nominee for Ward 4 city council. Dickman was a registered voter who wanted to vote for Black. From Freeman’s order [emphasis in bold added]:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and declared that the portion of Section 12.2 of the Ann Arbor City Charter which requires all candidates for the office of councilman to have been registered electors of the City of Ann Arbor for at least one year immediately preceding their election violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, unconstitutional and void. [From court order for Human Rights Party et al v. City of Ann Arbor]

In the opinion written by Freeman, he begins by noting the outcome of the Feld case. He then contemplates application of either the “rational basis” test or the “compelling interest” test for the charter requirement. He decides that question in favor of the “compelling interest” test, citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision from 1972 [Bullock v. Carter] on which “a filing fee system imposed on prospective candidates in Texas could not be sustained merely upon the showing of a rational basis.” [Opinion in Human Rights Party et al v. City of Ann Arbor]

The “compelling interest” of the city was claimed to be that “a candidate has some commitment to the electoral process.” Freeman concluded that, “Certainly, this is a proper interest.” However, Freeman then notes that “those measures which the city takes to further its interest must be carefully fashioned to attain their purpose without unnecessary infringement on the rights of the electorate.”

Freeman’s opinion cites a number of state offices that do not impose an additional requirement that a candidate’s voter registration must persist for a year before taking office. Freeman then goes on to state:

We can see some merit in the proposition that registration to vote indicates a belief in, or commitment to, the electoral process, but we do not see that maintaining that status as a registered elector for a period of one year necessarily has any relationship to determining the commitment of the registered voter to that process.

Freeman drives home that point by quoting from another opinion, written by judge Damon Keith:

Judge Keith said in Green, supra, at p. 634, In our opinion a candidate is not like a fine vintage wine. His years of residency in a particular community do not necessarily make him a better candidate.

Next Steps

Wieder indicated it might be possible that someone could conclude in good faith – based on just the language of the charter and without knowledge of the two federal cases – that Dascola was not eligible to represent Ward 3.

Wieder said he’s hopeful that when the federal cases are pointed out to the city, it will be recognized that the two charter requirements no longer have any force. If “friendly persuasion” does not result in Dascola being allowed to run for city council, then Wieder indicated a lawsuit would be filed.

Context of Ward 3 Race

The only other candidate so far to take out petitions to run in the Ward 3 Democratic primary is Julie Grand, who also competed in the August 2013 primary. Incumbent Stephen Kunselman received more votes than Grand in that race.

Kunselman is not up for re-election in 2014, but is running for mayor, along with three other councilmembers: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Because he cannot simultaneously run for mayor and run to retain his Ward 3 seat on the council, Taylor’s decision to run for mayor leaves that seat open.

Petitions for the partisan primary in August 2014 must be turned in by April 22. For councilmembers, 100 signatures are required from their ward. For mayor, the requirement is for 50 signatures from each of the city’s five wards, for a total of 250 signatures.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. We sit on the hard bench so that you don’t have to. 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!