Stories indexed with the term ‘residency requirement’

The Democratic primary ballot for the Ward 3 Ann Arbor city council race will now include Bob Dascola, in addition to Julie Grand and Samuel McMullen. That’s the result of a ruling from federal district judge Lawrence Zatkoff – in a lawsuit filed by Dascola against the city of Ann Arbor: The city cannot bar Dascola from the Ward 3 city council Democratic primary ballot based on city charter eligibility requirements that were ruled null and void in the early 1970s.

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. [Full Story]

On Friday, March 28, 2014, the Ann Arbor’s city clerk staff validated 103 signatures for Bob Dascola’s attempted candidacy to represent Ward 3 on the Ann Arbor 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.” [Full Story]

Earlier this year, longtime downtown barbershop owner Bob Dascola announced his intent to compete for the Democratic nomination to represent Ward 3 on the Ann Arbor city council. And on March 12, 2014, Dascola took out nominating petitions from the city clerk’s office.

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. [Full Story]