From the time of its first incorporation in 1851 until 1956 Ann Arbor was a “special act city.” Its organization was dictated by an act of the legislature. Although changes were made by subsequent special acts, one thing remained the same. Elections were held in April. When Ann Arbor was reincorporated under the Home Rule City Act in 1956, the April elections were retained. Local issues were not lost in elections full of state and federal choices.

Until a citizen initiated charter amendment was adopted in 1992, Ann Arbor had April elections for 141 years. The change to November elections was promoted as creating more democracy, but it has not worked out that way.

When I enrolled in the University of Michigan in 1959, Ann Arbor had a university student population of about 25,000. But two things prevented most of the students from having any involvement in local politics. You had to be at least 21 to vote. Also, a state law required most students to vote where their parents lived.

The closest I came to politics was when I waited late into the night for JFK to appear on the steps of the Michigan Union.

Things began to change in 1971 when a federal constitutional amendment lowered the voting age to 18. But students had a tough task to get the right to vote in Ann Arbor. They had to go to the city hall and convince City Clerk John Bentley they really lived in Ann Arbor instead of with their parents. A state law dictated that persons did not gain or lose voting residence by virtue of attendance at an institution of higher learning. In 1968, a student named Sally Wilkins filed a suit challenging the validity of that law. In 1972, in an opinion by Justice Swainson, the Michigan Supreme Court sustained the Wilkins challenge and held that the hometown presumption was unconstitutional. The door was opened for student voting in Ann Arbor.

 Students then showed their muscles. They formed the Human Rights Party and elected members of the party to the City Council.

They managed to have the City Charter amended so that in one election cycle Ann Arbor had “preferential” voting. Under that system, second choices elected Al Wheeler as Mayor. The Human Rights party faded, but students continued to be elected to the City Council. In 1992, a charter amendment moved the City election from April to

November and the primary from February to August. That change plus the changing Ann Arbor demographics curtailed student influence in Ann Arbor politics.

The change in Ann Arbor demographics has meant that no one has been elected to an Ann Arbor city office as a Republican since 2003. And in 2005, one of those Republicans, elected in 2003, switched party labels to become a Democrat. The August primary is an all Democrat election often without more than one candidate in a ward. The highest vote getter is guaranteed election to office unless there is a write-in campaign. The primary is held in early August when many students, professors and other residents are out of town on summer breaks.

My election ballot this year provides a perfect example of what has happened. There is only one name listed for the second ward City Council seat. The alternative is a blank where I can fill in the name of a write-in candidate. The name printed on the ballot is Jon Mallek. I had not heard of him but he has a campaign website. He moved to Ann Arbor two years ago. There is no indication of service on any City of Ann Arbor committee or commission. His only apparent connection to Ann Arbor politics is his marriage last year to State Representative Jason Morgan. He has good endorsements that include Christopher Taylor. He may have won my vote with the photo of him and his spouse holding two beautiful cats. But I have to wonder why such a nice high paying office couldn’t have attracted candidates with more Ann Arbor experience.

What I have experienced is why a group of Ann Arbor voters have attempted to make changes to restore democracy to Ann Arbor elections. I was consulted by Ann Arbor residents who had much experience in local government and who wanted to see changes to the City Charter that would promote democracy. Consulting with me was with good reason. Since my admission to the State Bar in January 1967, most of my law practice has been municipal. I have been the attorney for five municipalities and two public library systems. I have drafted charter amendments for a city organized under the Michigan’s Home Rule City Act and for a village organized under the Home Rule Village Act. All the charter amendments I drafted were successfully made into law. When a citizen initiated charter amendment was challenged in court, I successfully defended it.

The draft charter amendment I prepared provided for election in November from all nominees, no August primary. That was not a whimsical last minute suggestion. My study of the Ann Arbor charter included a review of Charter Commission records at the Bentley Library. I served on a charter study committee of the Michigan Municipal League. My recommendation was consistent with an article I wrote for the Ann Arbor Chronicle in June 2002.  

My recommendation was also based on elections I have observed in other Michigan cities. I subscribe to the Traverse City Record Eagle newspaper and have observed how smoothly elections happen when all Traverse City commission candidates appear on the ballot in November.

The charter amendment I prepared was put into charter amendment petitions used in a petition drive that netted over 6,000 signatures. The City Clerk then incorporated the issue into the ballot for the general election. She has access to the City’s 12 attorney legal staff. There was no legal opinion questioning the language of the proposed amendment. The ballot question appears clearly on the absentee ballot I received.

After I received my ballot, I noticed some lawn signs urging a “no” vote on proposal C. They referred to a website urging “no” votes. The web site states that the nonpartisan voting, “Raises barriers to entry and discourages candidates with diverse backgrounds from participating.” But the truth is that nonpartisan voting eliminates the barrier of having to declare a political party affiliation. The website gives no explanation of how nonpartisan voting discourages anyone from participating. Could anyone seriously claim that a system used in 278 or Michigan’s 280 cities is racist? The website quotes Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist, a man who has no connection to Ann Arbor’s local government, as claiming the election changes on the ballot would “undermine the integrity of local elections by reducing choice…” The truth is that Proposal C would authorize choice in the city’s general election where it now does not exist. Voters now can choose only between a single name on the ballot or writing in Mickey Mouse.

The Vote “no” website reveals that the real coalition behind its bizarre claims are ten members of the Ann Arbor City Council who have never had to face opposition in the general election. They have no reason to want to change a system that has easily put them on the gravy train. By getting only a hundred signatures on a nominating petition they can be nominated to an office where they receive a large salary for going to council meetings. Ann Arbor’s 1956 charter stated that council members were to serve without pay. But Ann Arbor signed onto a state law that overrode that restriction. A local officers compensation commission is authorized to establish salaries that require no City Council approval. The salaries approved by the commission take effect unless the City Council votes to reject them. That rejection has never happened. The council member salary set by the compensation commission for this year is $29,869.54. That will go up to $32,539.62 on July 1. 2025. That equates to $1,107 for each of the 32 council meetings held in most years. The City Council website indicates that only two of the last three meetings for which there are time records lasted more than two hours.

The perplexing thing about the vote “no” website is that it lists among opponents to the election reform the Washtenaw League of Women Voters. The website gives no rationale for the League opposition to reform. But I was able to see the League’s report which gave the only reason for opposition as, “The main concern is this proposal does not provide a method for winnowing multiple candidates so that the ultimate winner will have a majority of total votes.” Since the only legal means to “winnow” before the general election would be a primary election in August. Was the League really recommending rejection of the work of people who collected signatures on 819 petition sheets because a conscious decision had been made that the primary election was not necessary or desirable.

Was there a concern besides the “main concern? Did I mess something up in the drafting? Was the League opposed to nonpartisan elections? I tried to get answers to those and other questions by contacting the League officers including the person who prepared the LWV report.

When I emailed League officers a request for information on any problems other than the “main concern.” No other problem was mentioned. On the phone, I asked the author of the League report whether the League was opposed to nonpartisan voting. She said it was not and followed up with an email saying “I did say that the League was not against nonpartisan voting, but I also said the League determined, after a detailed study, that Proposal C was deficient in not winnowing candidates and other matters.” What the were the other matters? I was told to look at a letter the local League president sent to the organizer of the petition drive. There I saw a list of concerns that resembled those on the “vote no” website. The most notable concern was “Party labels provide important information about a candidate.” Of course party labels are only on partisan election ballots. That local League position is contrary to the nonpartisan views spelled out in the national League website.

I later learned from a friend that League representatives had come to the services at his church to distribute educational materials that included the League’s report opposing Proposal C. The League behavior regarding this matter has been unlike any I have witnessed since moving to Ann Arbor in 1959. Previously, when nonpartisan voting was under consideration in Ann Arbor, the League convened a forum at the downtown library branch. Former City officials addressed their views on nonpartisan voting, but the League took no position one way or the other. The appropriate conduct of the League regarding the current election reform proposal would have been to outline the views for and against and leave it up to the voters to decide.

 In deciding how to vote on the reform proposals, voters should bear in mind how the League recommendation has been unfair to the hard work of those who have sought to establish real choice in the general elections for Ann Arbor City offices.

No election system is perfect. Our presidential elections have resulted in presidents taking office who received fewer votes than their opponents. The “winnowing” of primary elections can lead to unwanted results. A case in point is the current election for county clerk in Antrim County. When the clerk of many years announced her retirement, 5 persons submitted nominating petitions. Antrim County is the opposite of Ann Arbor in terms of party affiliation. All of those candidates were Republican. Only one spent heavily in the campaign. She is an election denier who pledged to count every ballot by hand. By virtue of having obtained 37% of the votes cast she will become the next county clerk unless defeated in a write-in election. Horrified by the proposed changes to the election process, the current clerk has initiated a write-in campaign.

Since the 1956 adoption of Ann Arbor’s charter, its election provisions have been amended 5 times. The most recent amendment provides for rank choice voting if state law is changed to allow it. But the current partisan language would make such state law change meaningless for Ann Arbor. The rank choice language of the Ann Arbor charter does not apply to primary elections. A single name on the November ballot provides nothing to rank.

Amending the charter does not require arduous petition drives. The City Council can, by resolution, submit changes to the Charter to the voters. Considering recent election experiences, it is unlikely that Proposal C will turn “city elections into November free-for-alls” as warned by the vote “no” website. If the big council salaries cause a surge of interest in running for the City Council, the Charter can be amended to add “winnowing.” In the meantime, voters need to realize that voting “no” is voting to have no choices in November. Because someone at the LWV thinks she has a better idea for charter wording does not warrant throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 –Bruce Laidlaw

⬅️ Back