Proposals A & B Pass: Lawsuit Questioning Legality of Ballot Language Remains—A Quixotic Legal Battle

by P.D. Lesko

After an expensive and bitter battle between the Library Green Conservancy, the AADL Board members and City Council members, on August 5, 2025 Proposals A (to revoke the 2018 Charter amendment which called for the creation of a center of the city park on the library lot) and Proposal B (to sell the Library Lot for $1 to the AADL) passed. Proposal A passed by a 58.25 percent margin to a 41.75 percent margin and Proposal B passed by a 57.58 percent margin to a 42.42 percent margin. 28.82 of all eligible voters in Ann Arbor participated.

The original 2018 ballot initiative to amend the Charter to create a park on the Library Lot passed 26,752 votes to 23,622 votes on the November 2018 ballot. That ballot question saw 54.09 percent of all eligible voters participate.

At 11 p.m. on August 5, the City of Ann Arbor put out a communication in which residents were told that the results of the vote on Proposals A and B were not yet in—three hours after the polls had closed. The number of absentee ballots, however, provided an explanation: For Proposal A, 2,174 people cast their votes early, and 6,022 people voted on August 5 and 15,309 people voted absentee. For Proposal B, 2,166 people voted early, and 15,231 people voted absentee.

Former Ward 1 City Council member Jeff Hayner, in a comment posted to the Ann Arbor Politics Facebook page said, “I think it’s [the passage of Proposals A and B] a wake up call that a very small number of people are in control of our town, and they are hell-bent on giving it away to their buddies; in exchange for money and/or power.”

Former Ward 5 City Council member Ali Ramlawi responded to Hayner, “Naw, just a reaffirmation of that fact, It’s been going on since at least 2020.”

University Bank President Stephen Lange Ranzini pointed out prior to the election that the total cost of the AADL’s proposed development of the Library Lane site was not being discussed. After the election, Ranzini reiterated his concerns, “No one is talking about the fact that this project overall will cost well over $350 million and if not properly executed could result in severe negative consequences for the AADL and taxpayers in general. This is not a reason not to do the project however the team at the AADL is highly unlikely to have the skill set to pull this off with elan. The Library Lot garage part of the project already built was bid out at $44 million and came in way over budget at $50 million. Also, the conference center aspect of the Library part of the project will assuredly lose money each year *forever* and will require higher operating millage taxes to fund those losses.”

On July 17, 2025 local attorney Noah S. Hurwitz filed suit on behalf of two Ann Arbor residents who allege the ballot language of Proposals A and B was misleading. Hurwitz is a lawyer who specializes in employment law.

Hurwitz’s suit alleges the ballot language of Proposals A and B are “a fraud on the electorate.” The suit states that Proposal A permits the city to sell the air rights “for the purpose of building a mixed-use development that includes additional library services, housing, retail and programmable open public space.” There’s no similar restriction in Proposal B, so Hurwitz argues that the library could do whatever it wants with the site.

While Hurwitz asked trial court Judge Julia B. Owdziej for an emergency hearing prior to the August 5 election, the judge scheduled a hearing for Aug. 25, 2025. The scheduling decision was a neat judicial maneuver by a judge with a reputation as a solid jurist. On appeal at the Michigan Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals, data from the Michigan Supreme Court’s One Court website shows Judge Owdziej is one of the least reversed judges in the 22nd Circuit Court.

While Judge Owdziej has the authority to invalidate an election under Michigan law, to do so is viewed as a drastic measure. There is a very high bar for a judge to order the invalidation of an election. Courts also defer to the will of the voters. In the case of the passage of Proposals A and B, the margins by which both proposals passed could be interpreted to mean the will of the voters is that Proposals A and B should not be invalidated.

Legal grounds for the invalidation of an election include errors in vote counting and tabulation, demonstrable evidence of voter fraud and other issues that demonstrably undermined the fairness or legality of the election. This last legal argument is what Hurwitz has brought before Judge Owdziej.

In a Nov. 2020 article published in the New York Times reporting on Donald Trump’s allegations of fraud in that presidential election, it is pointed out that, “It’s not enough to claim — or even prove — that irregularities [in an election] occurred. The irregularities have to be significant enough to change the outcome of the race, which is extraordinarily rare.” The article goes on to quote Edward B. Foley, director of election law at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law.

Foley told the New York Times, “The prevailing view today is that courts should not invalidate election results because of problems unless it is shown that the problems were of such magnitude to negate the validity of which candidate [or ballot question] prevailed.”

Given these facts, it’s unlikely on Aug. 25 Judge Owdziej will grant Hurwitz’s Motion and agree to invalidate the results of the Aug. 5 election. Should Judge Owdziej refuse to grant Hurwitz’s Motion, on behalf of his two clients, Hurwitz could appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

Molly Kleinman, President of the Board of the AADL, has been quoted in the media as saying, “The library is absolutely bound by the stated purpose of the ballot question. We want to be there. We’re a library. What we want to do is operate a library.”

Noah Hurwitz was asked to comment and did not reply.