Agenda Packets - 2005/09/26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 36 eligible to vote may be a valid signer of the petition and not need to be registered. However, the 1 City’s Charter specifically says “registered voter.” Such validation would require additional 2 review and each of the 214 apparent non-registered voters would have to be determined eligible 3 to vote. 4 5 City Administrator Ulrich read the rules for eligibility for voting and stated the City Attorney 6 also issued an opinion dated August 11 that transfer of land as proposed is an administrative 7 function and, therefore, not subject to a petition for referendum. The recommendation is that 8 Council consider and adopt the second version of Resolution 6608 determining sufficiency of 9 referendum petition pursuant to City Charter; finding the referendum question invalid; and 10 declaring that such question shall not be certified for a special election. He stated it indicates that 11 the petition committee would be notified of the insufficiencies of the petition and that the 12 Council would move forward based on this recommendation. 13 14 City Administrator Ulrich stated it is also recommended that following this action, Council adopt 15 Resolution 6581 providing for the transfer of land by resolution. 16 17 City Attorney Riggs explained that subsequent to conversation with City Administrator Ulrich 18 when he was preparing the memorandum, he did further review of the question of registered 19 voters versus eligible voters. He advised that case law in Minnesota is not directly on point but 20 other jurisdictions are on point where it is a requirement of using the actual term “registered 21 voter” at the time the petition is signed. Minnesota case law can be read consistent with that and 22 appears to be the logical reading. He stated he has been in discussion with a number of people to 23 review this issue and that is why the second version of the resolution is being recommended for 24 adoption. 25 26 Mayor Marty asked if the committee is notified if the petition is insufficient and given a period of 27 time to correct the insufficiency. City Attorney Riggs stated that is correct and a period of 30 28 days is allowed. He pointed out that it does not call into question the validity of the question but 29 would go to the question of the validity of the petition. 30 31 Councilmember Gunn suggested, for the aid of the audience members, that City Charter section 32 5.02 be read. The Council agreed so Councilmember Gunn read that section aloud. 33 34 Councilmember Stigney stated it has always been his view and indicated in past legal discussions 35 that the Charter can go beyond what is in State Statute. 36 37 City Attorney Riggs stated in some cases it certainly can but in this situation, with the case law 38 that Minnesota has, the only thing close to interpreting that is what City Administrator Ulrich 39 was discussing. He advised that the Charter clearly says “registered voter.” As the Charter is 40 written, that is consistent with what other States have done where they have had to look 41 specifically at that term “registered voter.” Based on the interpretation for the one specific case 42 in Minnesota, they gave effect to a different term and said it wasn’t a registered voter so that 43 wasn’t required. However, our case is very different because the Charter specifically says 44 “registered voter.” 45