Laserfiche WebLink
m. • e. <br /> it . Clayton L. LeFevere - 5 April. 14 , 1J11 <br /> which seriously threatens the values embodied in the constitutiona1 <br /> restrictions should be invalidated ." Sandalow, The Limits of <br /> t4unicipal .Power Under Thoma Rule:k Role _for theCourts, 48 Minn. L. <br /> Rev . 643, 719 (1964 ) , <br /> Inasmuch as our courts have strongly supported universal <br /> eligibility for elective office and the legislature has withheld <br /> delegation of power to set qualifications for 1odal office, we <br /> strongly doubt that the proposed charter amendment may <br /> constitutionally limit the number of consecutive terms a person may <br /> serve as a member of the city council or as mayor , or both. The <br /> purpose behind a limitation on the number of terms may be to avoid <br /> entrenchment in office, corruption, and the possibilities of <br /> improper use of an office to sustain tenure . A similar. purpose w <br /> rejected in Pavlak, when a statute. was involved . The court said, <br /> " ( MI a democracy, and particularly in a jurisdiction with a <br /> constitution provision akin to Article VII, Section 6, it is for the <br /> people, not a particular legislature, to decide- if a [candidate) <br /> should be returned to the office." , Pavlak v. Growe, 284 N.W.2d at <br /> 178. <br /> Statesthat do permit limitations on reelection do not have <br /> Minnesota' s constitutional guarantee of universal eligibility or <br /> have specific constitutional provisions authorizing such <br /> limitations . See 59 A.L.R. 2d 718. While the issue of limitations <br /> 5Od S3I ,LI0 MN 40 snova 'I * mid $ S : iO T76 '61 °L0 <br />