Docs re Term Limits Amendment - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• LI 1 3490 Lexington Avenue North League of Minnesota Cities St. Paul, MN 55126-8044 September 9, 1994 Please contact LMC ifyour city considers taking action. LMC has a packet to aid cities to obtain court decision. TO: Mayor, Manager, Clerk, Home Rule Charter Cities FROM: Ann Higgins, IGR Representative Kent Sulem, Codification Attorney RR: Options for response to petitions proposing a ballot question to amend the city charter to impose local term limits Numbers of home rule charter cities have reported to the League that they are receiving petitions calling for chatter amendments imposing local term limits to be placed on the ballot in November. The League urges city officials to contact.the city attorney immediately upon receiving a petition. The city has three options to consider in this situation: 1. Accent petition and place on ballot, Cities may let voters decide whether or not to support term limits at the local level. Local officials need to be aware, however, that city attorneys generally have viewed imposition of local term limits by charter as unconstitutional since Article VII, Section 6 of the State Constitution clearly sets out requirements for holding elective offices, including those at the local level, providing that any person meeting qualifications set forth there shall be eligible to hold public elective office. The constitution contains no term limit authority for cities to adopt more restrictive requirements. If the charter amendment were adopted by voters, a legal challenge could be anticipated by any person adversely affected. The charter provision would almost certainly be held unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. Resolution of the issue under this option could take several years and could also give the appearance of city support of term limits. 2. Declaratory lodgment. Cities may seek to have the court order the issue declared unconstitutional and improper to be placed on the ballot. The city has to accept the financial burden. There is a possibility that the court may not grant standing to the city itself unless the judge accepts the argument that the city is harmed by being required to expend funds and voter actions in a meaningless election. This option would be a reasonable action, however, to have the court order the matter off the ballot. Cities may want to consider providing assistance to one another to support this approach. The League understands several cities may consider this option if other cities would also support such efforts. (Attached is a list of all home rule charter cities. The League encourages cities to contact us and to communicate on the matter to coordinate responses.) 3. Deny the petition and keep the issue off the ballot. The city may, on the advice of the city attorney, decide to reject the petition as invalid, either because of reasons stated above, or because the petition may also include a requirement that is improperly put before the voters. The language of at least one of the petitions presented to date, for example, also would require the city council to vote on a resolution calling for a state constitutional amendment to impose term limits at the state and federal level. This is an advisory petition which is not authorized under current law and can be rejected on that basis. Attachment AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER (612)490-6600 1-800-925.1122 plus yourcitycode TDD(612)490-9038 Fax(612)400-0072 ZO ° d OO ' 1 OZ: 2I - ► . 60 d S ZZOO-0617-Z I9: 131 S3I1I3 NW JO 3f9d31