Laserfiche WebLink
308 Minn. 335 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES <br /> tion meets the technical requirements int- Asadsews a Brach. 155 Minn. 38. 191 N.w- eligibility "except <br /> posed by state law and that the dty counci'l's 1012(1923). In the present ase.the Minn- this constitution' <br /> action violated plaintiffs' rights under the :polis City Council. following the advice of timid floor and It <br /> ' First and Fourteenth Amendments of the _ the chafer commission and the city attorney. meat of addition: <br /> •• U.S Constitution. Further, on September rejected plaintiffs' proposed chi amend- Citing the court 0 <br /> . 23.1994.plaintiffs filed a motion fir prelim went on the ground that it was manifestly v. Grose. 502 N= <br /> nary injunction seeking to enjoin the defen- unconstitutionaL As requested by the Unit- plaintiffs iti>rtlter <br /> dents t from refiring to place the proposed ed States District Court,we consider wheth- contemplated by <br /> • amendment on the city-wide ballot for the er an amendment to the Minneapolis city section 6 is foam <br /> forthcoming election. charter limiting the terms of local elected Under article 10 <br /> Following a hearing and a verbal riling o would violate Article VII. Section 6 tore tray kid <br /> 3,! from the bench on October 3. 1994. the ifs- of the Minnesota Constitution. organization. ad <br /> 's • <br /> trier court filed a memorandum opinion and Article VII. Section 6 of the Minnesota dmisIo' • <br /> said dim <br /> order denying plaintiffs*motion for a pretimi Constitution provides: units <br /> • 11 ns and <br /> fol <br /> naryeert.injunction and certifying the question to Sec. s Visibility to hold office.of this nth the <br /> this court cry person who by the provisions <br /> article is entitled to vote at any election entitied <br /> s Con Artitlo XII.Section 5 a the Minn- and is 21 years of age is eligible for any quiring that cars <br /> sees m Constitution.home mile charter amend- office elective by the people in the district t <br /> meats tory be proposed "by a charter - wherein he has resided so days previous to i t The <br /> t the o local g petition of five patentas of the deter- the election. except as otherwise provided p�langur a <br /> ;.i�.� voters of government unit as rises the <br /> in this eotistitntion,ar the constitution and for local offices <br /> :;;. mined by law and shall not become effective law of the united States. <br /> • until approved by the voters by the majorityof these add'stim <br /> required by law." Amendments also may be In Pavlick v. Growc thin court interpreted of sheriff did i <br /> proposed and adopted In any other manner article VII.section 6 as establishing universal elective office u <br /> provided by law." td pursuant to this eon- eligibility few public office: forcefitQy the h ianedots <br /> stitutional authority, the legislature has get This constitutio l si812. 813.514. <br /> forth additional methods of charter amend- press ee an important democratic para edge the <br /> anent Miitnesotg Statutes section 410.12 ple—that all citizens meeting mit nal. nn, addressed <br /> including a certification process for amend- changing requirements are eligible for the enact addition <br /> • meats proposed by a dtirene petition. Un- elective postdates that control torus.govern- plaintiffs nate <br /> • der these provisions. amendments meeting merit. The opinions of this court applying ten."in matte <br /> the-tethnicst requirementashall-be_submit.- Article vil. $ection 6. have consistently rulecihaw <br /> ties h <br /> ted to the qualified voters at a general or held that.as a guarantee of utdveisal eligisessedby the <br /> spetial election and published as in the cast bility for public office, its standards may such power i <br /> of the original charter." Mintt.Stat f 410.12. not be made more restrictive by legislative held." Stota i <br /> sand. 4. authorized by an- Zea <br /> established in other Gonstiittutie on�al�i�ision. 83 t19510. <br /> [i] Nevertheless,it is proposedwell 284 N.W.2d 174. 176 Olian.1979). Crookston. if <br /> • ;` =Pen.5 that when a car De spite this guarantee of universal eligtbil- article XIi. e <br /> amen •� ay r u un�o.Q- plaintiffs argot that home rule charter for office. so <br /> th • ct7 na ro" ity <br /> posal on the ballot. See D avfes It City of cities have been delegated broad power by [21 We di <br /> ► Minnettpotfa. 316 N.W2d 498 (Minn.1982): the Iegislature and are constitutionally <br /> u for reasoning <br /> is <br /> • Housing Auth. of Min- rived to impose eligibility requirementsA critical dig <br /> �,iti City of.Redevelopmentthat the fication'for <br /> npnpotis v. of.Minneapolis, 293 Minn- local officials. Plaintiffs first assert <br /> } 227, 198 N-W2d 581 (1972): Stale ex ori. article VII. section 6 guarantee of universal <br /> i i 2. Vic disc <br /> Mitutoaptblis. James?bland. a Minneapolis City Court ease <br /> 1. Defendants inr this action invade: Merry r <br /> • Keefe. City Clerk of the City of Minneapolis: Council <br /> Christtnber.n. SupervisoreCof the Elections changeable <br /> ' a Joyce of treil. y fDirectorMof theneapo s:Elections Depart- Marge <br /> for Hennepin County: Pat O'Cem• tion. Clan <br /> a'; ) trent . the Gen of the Minneapolis <br /> lis Jackie Cherry. r Ser'tces Dr•ision Manager for r.wcen an e <br /> C' barites. President of the MitJtreapolia City Coup- nor. Taxpayer <br /> til: Sharon Sayles Belton. Mayor of the City of Hennepin County. and Hennepin County eon is ham <br />