Msc Correspondence & Term Limit Docs

Home Browse Search

.a COALITION e. MpT,S• TERM LiMIT3 KEEFE MM- 309 . i.I rite:ass et wad NG t we& ow A qualification is an de- ase. , except as otherw a provided in meat" for office. a particular de �. 33. 191 NAV. elig " nq met+k of performance g •`' tltb cons � � >!nterelY s co ability on the part of perms seelattg the ase.the Minns- totution for the enact- agility or the a I # recta g the advice of t>d !lootuiremetita position. such °f eduhe at- se cite attot•lsey, in t courttof ppeals'o do in Elbert t�aent of a particular level of educat by chart r amend- C tg the casrf of appeals°ia°dn 19931. We believe that the leglsi ims a was manifestly itde. 502 N.W.2d 810 {Minnapp• established v. contend that the exception the carni of appeals ed by the Unit. ' tufa VII. gUs�lifirati°"for office and into this o i }:� consider trhet>ti. conplated by the Iattguage of Ei�requirements.°n theether ►lea l electedd . section 6 is found in artide XII. mon 3-isla- �havelnothing do melte one's ae tyer of tam! Coder article XII. ty ebon 8. *Ublee perform the duties of the owe in question. i� e the Sectiot► B hire may provide ni la+► for conthe age and residency require- c Mk. mgmii�egtion. administration, consolidation. and �shed in article VII. section 5- ,' n and dissolution of local government me s team d in such as that cae. f the Mibtteaots tom! a a and appointi'e officers includ'n+g Clearly. * is as �it suc Y requirement be-., • traits tions for off." leterpreling this ex- cause plaintiffs it has sinothing to dol with the particular '• � told ions of E - the court of appeals •s ability perform 3°b' rather.it Rovisiotts this tul3onalif7► a statute t e' P based a factorthej ,unrelatedr to 1. et any election tany atter for the office of slier is a restriction = eligible ftrr any ifisuccessfidtf caring that candidatescomplete pew off,Nana- job per'f°rman°e' . ale in the district � �� •� court held that til Applying this �� pres. .,. Article I days previous to section 3 autho ent . we conclude that although ;: 1`�1°e provided plain !atone to en • � ai, section 3 of the I °th Cgh Arti1pe �� "`, _constitution for n the of the to astab 4 ` for local affi;, the for ,e o''• locale off•the :a • :. rAtlons e�bl� ib ear court of sheriff did not violate the Id ,t owe the cure t° des term hglbili- 'vision universal t elective office un et erste meta add not a !i frac Mit8-814. f,oniougstita limit Is alt artiI.. ae1ato'4- t auteor+sed bion foreef'Ii1iy 812» Sill-81t. thou I�� acre n is no to the ' ; ieng mini .rind- edge that the court appeals mold XII.section 8 as as excepts a I article ran- I sting Inittinasl.un- addrd o�Y whether *maws a office. � assi,'wer � pie eligible for the enact additional qualifications for eectian a ore and hold that an I `' his their applying govern- pati dote that under the home r+ S eeetm an m the awe er his to eo applying tem."in snifters of municipal concern. to the elected offidsls il Barre vet l eat]y rule duces have all the legal► _power pa. amendment save as tg e 6 of its standards sessed by the lestalabite of the ea LY of fall state- ,""''sd Yio a on p uratic- Mitttsesett`I—�' ( . eatiin -such -e.ret Teton of Low ti.Citif df t visio-by tem held. Sfatt. N.w2d gl. GAItDEgRING. Justice (dissets ion I, stskhotistied by as 2i2 Minn.526.528.91 t To me.fee qti 41 on.19?n. Crookston, (19581• Plaintiffs assert that under I respectfullydissen of the u tics -by ° 'a�ahtiaotdt� and of our s;• - nn.19Z9). C ,,.., , if e-'^� � � tioa�s ble state toriprovisions 3 of the ��- if universal eligibii' for" xII dry.._ previous . Article XII.Section ' 'i lame rule charter for !!o too � Miiisteaota Constitsitiatt lnQ°'`� •1,��'i�' A broad power by �t We do not agree that p t line Loral tritrietia legiglation wafFe t& •'I'. tslitaitiotialll►avtho- reasoning � dispositive in the present tee- The legfelat� may provide by law I� Y st'4us•rt.that for A critical distinction exists between a"qay' for : elective and provide appointivelo1F : Cirst assert that the {,cosi for office and aft•rehgt'Witl+require- Constitution.Which refers to universal our own Mint+esotile N ion 6.but refers to ,, 4. a Minneapolis tsrsi�+ .uNgiwn Mi in I. t ct'tes to s recent f3 S. Suotzme ti a oMinneCity 2•t;ourt case in support of its proposition the that "qualifications for le VII. a snick MI r s'�On "qualification- are e" n Supreme Cot foundIOn City of Minneapolis: changeable ale and and "q� �' no similar hedist net c us+dcr the meprovisionsours of the Division of the Melons tion. Clea and that a term f limit is aweight in ciao tote I n el:An Pat (Mort- tioa. dearly our analysis o[the distinction�' federal constitution bears no g •' ,� f)t•nsiori Managerfor don nis baesed eligibility on the ny ique language of ted of our discussion ttuepin 1 .