Agenda Packets - 2022/02/18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

B-1 DOCSOPEN\MU210\4\780657.v4-2/17/22 Exhibit B The following is a list of the primary cases cited in the Perry Letter and includes a brief summary of the case, the outcome, and how the case relates to the Petitioner’s submission. Specific legal citations within the summaries have been omitted for readability. In re Referendum to Amend City of Grand Rapids Minnesota Mun. Elections Ordinance No. 04-08-22, No. A05-2350, 2006 WL 1985595 at*2 (Minn. App. July 18, 2006). The city of Grand Forks adopted an ordinance moving the municipal election year from odd to even numbered years. The process for changing election years and the process for petitioners to request a referendum is outlined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 205.07. The petition submitted did not include the requirements outlined in Minnesota Rules part 8205.1010. Grand Rapids missed a deadline in responding to the petitioners resulting in the petitioners not being provided time to amend the petition. When challenged in district court, the Itasca County district court allowed two additional days to fix the petition, which the petitioner was able to do. - The Mounds View petition is brought under Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, which, unlike the statute the Grand Rapids petition was brought under, provides a process through which the petitioners have time to amend their petition. Additionally, the deadline to submit a petition still has not passed and is February 22, 2022. Bauman v. City of New Brighton, Bauman v. City of New Brighton, No. 62-CV-16-4804, 2016 WL 4581497, at *2 (Minn. 2nd Jud. Dist., August 25, 2016 Order). Citizens of the city of New Brighton submitted a petition under Minnesota Statutes, Section 205.07 to put the question of moving the City’s election year to even numbered years to a vote at the general election. New Brighton claimed the petition was deficient because the summary of the purpose of the petition was not included on each page and did not allow the petitioners time to correct the deficiency. The district court determined that the city did not provide the time for the petitioners to correct the petition, the summary provided in the petition was sufficient, and determined that New Brighton needed to adopt the ordinance prior to June 1 of the previous year for it to be valid. - In Mounds View, the petition is submitted under Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12 not Minnesota Statutes, Section 205.07. The timelines provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12 provide an opportunity to the Petitioners to submit an amended petition. Additionally, the time to submit any petition has not passed and Petitioners have until February 22, 2022 to submit a new petition. Bogen v. Sheedy, 229 N.W.2d.19 (Minn. 1975). The city of Duluth enacted two ordinances that were debated together, considered together, and passed at the same time regarding adult uses. Petitioners submitted one petition to rescind both ordinances which was rejected by Duluth. Duluth claimed there must be two separate petitions. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the single petition was sufficient since one could very reasonably assume the two provisions were one ordinance and there was very little chance that the public was either deceived or that logrolling in securing of the petition took place. The petition submitted was otherwise accepted by Duluth as being sufficient. - In Mounds View, the petition is deficient due to not being in the proper form which means that specific information required to be included in that form that is used to validate the petition’s signatures as valid. Butler v. St. Paul. Citizens of St. Paul, 936 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. 2019). Citizens of Saint Paul submitted a petition to move the city elections from odd to even numbered years. The petition followed the