Minutes - 2005/08/22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 37 • Councilmember Thomas noted the most recent resolution is not about "registered voters" and addresses that this is not a referendum issue. City Administrator Ulrich clarified that the most recent resolution finds the referendum question invalid and the petition itself would be disposed of according to the provisions of the Charter, which has the Council. reporting back to the petition committee of the insufficiencies of the petition. City Attorney Riggs stated that is correct. Mayor Marty noted the most recent resolution says the referendum question is not valid and would not certify the question for election. He asked when the most recent resolution was deemed listed as invalid. City Attorney Riggs stated that has not changed since August 11. He stated this has been reviewed for many hours today, is a minor revision to the resolution contained in the meeting packet, and returns the petition to the committee for action. Councilmember Flaherty stated it returns the petition back to the committee for 30 days. City Attorney Riggs answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Thomas stated it gives it back to them but there is no chance of action because the referendum question is not valid. City Attorney Riggs stated that is correct. • Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, asked if the City Charter supersedes the State law related to "registered" or "non-registered" voters. She stated that the Charter states "registered voters" but there is some State law that indicates it could be "non-registered" as long as they are eligible and can vote on election day. City Attorney Riggs corrected that there is no State law, there is a case that deals with another Charter that uses a very different term. Ms. Haake stated there is a case out there that could be quoted and say someone eligible to vote would be accepted. City Attorney Riggs stated that is correct in that case, but they were not calling it a registered voters. Ms. Haake stated that if the Charter says "registered voters" and is tighter than even the Supreme Court decision, then why wouldn't it apply also under 12.05 that an ordinance has to be instituted to sell public land. City Attorney Riggs stated the case does not say it supercedes. He is saying it has not been addressed and when the Court interpreted that term that existed, they said that isn't a "registered voter." However the Charter clearly says "registered voter." He explained different scenarios • where the Charter supercedes and explained that the Charter is only as good as the Legislature