HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetters Memos Court Directives N10 JNDS VIEW CHARTER COMMISSION •
•
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Highway No. 10
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
December- 31, 1981
•
The Honorable Edward D. Mulally
Ramsey County District Court
Second Judicial District
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Judge Mulally:
In compliance with Minnesota Statute 410.05, we are submitting to you our
Annual Report for 1981 as follows:
Member Changes: Curtis M. Schmidt, 2662 Scotland Court, reappointed to the
Commission to fill the vacancy of James H. Wills who termin-
ated residency in the City of Mounds View. Term expires
November 1, 1984.
Russell A. Warren, 8044 Greenwood Drive, appointed to fill
the vacancy of Dave Notaro, who resigned. Term expires
November 1, 1984.
Dates of Meetings: March 25, 1981
September 23, 1981
December 9, 1981
" Business Synopsis:
(1) Election of present offices; namely, Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary,
be at the first meeting after November 1st on even numbered years, such terms
of office to run for 2 years.
(2) On August 18, 1981, a Special Election Referendum was held, as provided for
by the City Charter, concerning Mounds View City Ordinance #303 relative to
"Parking". This Ordinance repealed Chapter 81.02, Subdivision 5, paragraph (5).
A Special Report concerning this election is attached and made part of this
Annual Report.
Respectfully submitted,
4111111P /
Ruth White, Secretary
Mounds View Charter Commission
Attachment
cc: City Administrator
City of Mounds View
raw
REPORT ON REFERENDUM ELECTION HELD 8/18/81
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
ON MAY 11, 1981, THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL PASSED AN ORDINANCE
ENTITLED "ORDINANCE NO, 303", WHICH WAS AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER
81,02, PROHIBITIONS, SUBDIVISION 5 ENTITLED OFF-STREET PARKING, PARAGRAPH
(5) WHICH PROHIBITED THE PARKING OF TRUCKS (DEFINED AS NON-RECREATIONAL
VEHICLES EXCEEDING ONE-TON CHASSIS DESIGN) IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT,
ALSO, PARAGRAPH (4) OF CHAPTER 81.02 WAS AMENDED TO READ THAT "NO PERSON
SHALL ALLOW ANY RECREATIONAL VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT OR TRUCK TO BE PARKED
OFF-STREET CLOSER THAN FIFTEEN FEET TO THE PAVED SURFACE OF A PUBLIC ROADWAY."
ON AUGUST 18, 1981, A SPECIAL ELECTION REFERENDUM WAS HELD, AS PROVIDED BY
THE CITY CHARTER, CONCERNING ORDINANCE No. 303. THE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT
WAS QUESTION No. 1, AND READ, "SHALL MOUNDS VIEW ORDINANCE No. 303 BE ALLOWED
TO GO INTO EFFECT?"
As A RESULT OF THE ELECTION, THE ORDINANCE DID NOT GO INTO EFFECT, VOTING
WAS AS FOLLOWS:
YES NO
PRECINCT # 1 86 336
# 2 41 157
# 3 74 242
# 4 50 124
# 5 76 102
# 6 130 161
#7 106 179
TOTAL 563 1301
BY: R. 'VLH I TE
SECRETARY
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA if.
OFFICE OF •
J. E. GOCKOWSKI
CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT irgu ifi .E, bill
January 8 , 1981
1215 COURT HOUSE
NELL M. MONTGOMERY SAINT PAUL
MINNESOTA 55102
Chief Deputy PHONE: 298-5211
•
Mr . Russell A. Warren
8044 Greenwood Drive
Mounds View, Minnesota 55432
Dear Mr. Warren :
The Judges of the District Court , Second Judicial
g
District , Ramsey County , Minnesota, have appointed you a
member of the Charter Commission of the City of Mounds View,
Minnesota, for a term of four (4 ) years . A copy of the order
dated January 6 , 1981 , is attached.
Should you accept this appointment , please sign the
enclosed Acceptance and Oath of Office before an officer duly
qualified to administer oaths, and return it to this office
in the enclosed envelope . If, however, you do not accept the
appointment , advise me accordingly.
Please reply at the earliest possible date as it is
necessary to accept and qualify within thirty days .
Very truly yours ,
`/J. E . GOCKOWSKI
Clerk of District Court
JEG/js Ramsey County, Minnesota
Enc. -
. A
3.,
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ACCEPTANCE AND OATH OF
) SS . APPOINTMENT TO THE CITY
COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) OF MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER
COMMISSION.
I , Russell A. Warren , appointed a member of
the Commission to frame and amend a Municipal Charter for the
City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota, affirm that I
reside in and am a qualified voter in said city and accept such
appointment and I solemnly swear that I will support the
Constitution of the United States and of the State of Minnesota,
and faithfully discharge the duties of said office to the best
of my judgment and ability, So Help Me God.
tbA1S9- jki
Subscribed and sworn to before
me this / 7 day of/)( i�� -=-7-- , 1981.
\J-6" ,:(-f%� /,y t_.r171--z ,7�,
Notary PublicRamsey Ebunty, Minnesota
My Commission Expires
. AO
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
FILE NO . 430622':
MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER COMMISSION ORNTI
APPOINTING
It appearing that Dave Notaro and James Wills are unable to
serve as Members of the Charter Commission of Mounds View, Minnesota,
it is hereby ordered that the following persons are appointed as Mem-
bers of the Charter Commission of the City of Mounds View, Minnesota
for a term expiring October 31 , 1984 .
Mr . Russell A. Warren
8044 Greenwood Drive
Mounds View, Minnesota 55432
Mr . Curtis M. Schmidt
2662 Scotland Court, Apt . 304
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
The above appointments are to be fully effective upon filing of
appropriate written acceptance and oath in the office of the Clerk
of the District Court for Ramsey County, Minnesota.
The Clerk of said District Court shall forthwith mail to
every-m-ember of said-Commission no- ice-o-f this appointment, together
with a form of written acceptance and oath of office .
EDWARD D. !UL LY
Chief Judge
Second Judicial District
DATED: This 6th day of
January, 1981 .
Judge yourself through the
eyes of your customer
a4t/A-#t
PROSoa.
Educational Services
v. /80* IT1 *6‘ot/.
•
CITIES: CHARTERS: OFFICERS; City charter may not limit the
consecutive terms that a person may serve as a city officer . Minn.
Const. Art. VII , Sec. 6 and Art. XII, Sec. 31 Minn. Stat. 5 410.07.
April. 14, 1961
59a-29
(Cr . Ref. 64)
Mr. Clayton L. LeFevere
LeFevere, LeFler, Pearson,
O'Brien 6 Draws
1100 First National Bank Building
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Dear Mr . LeFevere:
In your letter to Attorney General Warren Spannaus, you present
substantially the following
FACTS
The Charter Commission has under consideration a
proposed charter amendment which would limit the
number of consecutive terms that a person could serve
as a member of the city council or as mayor , or both.
..
Sr . Clayton L. L.eFevere - 2 April 14, 1981
OPINION.
We answer your question in the negative.
Minnesota Constitution, Art. YII, Sec. 6, provides:
Every person who by the provisions of this
article is entitled to Vote at any election and is 21
years of age is eligible for any office elective by
the people in the district wherein he has resided 30
days previous to the election, except as otherwise
provided in this constitution, or the constitution
and law of the United States .
Hy this provision, the Constitution guarantees the right of
qualified voters to vote and defines eligibility to office. The
legislature cannot change or add to the constitutional
qualifications for public office. State ex rel. Nordin v. Erickson,
119 Minn. 152, 137 N.P . 385 (1912) . Article VII , Section 6 , applies
to both constitutional and statutory offices. Hoffman v. Downs, 145
Minn. 465, 177 N.W. 699 (1920) . The provision applies to municipal
offices under a city charter . State ex rel. Childs v. Holman, 58
Minn. 219, 59 N.W. 1006 (1894) , Op. Atty. Gen. 64, Feb. 10, 1956.
As diacussed recently in Pavlak v. Growe, 284 N.W.2d 174 , 176
•
(Minn. 1979) :
This-const-itutional_provis_ian_f etu1lly presents an
important democractic principle---that all citizens
meeting minimal, unchanging requirements are eligible
for the elective positions that control their
government . The opinions of this court applying
Article VII, Section 6 , have consistently held that,
as a guarantee of universal eligibility for public
office , its standard may not be made more restrictive
by legislative action unless expressly authorized by
• another constitutional provision.
20a S3I .LI D NM 30 snows 'I * Jnidi75 : T O T76 '6T °L0
or . Clayton L. Lerrevere - 3 April 14, 1981
It is suggested that Article XII, Section 3, of the Minnesota
Constitution is another constitutional provision allowing a more
restrictive standard . It provides in part;
The legislature may provide by law for the
creation, organization, administration,
consolidation, division and dissolution of local
government units and their functions, for the change
of boundaries thereof, for their elective and
appointive officers includin uglification for
office and the the transfer of county seats.
•
( Emphasis added . ) While the legislature may provide for the setting
of qualifications for elective, office in local government units, it
has not done so. '
'The general rule is that, in matters of municipal concern,
home rule cities have all the legislative power possessed by the
legislature of the state, save as such power is expressly or
impliedly withheld. " State ex rel . Town of Lowell v. CitY• o
Crookston, 252 Minn . 526 , 528, 91 N.W. 2d 81, 83 (1958) . In Minn.
Stat. $ 410 . 07, a home rule charter
may provide for any scheme of municipal government
Rot inconsistent „:th the constitution, and may
provide for the establishment and administration of
all departments of a city government, and for the
regulation of all local municipal functions, as fully
as—the legislature might havedonebefore—home—rule
charters for cities were authorized by constitutional
amendment in 1696. . . . It may preecribe •methods of
procedure in respect to the operation of the
government thereby created, and the duties thereunder
of all courts and officers of the district and county
in which the city is situated . . .
•
cos S3I .LI O N1.I 40 anova 'I * Iai75 : T O 176 '61 'LO
Mr . Clayton L. Le 'evere - 4 April 14 , 1;w_
The legislature was not able to set. qualifications for local
government officers prior to the constitutional amendment in 1896
authorizing home rule charters. In 1394 the Minnesota Supreme Court
held that the legislature did not have the power to add
qualifications to eligibility for an elective office beyond those
specified in, what is currently, Article VII , Section 6, of the
Minnesota Constitution. State ex rel . Childs v. Wolman.
58 Minn.
219, 226, 59 N.W. 1006 (1894) . The clause in Article XII ,
Section 3, which allows the legislature to set qualifications for
local government officers was adopted in 1958. Proclamation of
Governor Orville L. Freeman (November 20 , 1958) , 1959 Minn. Session
Laws 164,18. Therefore Minn. Stat. S 410. 07 does not authorise local
governments to set qualifications for elected officers.
While the legislature has delegated much of its authority
originally granted in Article XII , Section 3, nowhere in section
410.07 did it delegate its authority to set quaiificati0na for
elective office. The °scheme of municipal government' clause
derives from the first portion of Article XII, Section 3 . The
•prescription of "duties" is plainly distinguishable from a
prescription of qualifications for office. Indeed any additional - --
ualificati.ons for elective office would be contrary to the general
q
principle of universal eligibility and thus was wisely left within
•
the power of the legislature alone . "Novel municipal legislation
I
-T7Od S3 I .LNLS 30 3(10193 "I * 'Alai:,
9 T 0 17 °e i °LO
m. • e.
it . Clayton L. LeFevere - 5 April. 14 , 1J11
which seriously threatens the values embodied in the constitutiona1
restrictions should be invalidated ." Sandalow, The Limits of
t4unicipal .Power Under Thoma Rule:k Role _for theCourts, 48 Minn. L.
Rev . 643, 719 (1964 ) ,
Inasmuch as our courts have strongly supported universal
eligibility for elective office and the legislature has withheld
delegation of power to set qualifications for 1odal office, we
strongly doubt that the proposed charter amendment may
constitutionally limit the number of consecutive terms a person may
serve as a member of the city council or as mayor , or both. The
purpose behind a limitation on the number of terms may be to avoid
entrenchment in office, corruption, and the possibilities of
improper use of an office to sustain tenure . A similar. purpose w
rejected in Pavlak, when a statute. was involved . The court said,
" ( MI a democracy, and particularly in a jurisdiction with a
constitution provision akin to Article VII, Section 6, it is for the
people, not a particular legislature, to decide- if a [candidate)
should be returned to the office." , Pavlak v. Growe, 284 N.W.2d at
178.
Statesthat do permit limitations on reelection do not have
Minnesota' s constitutional guarantee of universal eligibility or
have specific constitutional provisions authorizing such
limitations . See 59 A.L.R. 2d 718. While the issue of limitations
5Od S3I ,LI0 MN 40 snova 'I * mid $ S : iO T76 '61 °L0
Mr. Clayton L. LeFevere - April 14 1981
on consecutive terms has not been addressed in Minnesota, it is our
view that a charter provision such as that proposed would not be
valid
Very truly yours,
W?RREN SPANNACS
Attorney General
State of Minnesota
KENNETH E. RASCHKS, 4711.
Assistant Attorney General
WS:KER:dnl . •
90d S3 I .L I a MN 3o 3noV3R * 7nldi75 : i O ire 'et °L0 '
°_-HOUSE RESEARCH ."
November 1993
Information Brief-
Martha Clark, Legislative Analyst
296-5059
Deborah K. McKnight, Legislative Analyst
296-506
•
•
Term Limits' for Elective Office •
This information brief provides-Rouser Members'with commonly.requestedt" • c,a
information on term limits. It describes term limit features; summarizes .
•
explains the legal mute to'adoption of
term limit provisions in other states;
. term limits in Minnesota; and lists arguments in favor of and opposed tb
term limits. "'PA
•
Contents . Page -
Term Limits Have Widely Varying Features _ . . '2 .
AI
Other State! Have Imposed Term Limits 2
Map: Type of Term Limits bState, . . , • . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
States Adopting Term Limits from 1990 and 1993 4
Depending on the Offices Term Limits Could Become Law 8
in Minnesota by Constitutional Amendment or Statute
Arguments For and Against Term Limits • 9
s- ,. .1 n.-,--- ,-- Wri;tP r14 Ra.,r?C 4r'1 ?. ;v
(.nr• c►, riff; -A
LOd S3I . IO AIM 3O 3nOV3Z * midi? ' : TO 176 "6T °LO
House Research Department Page November 1943
3
Term Limits fbr Elective Office
2
Term limits have widely varying features.
Term limits are legal restrictions on how long a person may hold a given public office. Some
limits are stated as a number of permitted years of service, others are computed as a number
of permitted terms. Term limits for elective office are implemented by prohibiting filing for
candidacy by a person whose next election would violate the limits.1
The map on the opposite page and the chart that follows show the variety of features of term
limits in other states. Elective offices in the executive and legislative branches and at all
levels (federal, state, local) of government have been subjected to term limits. A term limit
may apply to a single office or to a whole category of similar offices. The duration of
permitted service varies with different offices and among states.
A term limit may apply to consecutive years or terms of service; to the candidate's lifetime;
or to a maximum permitted service during a fixed period of years. Term limit provisions
may include special language addressing the situation of incomplete terms and resignation
from office, or those situations may be covered by the general rule. Finally, except for
Maine, service in office before adoption of term limits has been excluded in the
implementation of newly adopted term limits.
Other states have imposed term limits.
Minnesota is one of 12 stares that have not imposed terra limits on any constitutionally
created elective office. Currently 37 states limit the terms of office of their governors. In the
1990, 1992, and 1993 elections 16 states adopted additional term limits through initiative or
referendum on state and federal offices. Those newer term limits are summarized in the chart
beginning on page 4.
None of the term limit provisions adopted by the various stares since 1990 have included
local government offices. However, many cities, by local initiative, have adopted term limits
for their mayors and council members. Currently, one third of U.S. cities with a population
over 250,000 and an unknown proportion of smaller cities have term limits for their elective
offices -In addition,, two-counties-in-California have terra limits for their county board
-_ _ --
members.
Theoretically,term limits can also be implemented by prohibiting listing a candidate on the ballot for an
office based on the number of years or terms of service the candidate has had in that office. This approach is
currently subject to court challenges in several stases where state adopted initiatives attempt to limit terms of
federal offices by prohibiting listing certain federal candidates on the ballot based on their prior service in that
office.
8 O a S 3 I Z I a Nit 3 O 3!'iOtr3 Z * I't. 9 : I O 176 °6 t °L O
P
House Research Department November 1993
Term Limits for Elective Office Pada 3
Type of Term Limits by States 1993
. ; , . _ _
- -.. „. fir.
9 A... ....„,
,.. .
ii. . 7.,. ..,„::..,.... .
- :t:.t
t.
• .
• rt _...
Air modal r"
Li 11 E • ' •
Ni . ... _
. , . ,,..,..
None Governor only Governor and Governor and
executive blanc egrs a ure__-
Executive branch Governor, executive Governor, executive
and federal branch, and legislature branch, legislature,
and federal
a
Na%.sa Research Graphics
•
60d SS I .LI 0 NIAT 30 3f30VH I * InidT79 : TO 176 '61 `LO
•
House Research Department November 1993 v
- Term Limits for Elective Office Page 4
States Adopting Term
State .. . Offices Affected
.:...,:,:,•..a.•:...'•4;:Eaottrtre� � -•.(erm..:iceif
ob zeUve ; � ,
fi." „ " ? : • ,,
. .
. Type of Limit Senate House/ Type of Limit
Assembly
Arizona Two terms per office for Gov., Consecudve terres. Four two-year terms. Four two-year teras, Consecutive ,
Secy.of State,Trees„AG,Supt. of Any part of a terra Any pan of a term terms.
Public Instr, (Corporation Comm.- served counts as a served counts as a
one six-year term)(Mine Inspector- full term, full term.
four two-year terms). Any part of a
term served counts as a full teras.
Arkansas Two terms per office for Gov.,Lt. Lifetime service. Two footles'.terms. Three two-year Lifetime service.
Gov„ Secy.of State,Trees., teems.
Auditor,AO,Comm.of State Lands.
California Pre-1992 Limits: Two terms per L.lfedme service. Pre-1992 limits:Two Pre-1992 limits; Lifetime service,
office for Gov,.Lt.Gov.,AG, four-year terms. Titres two-year
Controller,Secy. of State,Treas, Service for at least terms, Service for at
1 of a term is least 1 of a term is
considered a full considered a full
term. term.
Colorado Two terms for Gov.,Lc Gov„Secy. Consecutive years. Two four-year terms. Four two-year terms. Consecutive
of State,AG,Treas. years.
Florida Pre-1992 limits: two consecutive t;onseu►ave years. Eight years. Eight years. Consecutive
terms for Goy. New limits: Eight years.
years for Lt.Gov.or a member of
the Cabinet.
Maine Pre-1993 limits: two terms for Consecutive terms Four terms. Four terms. Consecutive
Gov.and Lt.Coy. tetras
New limits: Two terms for State
Auditor,Four(two year)terms for — —.
Secretary of State,Treasurer.and
• Attorney General
Michigan Fleeted for two terms per office Lifetime service. Elected two terms. Elected three terms. Lifetime service.
Gov..Lt.Gov..Secy.of State.AG
Missouri Pre-1992 limits:two terms for Gov. Lifer service. Sixteen years total In both louses,not to Lifetime service.
and Treas. exceed eight in any one house.
*information on this chart was provided by the National Conference of State Legislatures and Wisconsin Legislative Reference
Bureau Brief 92-14.
•
0 T d S3I .LI 0 NM 30 3f10113Z * v¢aV9 : T 0 176 °o-3 T °LO
House Research Depart teat vem011:r i»>
Term Limits for Elective Office Page S
L#mtts 1990 to 1993*
•
Office;AffectedY :/. .:f:��.. L: .•'.Y���S.•• :.�. �1 MI t4 R?.,'Nr+W._!M
,• r.L f' r.� N Y �/���Y}.G(_'.l '!.YI �. • t}�_ :'. .4. .A.��' '�}' wry. w+x'K M1('
,' f` $ lA; � y(� i „ � 4K ",1.44§111,,• 11144th " ler
"1.1.6
.1 3 .. .,{ 4 k?° .JI.kY 3 .1' .�v�� . ro. ..
. W 1s: I '[ ••C
U.S.Senate US.souse Type et Limn
Limit on ballot Type of Limit .
aeons or on
sem for
federal office
Two terms, Three terms. _Conseardve tercet Any pert of a Ballot access. One mill term must lute rrsho
twat staved counts as a full term for terms to be considered
non-rnnaesmuvve.
Two or mote trams. Three or more terms. Total NM= Ballot ac=is.
•
Twielve years' service Six years' service is as Period. Ballot ae:oess:
in a 11 year period. 11 year period. Explicitly permits
write-ia
comprises.
•
Consec 7dve Limitations will riot affect
Tiro six-year tis. terms. yam. crarently elected members of
Congress until 2002..
Eigdt years for each office. A rotator would be Conseattive years. - Ballot access.
eligible for ghee ballot in seeking a second term
because the r eaicdon is based on previous service
at toes time of elections rather than at the e d of the..
tease sought
Eleicted twice in a 24- Elected three threes in a Period. Length of service. Fur all offices liatedP
.I2-year plod a
year period. appolntmeot or election to
for more titan!It term
comets as tang elected owe.
Two terms totals Four terms octal? Lir'mime service. Lifetime service. Se rtieee for at hast one-half of
a term is considered a full
term for Missouri's
congressional delegsdon.
Twelve yeses in a 24- Site years is a 12-year . Period. . .-
yer Pedo, period_
•
T T d e;s3IZI a t- I 30 3 !1Otl3 'I * 7ltiid $ 9 : T O 176 °6 T °L, O
Tetra Limits for Elective Office Page 6
State Offices Affected
~$aeeuthe Brunch(term.leai `for xee sth'e; t! '
4ffi�: iaar':ye .:except as notes}
Type of Limit Senate House/ Type of Limit
Assembly
•
Montana Eight years in a 16-year period: Period. Eight years in a 16-year period. Period.
Gov.,Lt.Gov.,AG.Secy. of Stare,
• Auditor,Supt. of Public last
Nebraska Pre-1992 limits: Two consecutive Consecutive terms Two four-year terms in the unicameral Consecutive
terms for Gov. New limits: Two legislature. rams_
terms per office for Lt. Goy.,Secy.
of State,AG,Auditor,Trees., State
Eoard of Education. (Two
consecutive six-year terms for Public
Service Commission and tJniy.of
Neb. Bd. of Regents.)
North No limits except for pre-existing No lsmits.
Dakota two term limit of Treasurer.
Ohio Pre-1992 limits: Two successive Successive terns. Two successive four- Pour successive two-
• tarts for Gov. Two successive year terms.' year[CS»IL3
terms per office for Lt Gov..Secy.
of Scala,AG,Auditor.Treas.5
Oregon Eight years per office for Gov.. Lifetime service. Eight years.` Six years`
Secy. of State,AG, Shpt of Public
Instr.,Treas.,Labor Commissioner
Rhode Extended terms for executive offices Not applicable. Not applicable. •
Island to four years,with a limit of two
teams. •
South Pre-1992 limits: Two terms for Consecutive terms. Four two-year terms. Four two-year terms. Consecutive
Dakota Gov. and LI Gov. New limits: terms.
Two terms per office for AG,Secy.
of Stade,Auditor,Tress.,Comm.of
School and Public Lands.
Wesbington Eight years in a 14-year period for Period. Eight years in a 14- Six years in a 12 Period
Coy. and Lt Gov. year period.= year period.'
Wyoming Two terms in a 16-year period for Period. Three four-year Three two-year terms Period.
Gov.,Secy.of State,Auditor,Treas., terms in a 24-year to a 12-year period.
Supt. of Public laser. period-
'Suooessive defined as fewer than four years between terms.
`Provided that total leowe service does pat exceed 12 years,
'Combined limit .f 14 V.ar hr bnrh hpusec in?'10-"tar nerire.
•• "` 2 T d S 3 I .L I a NH 40 31101, 3 '1 * TAT d t"9 T 0 17 6 °6 T °L 0
House Research Department November 1993
. Term Limits for Elective Office Page 1
Office Affected
117'
-
%;;thit,2L..Imi • ; • L',4, 4"*c7,–; 7.i.:-:,:k t0:140144N4114f.1,Witig.,"•4':=":, ii;;:iik;,.,••••,-. ••;;,;, ,...
'.,l';.4:4"'4141.,1...:1:0171,71.4t114 "4:Zliry:1•..',.''-' ' ,.'...4:c.'../ ,11 .,,L1,47.,,..1 -7F;;Di,76:.:*1`,`.••: %.'""'',,,,'-.4-::::fd,r,•,1,','t•'''''' '.1. •• • - • •'.'' • ;,;1.; •- •• ,
r1. '"n'• •;" '.-'4', ••' ..• , ,;- ''''''' • .1:•': -.' '-' -' ‘'..; '''‘kiLlUeliiii6;;;.,jo•AlitiSiPitctili:.• t'll' A'4,.#41's:;',i';!,t,.7,'.A'1,`.;.1:. .,.. . ,';•
:,:t11:01t 4 • -, * •' • , '--•
U.S;Senate U.S.House Type of Limit Limit OD ballot Type of Limit
SCOW
or on
service for
• ' •- federal offias •
Twelve years in a Six years in a 12-year, Period., „ Ballot access.
24-year period. period. . . .
'
. .
_ .
Two terms. Four temis. Consimidve terms, : Ballot access.
. *1.; . .' .? .•' . . .. ..,' :t.."
• _• ,
Twelve years'total service in either orlloth: wi. . Lifetime fits*unless parmanent . , . &Hut access. • -
houses.
'rhea
• ...• i -:F, 1' plovides=saber em soda at" • •
eligible after two you have .. ,
•••
elapsed.
• .
Two successive Four succeed"terms.1, Suosessive. • , . ,. . laclith at togv,ko• Ap p 0 I 0 Er ool o 0 r Glow=to 211.
terms! . pardal I=does list come if
•
. ..: : ....4.• ,-,1 . .
' four years have elapsed Saes
• • ,
.
. member held same dace.
Twelve years. Six years. Appointment/ Lifetime service. "Admit ssrvice. Bare candidacy if a new taut
Apron election to vacancy would emceed lindts.
to recency counted as counted as full term. "Appointment to election to fill
full tartu. vacancy counts as fun term
Not applicable. Not applicable.
Two terms. Six terms. Consemuive terms. Length of service. Appoint to pardal tams
does not mud against the
limit.
_ .
Twelve years in an Six yews in a 12-year PrriorL Relied access.
1S-yeer period. period. Federal WfitO.ni
Federal provisions provisions not effective candidacies
trot effective until until nine other mom explicitly . .
nine other shdas enact limits. permittecL
enact Mits.
Two terms on a 24. Three terms in a t2-year Period. Length of service. -
year palled. pried. .
----------......
•
House Research Department
•
C T cl S3I .T. I0 NH 30 znowz -z * vrt.:a T7 9 : IC T7- 6 '61 °2. 0 —
House Research Department November 1993
Term Limits for Elective Office Page 8
Depending on the office, term limits could become law
in Minnesota by constitutional amendment or statute.
The method for adopting term limits in Minnesota depends on which elective offices are
being covered. For constitutionally created offices' term limits would require passage of a
constitutional amendment. For elective offices in local government units, the legislature may
set term limits in statute. For federal elective offices there is a strong argument that a state
cannot impose term limits. The issue remains open pending litigation in other states that have
adopted term limits for members of Congress.
A constitutional amendment is required to adopt term limits for constitutional offices because
the state constitution sets the standards of eligibility to hold office and the particular
qualifications for individual constitutional offices. Article VII, section 6, of the Minnesota
Constitution allows every eligible voter, 21 or more years old, residing in the relevant district
for 30 days prior to the election, to seek office. The only exceptions to the eligibility
language are those "otherwise provided in this constitution, or the constitution and law of the
United States." By the terms of this express language only a state constitutional amendment
could change the eligibility requirements for seeking an office created by the Constitution.'
Local government offices, in contrast, can be subject to statutory term limits. The Minnesota
Constitution expressly authorizes the legislature to provide by law for the creation of local
government units and the qualifications for local elective offices.*
•
'Governor,Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State,Attorney General,Treasurer,Representative, Senaror,
Judge.
'Scheibel v.Pavlak, 282 N.W.2d 843 KIWI. 1979).
`Minnesota Constitution, article XII, section 3.
Ta S 3 I LIa Hint 3O 3liJV3Z * 176 °6t `L ®
House Research Department November 1993
Term Limits for Elective Office Page 9
Arguments For and Against Term Limits
Legislators considering the issue of term limits may find it useful to review commonly made
"pro" and "con" arguments.'
•
Term limits promote democracy by ensuring Voters already can vote out elected officials
more competitive elections because they no longer want. Term limits deny .
incumbents cannot run as often. voters access to popular incumbents.
Since the president and many governors Even if executive term limits are a good . .
have term limits, legislators should have idea, applying them to the legislature will
them too. give the president or governor too much
• power.
• Name recognition and other incumbent ... Public finking and equal spending
advantages make elections unfair. A requirements for candidates would ensure
guaranteed open seat ensures competition, fairer elections.
Term limits will curb the power of carper Seasoned lobbyists and staff may dictate •
lobbyists over individual members. • policy to legislators.
The "citizen legislature" created by term Government is too complex to be mastered
limits means members will not be corrupted by a legislator with only a short time to
by power. serve,
Term limits will, bring new talent. Term limits will eliminate experienced,
knowledgeable members.
• Less focus on being re-elected means Citizens who benefit from an ombudsman as
members can stop concentrating on the capitol will lose some of that service.
constituent issues and do more policy work.
Limiting tenure will keep seniority from Inexperienced members may obtain
monopolizing legislative leadership. leadership positions before they are ready.
Term limits will promote amateur citizen Instead of professional politicians, term
legislators rather than professional limits may bring out representatives of
politicians. special economic interests who are willing
to serve a short time to further their
industry's needs.
•
'The first six pairs of items on this flat are cowed in the State Capitol Report, "Voters, Polidcians, and
Term Limits: The War of Representative Government" January 1992, by Robert T.Geolas. The remaining
items are sumntaxized from a number of articles on term limits.
Gia S3I .LI3 NN 40 3flJV3nt * rAIdT7S : 1 O i76 •61 °LO