Agenda - Charter Commission - 01/28/1999

Home

- ANALYSIS = me Section 3.011 or the city of Rochester Home Rule Charter states that "no person shall b~ eligible to hold the same elective office provided for in this Charter for consecutive terms which, when completed, would exceed twelve years." The Minnesota Constitution provides for the eligibility requirements for any elective office in this state. Article VII, Section oR the Minnesota Constitution states: Sec. 6. E~igibility to hold office. Every person who by the provisions~r 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. Nowhere in the:constitutional provision is there any reference to a limitation on the number of terms one may serve in the same office. Thus, the issue is whether a home rule charter provision limiting the number of consecutive terms of office violates Article VII, Section 6 of the Minnesota cbnstitution. on August 4, 19i95, the Minnesota Supreme Court answered this question. In Minneapolis Perm Limits Coalition, et al., vs. 'Merry Kee~e, et al., No. CX-94-2137-1(Minn., August 4, 1995), the Court ruled in a sharply- divided opinionl that a home rule charter provision limiting the number of consecutive ~lectlve terms of office violated Article VII, Section 6 of'the Minnesota Constitu'~ion. We therefore answer the certified question in the affirmative and hold ~hat an amendment to the Minneapolis city charter limiting the terms of local elected officials would violate Article VI~, Section 6 of the Minnesota Constitution. The opinion of ithe Minnesota Supreme Court applies equally to Section 3.011 of the ROchester Home Rule Charter. Section 3.011 attempts to accomplish the! same objective as the proposed amendment to the Minneapolis Home Rule Charter. Both provisions seek to add an additional eligibility requirement (term limits) which is currently not found in the Mihnesota Constitution. The Court held that no home rule city can impose!an eligibility requirement which is not provided for by the Minnesota Constitution. Thus, it is my opinion that Section 3.011 of the Rocheste~ Home Rule Charter violates Article VII, Section 6 of the Minnesota Constitution. Accordingly, Section 3.011 is void and unenforceable uhtil or unless the Minnesota Constitution is amended to provide for limitations on terms of office. 57