Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Hendriksen inquired if the test they were attempting to determine was whether <br />the petition was manifestly unconstitutional. <br /> <br />Mr. Thomson replied that that is one of the tests the Court has articulated. He explained that <br />what the Supreme Court has set as a standard is not a jurisdiction standard. It is a general <br />standard, but does not mean that the Court won't hear the issue. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that they use the term manifestly unconstitutional, which he <br />assumes to mean unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. He referenced a Memo dated <br />April 15, 1998, from Floyd B. Olson, of Counsel, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered and Charlie <br />LeFevere re: Charter Amendments City of Ramsey. "Although it appeared clear that there were <br />fundamental problems with the amendment, as I indicated to you in my letter of July 2, 1997, the. <br />standard applied to a refusal to submit a petitioned charter amendment to the voters is whether or <br />not the proposed amendment is manifestly unconstitutional." "However, it did not seem to me <br />that, without further facts, one could conclude that the proposed amendment was clearly <br />unconstitutional." Mr. Hendriksen inquired if the issues were the same since there is very similar <br />verbiage in the two opinions. <br /> <br />Mr. Thomson replied that the issues are essentially the same, but one is talking about a Charter <br />amendment and the other one referring to a zoning ordinance. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen inquired if the underlying legal issue were the same. <br /> <br />Mr. Thomson replied that the legal principals were the same. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen referenced a 1997 letter 'from Floyd B. Olson, which stated the <br />following: "If the proposed amendment is not unconstitutional under this method, the Charter <br />Commission has no discretion and must submit the proposed amendment to a vote. This does <br />not mean that if approved by the voters it can not be later struck down on other legal grounds". <br />"First it could submit the amendment to a vote, and if adopted could join in a lawsuit to seek its <br />invalidation. Second it could, after closer analysis, reject the petition and not submit it for a vote. <br />In this case, the proponents would have to sue the City." He stated that in that letter it sounded <br />as if they were laying out a game plan for the City to prevent this sort of thing from happening. <br />In an opinion that was made public in which Mr. Thomson said in regards to the same issues <br />being part of the Charter it was stated that without further facts the proposed amendment was not <br />clearly unconstitutional and did not rise to the test of being manifestly unconstitutional beyond a <br />reasonable doubt. <br /> <br />Mr. Thomson replied that the language Mr. Hendriksen quoted was attached to his legal opinion. <br />The issues between the two cases are slightly different. He explained that there is room for <br />judgment as to what manifestly unconstitutional means and it has been four years since the 1997 <br />opinion was given and there has been a lot of legal analysis and cases since that time. <br /> <br />City Council/March 27, 2001 <br /> Page 9 of 22 <br /> <br /> <br />