We've had the conversation about whether intentions matter or not, but if you're not going to question Kahn & Co.'s reasons for doing this, one needs to question the logic in doing it at all.
Well the weird thing about this situation is that the City has adopted new ward boundaries, but delayed implementation of those boundaries until the 2005 election. If you look at the new map, it says "adopted April 26, 2002." But administratively, the old council boundaries are still in effect. The special election in the 3rd ward was held in the old ward boundaries, even though the new map had already been "adopted."
A three-and-a-half year gap between "adoption" of new ward boundaries, and "implementation" of those boundaries is an absolute absurdity.
In my mind, the controversial part of Rep. Kahn's lawsuit is not the question of whether the city is violating the law. It is. The controversial part is the remedy for the violation, that is, ordering a new election.
Ironically, the statute that Jonathan cites actually supports Rep. Kahn's lawsuit -- by indicating that officeholders retain their seats until the next election, even if they no longer live in the NEW boundaries. Meaning that the legislature intended for the new boundaries to be implemented as soon as possible (but also meaning that that legislature specifically did not intend that a new, unscheduled election be conducted to conform to the new boundaries).
Had the city implemented the new boundaries right away, and, for example, held the 3rd ward special election in the new boundaries, it might have had a very valid legal defense to Rep. Kahn's lawsuit --- which is, that state law provides for continuation in office of the elected officials until the next election, albeit representing a ward with different boundaries and in which they no longer live. Under the state statute cited by Mr. Palmer, for example, CM Lilligren would represent the new 8th ward, even though he doesn't live there. Any vacancy in office, any special election, etc., would have to be conducted with reference to the NEW boundaries. The city's defense would have been that state law provides for new boundaries, not new elections, and we have complied with the law.
However, the City has chosen to delay implementation of the new boundaries until 2005, which IMHO is a clear violation of the law.
Greg
------------------------------------
Sent from the computer of:
Greg Abbott Linden Hills 13th Ward
------------------------------------
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
