Davidson v. Wright
| Decision Date | 27 September 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 31793.,No. 31792.,31792.,31793. |
| Citation | 151 P.3d 812,143 Idaho 616 |
| Parties | Ryan DAVIDSON, an individual, dba The Liberty Lobby of Idaho, and The Liberty Lobby of Idaho, an unincorporated association, Petitioners-Appellants, and Robert Blakeley, an individual, Petitioner, v. Janis WRIGHT, in her capacity as The Sun Valley City Clerk, Respondent. The City of Sun Valley, Idaho, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ryan Davidson, an individual, dba The Liberty Lobby of Idaho, and The Liberty Lobby of Idaho, an unincorporated association, Defendants-Appellants, and Robert Blakeley, Defendant. Ryan Davidson, an individual, dba The Liberty Lobby of Idaho, and The Liberty Lobby of Idaho, an unincorporated association, Petitioners, and Robert Blakeley, an individual, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Janis Wright, in her capacity as The Sun Valley City Clerk, Respondent. The City of Sun Valley, Idaho, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ryan Davidson, an individual, dba The Liberty Lobby of Idaho, and The Liberty Lobby of Idaho, an unincorporated association, Defendants, and Robert Blakeley, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Ryan T. Davidson, Garden City, for appellant Liberty Lobby of Idaho in case 31792. Ryan L. Davidson argued.
Robert Blakeley, Hailey, pro se appellant in case 31793.
Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley, Ketchum, for respondents. Rand L. Peebles and Adam Bruno King argued.
Ryan Davidson, Robert Blakeley and the Liberty Lobby of Idaho1 (collectively, Davidson) appeal from a district court ruling permitting the City of Sun Valley (the City) to refuse to approve Davidson's petition for a city initiative. We reverse.
In 2004, Davidson presented an initiative petition with twenty-two initial signatures to Janis Wright, the Sun Valley City Clerk (the City Clerk or Clerk). The presentation of those first twenty-two signatures was in order for the City Clerk to review the petition for technical compliance regarding matters such as the type of paper used and the number of lines per page. See Sun Valley City Code § 1-7-2-3. Davidson's initiative sought to permit the regulated growth, sale and use of marijuana in the City, as well as to make enforcement of private adult marijuana offenses the City's lowest law enforcement priority and to direct the City to advocate for changes in state marijuana laws. Relying on advice from the City Attorney, the City Clerk rejected the petition, asserting that the proposed initiative was contrary to state law and was therefore outside the scope of the City's initiative process.
Arguing that the City Clerk was without authority to rule on the legality of the substance of an initiative petition, Davidson brought suit in district court. The City then sued Davidson seeking declaratory relief, and the two actions were consolidated. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City and awarded the City costs and a portion of its attorney fees.
This appeal followed.
In Davidson's initial suit following the City Clerk's refusal to process his model petition, he argued the City Clerk was without authority to rule on the legality of the substance of his proposed initiative. Davidson filed his suit pursuant to I.C. § 50-406, which provides for a person aggrieved by a city clerk's act or failure to act under any election law to bring the matter to district court. As Davidson's suit under I.C. § 50-406 presents a narrow question independent of the declaratory judgment action later filed by the City, we begin by considering it separately.
When considering Davidson's suit against the City Clerk, the question of whether Davidson's proposed initiative was a proper subject for a city petition is not yet before this Court. Instead, the issue presented by Davidson's suit is whether the City Clerk is vested with the authority to determine the constitutionality of a proposed initiative and the discretion to perform or decline to perform her ministerial duties based upon that determination. In other words, the question is not whether this Court agrees with the City Clerk's evaluation of the constitutionality of Davidson's proposed initiative, but whether the City Clerk was empowered to make such a determination.
Davidson directs this Court's attention to the relevant passages in the Sun Valley City Code. The City provides by ordinance that one wishing to place an initiative on the ballot must first present to the City Clerk a model petition containing the signatures of at least twenty eligible electors. Sun Valley City Code § 1-7-2-3(C). In pertinent part the ordinance states that then the City Clerk "shall immediately examine the petition and specify the form and kind and size of paper on which the petition shall be printed and circulated for further signatures." Once this pre-certification examination has been done, the ordinance further provides:
The City Clerk shall indicate in writing on the petition that he has approved it as to form and the Clerk shall inform the person or persons [under] whose authority the petition is to be circulated, in writing, that the petition must be perfected with the required number of certified signatures within sixty (60) days following the date of approval as to form. (Emphasis added).
Sun Valley City Code § 1-7-2-2 states that in order for an initiative to be placed on the ballot its backers must present to the City Clerk signatures equal to "at least twenty percent (20%) of the total number of voters registered to vote in the last general election in the City."2
In short, the City requires the sponsors of a proposed initiative to present to the City Clerk a model petition containing the signatures of at least twenty electors. The City Clerk then examines the petition, permitting the Clerk to correct errors "as to form" before the backers of the initiative attempt to collect signatures in the larger numbers required to secure ballot access.
This Court has never directly addressed the question of whether a city clerk has the implied power to reject a proposed initiative based on the clerk's or the city's view of its constitutional merits. As a general rule, whether a proposed ordinance may be adopted by way of initiative is commonly viewed as a judicial matter. 5 Eugene McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations § 16:54 (3rd ed., rev.vol.2004). Where other jurisdictions have considered the question, they have ruled that city officials cannot refuse to perform their ministerial duties based on their own evaluation of the substance of a proposed initiative. See, e.g., State ex. rel. Althouse v. City of Madison, 79 Wis.2d 97, 255 N.W.2d 449, 452 (1977) (); City of Rocky Ford v. Brown, 133 Colo. 262, 293 P.2d 974, 976 (1956) (); Coleman v. Bench, 96 Utah 143, 84 P.2d 412, 414 (1938) ( ).
When viewing related matters, this Court has taken a restrictive view of the discretion left to local administrative officers where ministerial duties have been clearly spelled out. For example, in Wycoff v. Strong, the city clerk of Moscow refused to tender money to a private firm as directed by the city council, protesting he believed that "said claim was and is illegal and void." 26 Idaho 502, 503, 144 P. 341, 341 (1914). In granting a writ of mandate compelling the city clerk to perform his duty, this Court noted that the act required of the clerk was a ministerial duty of his office that did not invoke the exercise of discretion. Id. Similarly, in Miller v. Davenport, a case involving a county auditor's refusal to determine on his own authority the eligibility of a candidate for public office, this Court wrote that 8 Idaho 593, 594-95, 70 P. 610, 610 (1902); see also Kerley v. Wetherell, 61 Idaho 31, 46-47, 96 P.2d 503, 510-11 (1939).
The City contends it has sweeping authority granted under I.C. § 50-301 to "exercise all powers and perform all functions of local self-government in city affairs as are not specifically prohibited by or in conflict with the general laws or the constitution of the state of Idaho." The City notes that not every such power is stated expressly; many are implied within the legislature's general grant of authority. These implied powers, asserts the City, permit the City Clerk to determine the constitutionality of proposed initiatives and to reject those that do not pass muster.
Whatever the City's powers, however, the City is obligated to follow its own ordinances. Sun Valley City Code § 1-7-2-3 spells out in detail the ministerial duties of the City Clerk when processing initiative petitions. Indeed, the ordinance expressly limits the Clerk's review of the petitions to one "as to form," and lists specific considerations such as the size and quality of paper employed, the number of lines for signatures, and the amount of space to be left in the margins. Nothing in Sun Valley City Code § 1-7-2-3 expressly or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Reclaim Idaho, & the Comm. to Protect & Pres. the Idaho Constitution, Inc. v. Denney
- Zeyen ex rel. & Dist. ex rel. & v. Pocatello/Chubbuck Sch. Dist. No. 25, Corp.
- Bettwieser v. N.Y. Irrigation Dist. & Dirs. Richard Murgoitio
-
Paslay v. A&B Irrigation Dist.
...210, 217, 52 P.2d 141, 144 (1935). A declaratory judgment action must involve a justiciable controversy, however. Davidson v. Wright , 143 Idaho 616, 620, 151 P.3d 812, 816 (2006)."Idaho has adopted the constitutionally based federal justiciability standard." Id. Standing is an essential el......