Molinari v. Bloomberg
| Decision Date | 28 April 2009 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 09-0331-cv. |
| Parties | Guy MOLINARI, Plaintiff, Willam C. Thompson Jr., Individually and in his official capacity as the New York City Comptroller, Betsy Gotbaum, individually and in her official capacity as Public Advocate for the City of New York, Bill de Blasio, individually and in his official capacity as a Member of the New York City Council, Letitia James, individually and in her official capacity as a Member of the New York City Council, Charles Barron, individually and in his official capacity as a Member of the New York City City Council, Rosalie Caliendo, Phillip DePaolo, Philip Foglia, Kent Lebsock, Andrea Rich, Mike Long, Tom Long, Sarah Lyons, Ida Sanoff, Gloria Smith, Eric Snyder, Kenneth J. Baer, Kenneth A. Diamondstone, Peter Gleason, Mark Winston Griffith, Ari Hoffnung, Alfonso Quiroz, Ydanis Rodriguez, Jo Anne Simon, New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc., U.S. Term Limits, Luvenia Suber, Stanley Kalathara, and Responsible New York, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Michael R. BLOOMBERG, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of New York, Christine Quinn, in her official capacity as Speaker of the New York City Council, New York City Council, City of New York, Defendants-Appellees, James J. Sampel, in his official capacity as President of Commissioners of Elections for the Board of Elections in the City of New York, and Board of Elections in the City of New York, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Randy M. Mastro, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY (Norman Siegel, New York, NY, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellants Willam C. Thompson Jr., Betsy Gotbaum, Bill de Blasio, Letitia James, Charles Barron, Rosalie Caliendo, Phillip DePaolo, Philip Foglia, Kent Lebsock, Andrea Rich, Mike Long, Tom Long, Sarah Lyons, Ida Sanoff, Gloria Smith, Eric Snyder, Kenneth J. Baer, Kenneth A. Diamondstone, Peter Gleason, Mark Winston Griffith, Ari Hoffnung, Alfonso Quiroz, Ydanis Rodriguez, Jo Anne Simon, U.S. Term Limits, Luvenia Suber, Stanley Kalathara, and Responsible New York.
(Pieter Van Tol, Andrew Behrman, Lovells LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc.).
Alan G. Krams, Assistant Corporation Counsel (Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, on the brief), New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
Harry Kresky, New York, NY, for Lenora B. Fulani and the New York City Organizations of the New York Independence Party as amici curiae in support of Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Robert D. Joffe, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY, for the Partnership for New York City, Inc. as amicus curiae in support of Defendants-Appellees.
Before: STRAUB, POOLER, RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Charles P. Sifton, Judge), granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. At issue in this litigation is an amendment to the Charter of the City of New York, entitled Local Law 51, which was passed by the City Council and signed into law by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on November 3, 2008. It provides that Members of the City Council, the Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller and Borough Presidents are eligible to serve a maximum of three consecutive terms in office. It amends sections 1337 and 1338 of the City Charter, which previously provided for a maximum of two consecutive terms for these officials and which were enacted by a city-wide referendum in 1993.
The individual plaintiffs include the current Comptroller and Public Advocate of New York City, several current members of the New York City Council who voted against the legislation at issue in this case, several individuals who are alleged to "have developed concrete plans" to run for City Council seats in the November 2009 election, several individuals who are alleged to have expended time and money in favor of the two public referenda on term limits which are also at issue in this case, and "voters from all walks of life—and all five boroughs of this great City—who ... voted to impose term limits" in these two referenda. The plaintiffs also include three organizations—New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc., U.S. Term Limits and Responsible New York—which were referred to by the District Court as "good-government groups."
The individual defendants are the current Mayor of New York City, the Speaker of the City Council and the current head of the New York City Board of Elections. The institutional defendants are the New York City Council, the Board of Elections and the City of New York itself.
The gravamen of plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is that defendants violated federal, State and City law by amending existing term limit legislation enacted by referendum, thereby extending themselves the opportunity to run for an additional term in office. Plaintiffs assert several causes of action, including violations of the United States and New York State Constitutions, the New York Municipal Home Rule Law and the City Charter's conflict of interest provisions. The District Court dismissed plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in its entirety on summary judgment.
On appeal, appellants advance four principal arguments. First, they argue that defendants violated their First Amendment rights because City voters will now be less likely to participate in the referendum process, and thus engage in less First Amendment speech, if laws enacted by referenda can be amended by City Council legislation. Second, they argue that defendants violated their substantive due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution because the sole purpose of Local Law 51 is to extend defendants' own political careers by entrenching incumbents. Third, they argue that defendants violated New York Municipal Home Rule Law § 23(2)(b), which they contend requires a mandatory referendum to enact the provisions of Local Law 51. Finally, they argue that defendants violated the City Charter's conflict of interest provisions by enacting legislation conferring upon themselves a political benefit. Because we hold that the enactment of Local Law 51 did not run afoul of any of these provisions, we affirm the District Court's judgment.
As a general matter, this case touches upon the City Council's and Mayor's authority to enact local laws amending the City Charter. Cities in the State of New York are given broad power to enact local laws, including those amending a city charter, as long as they "relat[e] to its property, affairs or government" and are "not inconsistent with the provisions of th[e] [state] constitution or any general law." N.Y. CONST., ART. IX, § 2; see also N.Y. MUN. HOME RULE LAW § 10(l)(i)-(ii). This includes local laws relating to "[t]he powers, duties, qualifications, number, mode of selection and removal, terms of office, compensation, hours of work, protection, welfare and safety of its officers and employees." N.Y. MUN. HOME RULE LAW § 10(l)(ii).
A city may enact such laws by a majority vote of its legislative body and the approval of its mayor, and, in the case of a mayor's veto, the legislative body may override the mayor's veto with a two-thirds vote. See id. §§ 20-21.1 Moreover, sections 36 and 37 of the New York Municipal Home Rule Law allow voters to enact such laws directly by means of a referendum. See id. at §§ 36, 37. Such a referendum may be initiated directly by voters through a process commonly referred to as a voter initiative. See id. § 37. Generally, if qualified voters file with the City Clerk a petition containing a certain number of signatures requesting that a proposed local law amending the City Charter be put to referendum, the proposed local law will appear on the ballot at the next general election. See id. A referendum proposing a local law amending the City Charter may also be initiated by a charter commission. See id. § 36. A charter commission may be created by a voters' petition, the City Council or the Mayor. See id. § 36(2)-(4).
Notwithstanding these provisions, the New York Court of Appeals has made clear that McCabe v. Voorhis, 243 N.Y. 401, 413, 153 N.E. 849 (1926).
In November 1993, City voters put a referendum on the ballot by voter initiative proposing term limits for certain elected City officials, which was ultimately adopted by a vote of more than 59%. It provided:
§ 1137. Public Policy. It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the city of New York to limit to not more than eight consecutive years the time elected officials can serve as mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president and council member so that elected representatives are "citizen representatives" who are responsive to the needs of the people and are not career politicians.
§ 1138. Term Limits. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this charter, no person shall be eligible to be elected to or serve in the office of mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president or council member if that person had previously held such office for two or more full consecutive terms (including in the case of council member at least one four-year term), unless one full term or more has elapsed since that person last held such office; provided, however, that in calculating the number of consecutive terms a person has served, only terms commencing on or after January 1, 1994 shall be counted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Dist. Of D.C. Bd. Of Elections And Ethics, No. 10-CV-20.
... ... 16. As this discussion implies, there is no ... federal constitutional right to initiative ... Molinari v. Bloomberg, 564 F.3d 587, 597 (2d Cir.2009) (“[T]he right to pass legislation through a referendum is a state-created right not guaranteed by ... ...
-
Fusaro v. Howard
... ... In other words, " Anderson , Burdick , and their progeny ... all involve direct restrictions on speech or access to the ballot." Molinari v. Bloomberg , 564 F.3d 587, 604-05 (2d Cir. 2009). In McLaughlin v. North Carolina Bd. of Elections , 65 F.3d 1215 (4th Cir. 1995), the Fourth ... ...
-
Mazo v. Way
... ... basis review as opposed to Anderson - Burdick because state election law did not implicate or burden specific constitutional rights); Molinari v. Bloomberg , 564 F.3d 587, 602 (2d Cir. 2009) (same); Common Cause/New York v. Brehm , 432 F. Supp. 3d 285, 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) ("Under this ... ...
-
Doe v. Zucker
... ... at 30306, 113 S.Ct. 1439 ); see also Molinari v. Bloomberg , 564 F.3d 587, 606 (2d Cir. 2009) ("The law in this Circuit is clear that where, as here, a statute neither interferes with a ... ...