State ex rel. Schmidt v. City of Wichita
Decision Date | 22 January 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 113,528.,113,528. |
Citation | 367 P.3d 282 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas ex rel. Derek SCHMIDT, Attorney General, Petitioner, v. CITY OF WICHITA, Kansas, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Jeffrey A. Chanay, chief deputy attorney general, argued the cause, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, Dennis D. Depew, deputy attorney general, Lisa A. Mendoza, assistant attorney general, and Dwight R. Carswell, assistant solicitor general, were with him on the briefs for petitioner.
Sharon L. Dickgrafe, chief deputy city attorney, argued the cause and was on the brief for respondent.
This is an original action in quo warranto brought by the State on relation of the Attorney General for a writ declaring an ordinance of the City of Wichita (City) to be null and void. Relying upon the Kansas initiative and referendum statute, K.S.A. 12–3013
, the city council had submitted a general description of the proposed ordinance as a ballot question, which was approved by city electors during the April 2015 general election.
At the ordinance's core is a provision appearing to reduce the severity level of a first-offense conviction for possession of 32 grams or less of marijuana and/or related drug paraphernalia from a misdemeanor to an "infraction" when the offender is 21 years of age or older. A related provision substantially reduces the accompanying penalties.
The State asks this court to permanently prohibit the City from publishing, implementing, and enforcing the ordinance because the ordinance: (1) impermissibly conflicts with and is therefore preempted by uniform state law under the Home Rule Amendment to the Kansas Constitution, Article 12, § 5
(b); (2) was not adopted in accordance with procedures set out in K.S.A. 12–3013(a) ; (3) does not contain an ordaining clause as required by K.S.A. 12–3005 ; and (4) is essentially administrative in nature, which excludes it from the scope of the referendum and initiative process under K.S.A. 12–3013(e)(1).
We agree the ordinance was not enacted in accordance with procedures set out by K.S.A. 12–3013(a)
. Because this ruling effectively disposes of the case, we need not consider the State's remaining arguments. See Elkins v. Moreno, 435 U.S. 647, 661, 98 S.Ct. 1338, 55 L.Ed.2d 614 (1978) ( ). The writ of quo warranto is issued; the ordinance is null and void.
The principal facts are undisputed. Under the city's municipal code, Section 5.26.040(a) (2010) possession of marijuana and/or related drug paraphernalia has been classified as a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $2,500 and/or up to 12 months' imprisonment in the Sedgwick County Jail. This version of the code has been consistent with state criminal statutes. See, e.g., K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21–5706(c)(2)(A)
; 21–5709(e)(2)(B), (3); 21–6602(a)(1); 21–6611(b)(1).
On January 7, 2015, a group known as the Marijuana Reform Initiative (the Initiative) filed with the Wichita city clerk petitions containing thousands of signatures of purportedly qualified electors and proposing a change to the municipal code. The Initiative's proposal amends Section 5.26.040 of the code by repealing that entire section and adopting substitute provisions.
Subsection (a) of the proposed ordinance reestablishes the general rule, e.g., possession is a misdemeanor:
"(a) Except as provided at Subsections (b) and (c) herein, a violation of the provisions of this Chapter is a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, the sentence shall be a fine not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00), and/or imprisonment of up to twelve (12) months in the Sedgwick County Jail."
Subsections (b) and (c) purport to describe a reduced severity level and accompanying penalties for certain first-time possessors of marijuana and marijuana-related drug paraphernalia:
Subsection (d) describes the intent of subsections (b) and (c):
(Emphasis added.)
Subsection (d) also describes other matters relating to these particular first-time offenders, especially limiting the referral of such charges by city law enforcement and city prosecutors. The subsection further redefines convictions of these first offenses for purposes of reporting to those law enforcement agencies maintaining criminal records and for later calculation of criminal histories for sentencing offenders:
"(Emphasis added.)
Subsection (e) provides that should the State ever reduce the penalties below what the City dictates for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia as described in subsections (b) and (c), the State's lower penalties shall prevail:
And subsection (f) provides for a mandatory evaluation of offenders under 21 years of age:
The Initiative did not include a copy of this proposed ordinance when it filed its signed petition with the city clerk on January 7. Nor was the proposed ordinance fully set forth in the signed petition, which stated in relevant part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gannon v. State, 113,267.
...of the English Language 654 (1971) (defining "if" as "[o]n condition that"); see also State ex rel. Schmidt v. City of Wichita, 303 Kan. ––––, ––––, 367 P.3d 282, 2016 WL 275298, at *11 (2016). We conclude that condition has not been met here.The relief ordered by the panel would have requi......
-
Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Johnson Cnty. v. Jordan
...original jurisdiction if adequate relief appears to be available in a district court."); see also State ex rel. Schmidt v. City of Wichita, 303 Kan. 650, 656, 367 P.3d 282 (2016) ("[T]his court has traditionally been somewhat lenient on enforcement of that general rule."); Comprehensive Hea......
-
Foxfield Villa Assocs., LLC v. Robben
...statutory construction is that the intent of the Legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. State ex rel. Schmidt v. City of Wichita , 303 Kan. 650, 659, 367 P.3d 282 (2016). An appellate court must first attempt to ascertain legislative intent through the statutory language ena......
-
In re Davis
...may lead to information which, if true, would lead to issuing a true bill of indictment.The case State ex rel. Schmidt v. City of Wichita , 303 Kan. 650, 367 P.3d 282 (2016), is relevant to this analysis. There, the State brought an action to the Kansas Supreme Court asking it to declare a ......