Warren City Council v. Buffa
| Decision Date | 21 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 365488 |
| Parties | WARREN CITY COUNCIL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SONJA BUFFA in her capacity as WARREN ELECTION COMMISSIONER, WARREN CITY CLERK, and CITY OF WARREN ELECTION COMMISSION, Defendants-Appellees, and RONALD J. PAPANDREA, Plaintiff, and ANTHONY FORLINI in his capacity of MACOMB COUNTY CLERK, Defendant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Macomb Circuit Court LC No. 2023-000611-AW
Before: CAVANAGH, P.J., GLEICHER, C.J., and O'BRIEN, J.
Plaintiff Warren City Council ("the Council") appeals by right the circuit court's order denying its complaint for writ of mandamus and granting summary disposition to defendants in this election matter.[1] This case concerns the effect of a 2020 amendment to the Warren City Charter to change the mayor's term to the same term limits of other elected city officials. The specific issue presented is whether the Mayor of Warren, James Fouts, whose fourth and current term expires in November 2023, is eligible to run for a fifth term in office in light of the voters' approval of a 2020 charter amendment limiting mayors to the greater of three terms or 12 years. Because we conclude that the Council has shown that it is entitled to a writ of mandamus, we reverse.
The City of Warren is a home rule city with a charter approved in accordance with the Home Rule City Act (HRCA), MCL 117.1 et seq. When the Warren City Charter was established in 1956, it did not contain term limits for city officials but in 1998, the Council determined that term limits would promote the public interest. The Council submitted a proposed ballot question to amend the charter to provide that city officers, including the mayor, council members, clerk, and treasurer, could not hold office for the greater of three terms or 12 years in a particular office. To restrict the number of prior terms that would be counted to one, the ballot proposal provided that the limitation would begin with the term related to the election that had occurred in November 1995. The resolution passed, and the city charter was duly amended. In addition to establishing the new term limits, the charter amendment indicated that the new provisions would be applied to commence with the term of office that took effect after the November 7, 1995 election.
In 2010, Warren voters amended the charter to reduce the number of council members from nine to seven, and to create new districts for five members of the Council. Confusion arose regarding term limits, where some council members were at-large members and others were bydistrict members. The Warren City Attorney opined that the voters had created two separate and distinct legislative groups, thereby creating a "bicameral" Legislature. Thus, the charter permitted at-large council members to exhaust their term limits under the at-large council office, and then to run for a by-district council office, and vice versa. In line with that opinion, the Warren City Clerk in 2015 permitted candidates for the Council to appear on the ballot although they had served more than 12 years on the Council. A candidate for the Council sought mandamus, which the circuit court denied, and this Court denied the resulting application.[2]
The Council proposed in 2016 that the voters should choose whether to extend the term limits for mayor from three terms or 12 years to five terms or 20 years. The ballot proposal indicated that any years or terms served prior to the amendment would be included. The measure passed, and the charter was amended.
In 2019, a resident of Warren sought to bar four city council candidates from appearing on the primary ballot on the basis of the term limits provision. In contrast to the city attorney's 2014 opinion, the circuit court ruled that the charter's term-limits definition did not distinguish between at-large council members and by-district council members, such that the four candidates were not eligible for the primary ballot. On appeal, this Court reversed, ruling in part that reasonable minds could disagree on whether a distinction existed in terms served by council members elected by-district and at-large. Berdy v Buffa, 328 Mich.App. 550, 556-558; 938 N.W.2d 789 (2019). The dissenting judge opined in part that the majority's interpretation of the charter was contrary to the plain language as there were no differences in the powers or authorities of council members. Id. at 562-569. Our Supreme Court cited the dissent and reversed. It ruled that the charter provided for only one class of council members; thus, the four challenged candidates were ineligible under the charter to be certified because it was not disputed that they would have served the maximum terms by the time of the 2019 election. Berdy v Buffa, 504 Mich. 876; 928 N.W.2d 204 (2019).
In 2020, the Council resolved to submit a ballot question to the voters to amend the charter to limit the mayor's term in line with other elected city officials (the greater of three terms or 12 years), noting that a governmental system with a balanced distribution of power would be served best by equal term limits for all elected officials. The proposed ballot language indicated that any years or terms served prior to the amendment would be included.
Mayor Fouts vetoed that resolution, but the Council voted unanimously to override his veto. Although defendant Buffa initially refused to certify the ballot language, this Court ultimately directed that she do so.[3]
The following question appeared on the 2020 ballot in Warren:
The voters passed the measure 67.8% to 32.2%, and the charter was amended to provide as follows:
Mayor Fouts won his first term in 2007 and he was reelected in 2011, 2015, and 2019. When the voters passed the 2020 proposal to amend the charter, Mayor Fouts was serving his fourth term in office.
Upon request, the city attorney offered his opinion on whether Mayor Fouts was eligible to seek a fifth term as mayor, and he opined that Mayor Fouts was eligible. He believed the retroactive effect of the proposal was unclear and that voters may not have understood the proposal. The Election Commission thereafter voted to accept the opinion of the city attorney regarding Mayor Fouts' eligibility to appear on the 2023 ballot.
The Council filed the instant action seeking a writ of mandamus and declaratory relief.[5] While admitting that the mayoral term limits amendment adopted in November 2020 could not be applied to shorten Mayor Fouts' fourth and current term of office, the Council opined that under the plain language of §§ 4.3(d) and 4.4(d), Mayor Fouts was ineligible to run for a fifth term in 2023. The Council contended that the language of the charter amendment was clear and unambiguous and defendants had a duty to strictly comply by deeming Mayor Fouts ineligible. Defendants answered that they had accepted Mayor Fouts' reelection papers and denied that Warren's electors were not entitled to vote for him in the November 2023 election.
The parties then filed competing motions for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10). In its motion, the Council argued that all terms and years served prior to 2020 are to be counted in determining eligibility given the unambiguous language of the ballot proposal and the charter, as well as the prospective application of the term limits. The Council contended that it had demonstrated all elements necessary for mandamus. Defendants stated that the 2020 amendment was ambiguous because it did not specify how terms of office served before that amendment were to be counted. Defendants also challenged the Council's standing to assert its claims. They maintained that legislation generally is to be given only prospective effect unless clearly indicated, and here, a clear directive of retroactivity was absent. They asserted that mandamus was inappropriate because there was no clear legal duty to restrict Mayor Fouts from appearing on the ballot.
The circuit court ruled that the Council had standing to argue that the charter barred Mayor Fouts from reelection.[6] The court expressed two concerns regarding the 2020 amendment. First, that the language "any terms or years served prior to this amendment are included" was not included in the proposal question on the ballot or in the charter. Second, that there was a discrepancy on the ballot between the explanatory portion's statement that that the amended term limits would be "three (3) terms or twelve (12) years" and the proposal question's statement that the amended term limits would...
To continue reading
Request your trial