Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea wrote a 2016 order and a 2017 final opinion that kept a proposition off the 2016 ballot that would have required MPD officers to pay for their own personal professional liability insurance.
On August 5, 2016, the Minneapolis City Council rejected a petition to place a question on the ballot for the general election on November 8, 2016 that would ask city voters whether to amend the Minneapolis City Charter by adopting a provision requiring city police officers to obtain and maintain professional liability insurance for certain wrongful acts.
On August 5, 2016, appellants David Bicking filed a petition in the district court, pursuant to Milll1. Stat. § 204B.44 (Supp. 2015), for correction of a ballot error and for a declaratory judgment directing the City Clerk to forward the proposed charter amendment to the Helll1epin County Election Manager for inclusion on the November general election ballot.
Following briefing, the district court dismissed the petition after finding that the proposed charter amendment is preempted by and in conflict with state law.
First, on August 31, 2016, Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea issued an emergency Order to keep the issue off the November, 2016 ballot in Minneapolis. See here.
First, on August 31, 2016, Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea issued an emergency Order to keep the issue off the November, 2016 ballot in Minneapolis. See here.
She wrote: "We conclude that the district court correctly decided that the proposed liability-insurance amendment is preempted by state law and, therefore, is improper and cannot be included in the Minneapolis City Charter. The order and judgment of the district court dismissing the petition of appellants' David Bicking is affirmed. This order is issued with opinion to follow."
Second, on March 15, 2017, Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea wrote the Opinion which explained why the issue was kept off the ballot. See here.
She wrote: "The Supreme Court held that a justiciable controversy is presented by a dispute regarding the City’s authority to refuse to place a proposed charter-amendment question on the ballot.
Second, on March 15, 2017, Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea wrote the Opinion which explained why the issue was kept off the ballot. See here.
She wrote: "The Supreme Court held that a justiciable controversy is presented by a dispute regarding the City’s authority to refuse to place a proposed charter-amendment question on the ballot.
"The district court did not err in dismissing appellants’ petition to require the City to place a question proposing an amendment to the City Charter on the ballot for the general election because the proposed charter amendment conflicts with state law. Affirmed."
No comments:
Post a Comment