Cities Could Be Affected by Iowa City Charter Challenge

From the CR Gazette

The Iowa Supreme Court will decide in two to three months an Iowa City case the city’s attorney said presents significant home rule issues for cities statewide. The state’s highest court heard arguments in the city’s appeal Tuesday in the case, brought by 21 Iowa City residents who want an election on three proposed amendments to the city’s home rule charter . The court will decide whether the amendments, part of a successful petition drive in 2001, should go to a vote by city residents.

Also, the city has asked the court to rule on the legality of the amendments before any possible election. The court offered little indication of how it might rule. Justice Brent Appel asked all but one of the questions from the seven-justice panel during the 25-minute hearing. He questioned whether state law gave the city power to not forward to voters a petition with the required number of signatures. In 2001, the city did that after a city committee upheld objections to the legality of the amendments. ‘‘When I look at those (state) statutes, I don’t see anything that suggests review for legal sufficiency,’’ Appel said.

City Attorney Eleanor Dilkes argued that a petition’s validity depends, in part, on its legal sufficiency. Appel later asked the plaintiff’s attorney, Bruce Nestor of Minneapolis, why a court shouldn’t rule on the proposals’ legality before an election if citizens may not be aware of its full impact. Nestor said citizens are, in effect, saying they believe the proposal is valid if they pass an amendment. ‘‘That’s worth considering, what citizens themselves believe . . . should be part of their home rule charter ,’’ he said.

One of the amendments in question would require periodic retention votes for the city manager and police chief. Another would make permanent the city’s Police Citizens Review Board. The third would direct Iowa City police to issue citations for non-violent misdemeanors, like public intoxication, instead of making arrests. Appel and Chief Justice Marsha Ternus asked Nestor how the proposal on police practices is a valid charter amendment. Nestor said it was a broad statement of what the community aspires to, not a demand on what police must do day to day.

Charter amendments, by law, must deal with the form of government, not daily operations, Dilkes told the court. The second and third proposed amendments do not do that, she said. If they are permitted, she argued, direct legislation could be made on any topic, even the frequency of trash collection or rental unit inspections. ‘‘Essentially, the election becomes . . . a forum for discussion on any issue,’’ she said. Dilkes said the most important issue before the court is the prior review. Without it, she said, voters would have no confidence their ballots have meaning because whatever they are voting on could be ruled illegal later. The same thing could happen in any city governed by a home rule charter, Dilkes said.