Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 46 / 06-1382 Filed August 31, 2007 MICHAEL JOSEPH BERENT, MICHAEL STEVEN ROMP, JEFF WAYNE THORNE, PAUL BRYSON INGRAM, NICHELLE ALINE THOMPSON, RODNEY EDWARD SULLIVAN, SARA LILLIS EPSTEIN, SARA CRANE SWISHER, BETTE JAYNE MAYES, CAROLINE M. DIETERLE, MATT BLIZEK, MORI CONSTANTINO, AMANDA COYNE, LOLLY EGGERS, ELLEN HAYWOOD, JON KLINKOWITZ, KAREN KUBBY, BOB THOMPSON, JAMES WALTERS, ROBERTA TILL RETZ and JENNIE LOUISE EMBREE, Appellees, vs. CITY OF IOWA CITY and "OBJECTIONS COMMITTEE" OF IOWA CITY, Appellants.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, William L. Thomas, Judge.

The City of Iowa City appeals a district court decision which held the objections committee exceeded its legal authority in refusing to present three proposed charter amendments to public vote and that the City's preelection challenge of the amendments' legality was not ripe for judicial review. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

2 Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney, and Susan M. Dulek, Assistant City Attorney, for appellants.

Bruce D. Nestor of De Leon & Nestor, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellees.

3 APPEL, Justice. In this case, we are asked to determine whether three proposed amendments to the Charter of the City of Iowa City should be placed before the voters. The three proposals called for a retention election for the city manager and the police chief, established a permanent police citizens review board with certain investigative and other powers, and sought to limit police practices with respect to nonviolent misdemeanors. After timely objections were filed, the City's objections committee determined that the proposed amendments were legally flawed and, as a result, the City did not present the amendments to the voters. Citizens challenged the City's refusal in district court. The City, alternatively, sought a declaration that the proposed amendments were unlawful. The district court ruled that the objections committee exceeded its authority, refused to grant the City declaratory relief on the ground that the legal issues raised by the City were not ripe for judicial review, and ordered the City to present the proposed charter amendments to the voters. For the reasons expressed below, the decision of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case remanded with instructions. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. A. Home Rule Framework for Charter Government. In order to put this case, involving city governance, in proper perspective, we begin by reviewing the development of home rule in Iowa. This home rule review will provide an overview of the scope of and limitations on the power of municipalities in Iowa to structure their local governments. In 1868, the Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court, John F. Dillon, declared that municipalities were creatures of the legislature and had only

4 those powers expressly granted by the legislature. City of Clinton v. Cedar Rapids & Missouri River R.R., 24 Iowa 455, 475 (1868). For the next

hundred years, the General Assembly, through application of what became known as the Dillon Rule, maintained a tight legislative grip over municipal affairs through a combination of inaction and a jungle of code provisions. This tight legislative grip was relaxed, to some extent, in 1968, when Iowa enacted a home rule amendment to the Iowa Constitution. Iowa Const. art. III,

Download MICHAEL JOSEPH BERENT, MICHAEL STEVEN ROMP, JEFF WAYNE THORNE, PAUL BRYSON INGRA

Iowa Law