Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/10260971/Molinari-Order
Timestamp: 2015-04-27 11:30:37
Document Index: 426852635

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1137', '§ 2', '§ 20', '§ 34', '§ 1983', '§ 38', '§ 1137', '§ 2604', '§ 2603', '§ 2604', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1', '§ 23', '§ 38', '§ 10', '§ 23', '§ 38', '§ 2604', '§ 2604', '§ 2604', '§2604']

Molinari - Order
Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See moreDownloadStandard viewFull view of .Add to collectionMark as finishedMarked as finished. UndoRemove from libraryLook up keyword or sectionLike thisShare on social networks2Activity×Share to your social networks.TweetEmbedTable Of ContentsUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
---XYork City Charter §§ 1137-38 to extend the number of terms anYork Supreme Court denied the application for a temporaryTranscript”). Of the 35 Council members who would have beenStates... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges inNew York. That section authorizes cities and other localC.L.S. Municipal Home Rule Law § 2(5) (“Mun. H.R.L.”). The StateLaw nor the City Charter place any limitations on theNew York Court of Appeals has endorsed the statement that “lawsAppellate Division upheld an amendment to the 1993 term-limitsNew York City Charter specify the procedures and restrictionsCouncil. N.Y. Mun. H.R.L. §§ 20-21; N.Y.C. Charter §§ 34-3737. New York City’s term-limits law was first adopted by theCourt of Appeals affirmed that the law was within the City’sCity law. The claims under Federal law are brought pursuant to 42U.S.C. § 1983. “It is well established that in order to state aStates and Courts of Appeal of this (the Second) and otherPlaintiffs have also submitted affidavits stating that theyCity Council can simply reverse the outcome by passing a localThe First Amendment is not implicated by every reduction onAnderson/Burdick test. The City has legitimate interests in Local503; 52 L. Ed. 2d 531; 97 S. Ct. 1932 (1977). The right to voteF.3d at 711. The purpose of extending the amount of time aIV is granted(2d Cir. 2001). Defendants argue that dismissal is appropriateConstitution parallels their claims under the First Amendment toYork State Constitution provides that “[n]o member of this stateDefendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted on Claim V237 N.Y.S.2d 448 (Sup. Ct. Monroe County 1963). It is unlikelyN.Y.S.2d 722 (2d Dept. 1999) (change to an eligibility criterionN.Y. Misc. LEXIS 367 (Sup. Ct. Rensselaer Co. 2001) (initiative762 N.Y.S.2d 410 (2d Dept. 2003) (Golden II)(a change to theCharter § 38(1) requires a referendum for a law that “...changes250; 269 N.Y.S.2d 47 (1966). Plaintiffs maintain that if the 35Council amended the city charter to permit the Mayor of BuffaloCity Home Rule Law. 9 N.Y.2d at 889. Defendants argue that theresection 25(a) resulted in some City officials being limited to27 “merely amended the term-limit provisions of the City Charter599. The Court stated that the purpose of the law was “[t]oCouncil members limited to six years. Id. Plaintiffs characterize1881; 44 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1975) (citing Murdock v. City ofPlaintiffs further allege that if the Mayor follows through onDefendants argue that curtailments occur only when a law makes aPublic Safety. The court found that the increase of members ofThe concept of “self-interest” is too vague and broad to serveNew York to limit to not more than eight consecutive years” theCharter § 1137. The legislature has the power to change a publicChapter 68 § 2604(b)(2) provides, in relevant part, that a CityChapter 68 was intended to prevent City officials and employeesN.E.2d 886; 698 N.Y.S.2d 609 (1999) (citing Sheehy v. Big FlatsN.Y.S.2d 361 (2d Dept. 2000) (assuming that a citizen plaintiffCharter § 2603. Where the Legislature has contemplated40; 720 N.E.2d 886; 698 N.Y.S.2d 609 (1999). When the legislature(h)(3). The Board is not permitted to impose penalties againstNothing about the enforcement structure indicates that it wouldCharter §§ 2604(b)(2) and (b)(2) when he allegedly promised toThe Mayor’s alleged ‘benefit’ was a former opponent’s support forSO ORDERED0 of .Results for: No results containing your search query{{& result_text }}
P. 1Molinari - OrderMolinari - OrderRatings: (0)|Views: 48|Likes: 0Published by Elizabeth Benjaminbloomberg wins term limits decisionbloomberg wins term limits decisionMore info:Published by: Elizabeth Benjamin on Jan 14, 2009Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/10260971/Molinari-Order10/16/2011 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK----------------------------------------XGuy Molinari, William C. Thompson, Jr.,individually and in his official capacityas the New York City Comptroller, BetsyGotbaum, individually and in her officialcapacity as Public Advocate for the Cityof New York, Bill de Blasio, individuallyand in his official capacity as a memberof the New York City Council, LetitiaJames, individually and in her officialcapacity as a member of the New York CityCouncil, Charles Barron, individually andin his capacity as a member of the NewYork City Council, Rosalie Caliendo,Phillip Depaolo, Philip Foglia, KentLebsock, Mike Long, Tom Long, Sarah Lyons,Andrea Rich, Ida Sanoff, Gloria Smith,Eric Snyder, Luvenia Suber, Kenneth J.Baer, Kenneth A. Diamondstone, PeterGleason, Mark Winston Griffith, AriHoffnung, Stanley Kalathara, AlfonsoQuiroz, Ydanis Rodriguez, Jo Anne Simon,New York Public Interest Research Group,Inc., U.S. Term Limits, and ResponsibleNew York,Plaintiffs,CV-08-4539 (CPS)(JO)- against -MEMORANDUMAND ORDERMichael R. Bloomberg, in his officialcapacity as Mayor of New York City,Christine C. Quinn, in her officialcapacity as Speaker of the New York CityCouncil, The New York City Council, TheCity of New York, James J. Sampel, in hisofficial capacity as president of theCommissioners of Elections for the Boardof Elections in New York City, and Boardof Elections of New York City,Defendants.----------------------------------------XSIFTON, Senior Judge.
Case 1:08-cv-04539-CPS-JO Document 66 Filed 01/13/2009 Page 1 of 64
For a detailed list of plaintiffs and defendants and theiraffiliations, see a prior opinion in this case at
Molinari v. Bloomberg , 2008U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101193, at *3-*7 (2008).
The claims are as follows: (1) deprivation of First Amendment rights toa meaningful vote in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”) (Claim I); (2)chilling of First Amendment rights to political expression in violation of §1983 (Claim II); (3) denial of First Amendment rights to access to the ballotin violation of § 1983 (Claim III); (4) denial of Fourteenth Amendment rightsto Due Process in violation of § 1983 (Claim IV); (5) disenfranchisement ofvoters in violation of Article I, § 1 of the New York State Constitution(Claim V); (6) violation of the requirement of Municipal Home Rule Law § 23(2)that voters approve fundamental changes to the City Council by referendum(Claim VI); (7) violation of the requirement of City Charter § 38 that votersapprove fundamental changes to their electoral and governmental structure(Claim VII); (8) actions in excess of the powers of the City Council underMunicipal Home Rule Law §§ 10, 23 and City Charter §§ 23, 38, and 40 (ClaimVIII); (9) violating the public policy of New York expressed in City Charter§§ 38, 1137, 1138 (Claim IX); (10) conflicts of interest on the part ofCouncil Members in violation of City Charter § 2604(b)(3) (Claim X); (11)conflicts of interest on the part of Mayor Bloomberg in violation of CityCharter § 2604(b)(3) (Claim XI); and (12) knowingly aiding and abetting theMayor’s violations of City Charter § 2604(b)(3) in violation of City Charter §2604(b)(2) and Conflicts Board Rule 1-13(d)(Claim XII).
Plaintiffs Guy Molinari, the New York City Comptroller,various members of the New York City Council who voted againstLocal Law 51, the Public Advocate, voters, prospectivecandidates, and good-government groups (“plaintiffs”) commencedthis action against Michael Bloomberg (“Mayor Bloomberg”),Christine Quinn (“Speaker Quinn”), the City of New York, andother municipal entities (“defendants”),
alleging violations ofthe First Amendment of the United States Constitution, theFourteenth Amendment, the New York State Constitution, theMunicipal Home Rule Law, and the New York City Charter.
Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Local Law 51,amending the New York City Charter provisions limiting theeligibility of the Mayor, members of the City Council, and other
Case 1:08-cv-04539-CPS-JO Document 66 Filed 01/13/2009 Page 2 of 64
- 3 -elected officials to run for office, is unconstitutional and inviolation of Municipal Law and the City Charter and an injunctionbarring the Board of Elections from listing City officials whohave served two consecutive terms in office on the ballot in the2009 City elections. Now before the Court are defendants’ motionto dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for summary judgmentpursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and plaintiffs’motion for summary judgment pursuant to the same rule. For thereasons stated below, defendants’ motion for summary judgment isgranted, and plaintiffs’ motion is denied.
The following facts are drawn from the parties’ submissionsin connection with this motion. Disputes are noted.In a 1993 city-wide referendum, New York City voters adoptedan amendment to the City Charter instituting a two-term limit forcity officials by a vote of 59% in favor versus 41% against, withover one million votes cast. Plaintiffs’ Statement of MaterialFacts at ¶ 4 (“SMF”); Swain Decl. at ¶ 4(a). The City Charter wasaccordingly amended to state that it was the public policy of theCity of New York to limit the eligibility to run for office ofthe Mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough presidents orcouncil members to persons who had not served to or more
Case 1:08-cv-04539-CPS-JO Document 66 Filed 01/13/2009 Page 3 of 64