Opinion ID: 1192546
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: 2008 Term Limits Amendment

Text: More than a decade later, on October 2, 2008, Mayor Bloomberg announced that he intended to work with the Speaker of the City Council, Christine C. Quinn, to introduce legislation to extend the City's term limits set forth in sections 1137 and 1138 of the City Charter from two consecutive terms to three and then seek re-election. The Mayor emphasized that the change in law would allow voters to elect experienced leadership in a time of unprecedented fiscal crisis. Thus, on October 7, 2008, City Council Members, at the Mayor's request, introduced bill No. 845-A, which, if signed into law, would amend sections 1137 and 1138 of the City Charter to change the term limits from no more than two consecutive terms to no more than three such terms. Plaintiffs claim that the Mayor was aware of his intentions to ask the City Council to pass legislation extending term limits as early as 2007, [2] but delayed his announcement until October 2008 so that voters could not put the issue of term limits on the ballot through a voter initiative prior to the November 2009 election. Under section 37 of New York Municipal Home Rule Law, if qualified voters were to have filed a petition following the introduction of the bill in October 2008 putting the term limits issue to a referendum, it would appear on the November 2009 election ballot at the earliest. See N.Y. MUN. HOME RULE LAW § 37(6)-(7). Even if successful, such a voter initiative would not affect those made eligible for reelection in November 2009 as a result of the Mayor's proposed amendment. In addition, plaintiffs emphasize the reported discussions between the Mayor and Ronald Lauder. Specifically, The New York Times reported that Mr. Lauder initially vowed to vigorously oppose the plan outlined by Mayor Bloomberg, but he backed down after the Mayor promised him a seat on a charter commission that the Mayor agreed to convene in 2010 to put the term limits issue back on the ballot for referendum. Michael Barbara & Kareem Fahim, Lauder Opposes Mayor on Permanent Change to Term Limits, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 6, 2008, at A21 (available at J.A. 353-54). Plaintiffs claim that this agreement is reflected in the following provision of the bill: This local law shall take effect immediately and shall apply to elections held on or after the date of its enactment, provided that this local law shall be deemed repealed upon the effective date of a lawful and valid proposal to amend the charter to set term limits at two, rather than three, full consecutive terms, as such terms were in force and effect prior to the enactment of this local law, where such proposal has been submitted for the approval of the qualified electors of the city and approved by a majority of such electors voting thereon. See S.A. 67-68. Plaintiffs argue that [t]his alteration of the Term-Limits Bill made clear that the Bill's true purpose was to afford a third term in office to currently term-limited City officials only; afterward, the voters would decide the term limits applicable to subsequent generations of City officials. See Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants William C. Thompson, Jr., et al. (Brief for Appellants) at 11. Plaintiffs invoke a New York Times blog post reporting that Mr. Lauder stated, `I believe very strongly that the mayor should get the extra term and the City Council should get a third term. That is part of the deal. But I never spoke about the first-term council members.' [3] Michael Barbara, Lauder Puts New Hurdle in Mayor's Path, N.Y. TIMES CITY ROOM, Oct. 21, 2008, http://cityroom.blogs.nytime s.com/2008/10/21/lauder-puts-a-new-hurdle-inmayors-path/ 16 (available at J.A. 360-61). When the bill was introduced into the City Council, Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum and City Council Members Bill de Blasio and Letitia James, who are plaintiffs and appellants in this action, requested the City's Conflicts of Interest Board to issue an advisory opinion as to whether Council Members would violate the City Charter's conflict of interest provisions by voting on the bill. The Board ruled that no violation would occur. It reasoned that the conflict of interest provisions prohibit Members from voting on proposed legislation that would confer a personal benefit, but that an extension of term limits was a public benefit relating to their roles as public officials. Council Members de Blasio and James subsequently filed a petition in New York State Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, Justice), seeking a temporary restraining order enjoining Council Members from voting on the bill on the ground that it would violate the City Charter's conflict of interest provisions. The court denied the petition, holding that no irreparable harm would occur to petitioners because they could, inter alia, abstain from voting on the bill and that granting the TRO would be an undue interference by one branch of government with another at this stage of the legislative process, and, thus, the matter is not now justiciable. DeBlasio v. Conflicts of Interest Board of the City of New York, No. 1141289/08 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Oct. 22, 2008) (TRO Hearing). On October 23, 2008, the City Council voted 29 to 22 to enact Local Law 51, amending the City's term limits law to three consecutive terms. Of the fifty-one sitting Members who voted on the Bill, thirty-five would have been prohibited from running for reelection under the term limits enacted in 1993. Of those thirty-five Members, twenty-three voted to enact Local Law 51. Mayor Bloomberg signed the bill into law on November 3, 2008. Local Law 51 provides, in relevant part: § 1137. Public policy. It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the city of New York to limit the time elected officials can serve as mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president and council member so that elected representatives are citizen representatives who are responsive to the needs of the people and are not career politicians. It is further declared that this policy is most appropriately served by limiting the time such officials can serve to not more than three full consecutive terms. § 1138. Term limits. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this charter, no person shall be eligible to be elected to or serve in the office of mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president or council member if that person had previously held such office for three or more full consecutive terms, unless one full term or more has elapsed since that person last held such office; provided, however, that in calculating the number of consecutive terms a person has served, only terms commencing on or after January 1, 1994 shall be counted. Local Law No. 51 (Nov. 3, 2008). Immediately prior to signing the bill, Mayor Bloomberg expressed his commitment to convene a charter commission in 2010 to put the term limits issue back on the ballot for referendum.