Opinion ID: 1596326
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Charter Provisions Consistent With Election Laws.

Text: The second argument urged for denying municipal initiative and referendum vote is that relied upon by the Auditor as expressed in attorney general opinions. The attorney general stated in part: [W]e are of the opinion that elections may only be held upon matters which are specifically authorized by the Constitution or statutes of the state. .... In 1976, we opined that the municipal home rule amendment does not give cities the authority to, by municipal charter, establish a type of election not otherwise allowed by law. 1976 Op.Iowa Att'y Gen. 681. .... [W]e conclude that political subdivisions may only authorize the presenting of questions to voters on matters that are specifically required or authorized to be placed before the electorate by statute or by Constitution.... The commissioner of election does not have the authority to conduct an illegal or unauthorized election, and, therefore has the authority to refuse to conduct an election if the election is not specifically authorized or required by statute or by the Constitution. 1992 Op.Iowa Att'y Gen. 169, 170-71. An earlier opinion stated: Since our election laws are so carefully detailed and prescribed, I must conclude that in absence of constitutional or statutory authority, such submissions to the voters are unlawful. 1972 Op.Iowa Att'y Gen. 263, 264. The Iowa Attorney General has consistently expressed an opinion that elections on adoption, amendment, or repeal of ordinances are not permitted unless specifically required or authorized by statute, despite the existence of home rule powers. Although an attorney general's opinion is not binding on us, it is entitled to our respectful consideration. Albia Publishing Co. v. Klobnak, 434 N.W.2d 636, 639 (Iowa 1989). However, when a controversy addressed by an attorney general opinion reaches the court for determination, the court must enter upon an independent inquiry as to the interpretation to be placed upon the statute. City of Nevada v. Slemmons, 244 Iowa 1068, 1071, 59 N.W.2d 793, 794 (1953). Here, the attorney general suggests, in the absence of express statutory authority, the submission of an initiative or referendum would be invalid. This suggestion is a carryover of the Dillon rule under which a municipal corporation possessed and exercised only those powers granted by the legislature in express words. To require specific statutory authority to permit an initiative or referendum vote is contrary to the intent of the amendment that rejected the Dillon rule. Cities no longer have only those powers granted by the legislature. Bryan, 261 N.W.2d at 687. We find no irreconcilable conflict between the election laws and the initiative and referendum provisions of the Clinton home rule charter. If the general assembly intended to preempt municipal initiative and referendum powers, it could have done so by express and unambiguous statutory language. See Chelsea Theater Corp. v. City of Burlington, 258 N.W.2d 372, 373 (Iowa 1977). We find no preemption problem. We reverse and remand for entry of judgment in accordance with this decision. REVERSED AND REMANDED.