This morning I received the City Attorney's memorandum in opposition to a writ
of mandamus commanding the city to put on the ballot a referendum on Vikings
stadium taxes. It offers nothing new on the main issues.
In my petition and memorandum I did not address the City Attorney's earlier
assertions about the power of the legislature to over-ride the city charter. A
review of the cited case law shows some serious defects in their argument,
which I hinted at, but they didn't take the hint. The City Attorney, in last
year's memorandums cherry picked paragraphs supporting their assertions, and
omitted all pronouncements by the Court on the issue that is decisive in most
of the cited cases: The power of the legislature to pre-empt local laws by
"general" laws without local consent. The legislature may repeal local laws
that not in harmony with general laws and the Minnesota constitution. But the
Vikings stadium act did not attempt to repeal the stadium provisions in the
charter. The Vikings Stadium Act asserted that the charter does not apply
because the local-option sales tax revenues are not "city resources" because
the sales tax revenues required for bond payments and upkeep on the stadium
will not be remitted to the city. The funds won't be under the city's control.
Nothing new there.
The new, yet unsurprising part of the City Attorney's brief is the contention
that "Petitioner cannot show sufficient injury to entitle him to mandamus
relief"
"Petitioner is only entitled to mandamus [relief] if he can show a public wrong
especially injurious to him and that he will benefit from an order compelling
performance of the statutorily imposed duty. Friends of Animals & their Env't
(FATE) v. Nichols, 350 N.W.2d 489, 491 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984); see also
Hollingsworth v. Perry, S.Ct. 2652, 2662 (2013) (reaffirming that under federal
law a litigant lacks standing when claiming only harm to his and every citizens
interest in the proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking
relief that no more tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large. To
have standing to maintain a suit, an individual must show an "injury to some
interest, economic or otherwise, which differs from the [injury] to the
interests of other citizens generally." Vern Reynolds Constr., Inc, v. city of
Champlin, 539 N.W. 2d 614, 617
Two points in rebuttal:
Mandamus relief allowed under federal law is one thing. Mandamus relief allowed
under Minnesota law is another. As a rule, States may not be more restrictive
in granting rights than the federal government, however a state may be more
expansive in granting rights than the federal government. (I think I can find
support for this in the US constitution). Mandamus relief is being sought under
Minnesota law, not federal law.
It is likely I will find language in the federal voting rights act, something
to the effect that "each voter is uniquely harmed" by the application of laws
that disenfranchise them. I expect to find that language because the intent of
that legislation was to give any wanna-be voter standing to file a lawsuit to
secure rights for themselves as well as others similarly effected by
legislation that disenfranchises otherwise qualified voters. Moreover, what is
at issue is not disenfranchisement in general, but disenfranchisement in a
special case that assures benefits to a small minority of Minneapolis residents
at the expense of the large majority.
Mann for Mayor (website)
http://mann4mayor.blogspot.com/
Mann for Minneapolis Mayor
http://facebook.com/mann4mayor
-Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, northside of Minneapolis
of mandamus commanding the city to put on the ballot a referendum on Vikings
stadium taxes. It offers nothing new on the main issues.
In my petition and memorandum I did not address the City Attorney's earlier
assertions about the power of the legislature to over-ride the city charter. A
review of the cited case law shows some serious defects in their argument,
which I hinted at, but they didn't take the hint. The City Attorney, in last
year's memorandums cherry picked paragraphs supporting their assertions, and
omitted all pronouncements by the Court on the issue that is decisive in most
of the cited cases: The power of the legislature to pre-empt local laws by
"general" laws without local consent. The legislature may repeal local laws
that not in harmony with general laws and the Minnesota constitution. But the
Vikings stadium act did not attempt to repeal the stadium provisions in the
charter. The Vikings Stadium Act asserted that the charter does not apply
because the local-option sales tax revenues are not "city resources" because
the sales tax revenues required for bond payments and upkeep on the stadium
will not be remitted to the city. The funds won't be under the city's control.
Nothing new there.
The new, yet unsurprising part of the City Attorney's brief is the contention
that "Petitioner cannot show sufficient injury to entitle him to mandamus
relief"
"Petitioner is only entitled to mandamus [relief] if he can show a public wrong
especially injurious to him and that he will benefit from an order compelling
performance of the statutorily imposed duty. Friends of Animals & their Env't
(FATE) v. Nichols, 350 N.W.2d 489, 491 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984); see also
Hollingsworth v. Perry, S.Ct. 2652, 2662 (2013) (reaffirming that under federal
law a litigant lacks standing when claiming only harm to his and every citizens
interest in the proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking
relief that no more tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large. To
have standing to maintain a suit, an individual must show an "injury to some
interest, economic or otherwise, which differs from the [injury] to the
interests of other citizens generally." Vern Reynolds Constr., Inc, v. city of
Champlin, 539 N.W. 2d 614, 617
Two points in rebuttal:
Mandamus relief allowed under federal law is one thing. Mandamus relief allowed
under Minnesota law is another. As a rule, States may not be more restrictive
in granting rights than the federal government, however a state may be more
expansive in granting rights than the federal government. (I think I can find
support for this in the US constitution). Mandamus relief is being sought under
Minnesota law, not federal law.
It is likely I will find language in the federal voting rights act, something
to the effect that "each voter is uniquely harmed" by the application of laws
that disenfranchise them. I expect to find that language because the intent of
that legislation was to give any wanna-be voter standing to file a lawsuit to
secure rights for themselves as well as others similarly effected by
legislation that disenfranchises otherwise qualified voters. Moreover, what is
at issue is not disenfranchisement in general, but disenfranchisement in a
special case that assures benefits to a small minority of Minneapolis residents
at the expense of the large majority.
Mann for Mayor (website)
http://mann4mayor.blogspot.com/
Mann for Minneapolis Mayor
http://facebook.com/mann4mayor
-Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, northside of Minneapolis
