Does Minnesota's 1994-95 uniform election day statute (Minn. Stat. § 205.07, as amended) apply to home rule charter cities such as Crystal, requiring biennial four-year council terms instead of the city's three-year terms?

Plain-English summary

The City of Crystal operated under a home rule charter (originally 1960, revised 1993) that provided for annual municipal elections in November, three-year staggered terms for mayor and six council members, and a primary election when more than two candidates filed. Each year except occasionally would see at least one election as council seats came up for three-year cycles.

The 1994 Minnesota Legislature passed Laws 1994 ch. 646 ("the 1994 Act"), amended by Laws 1995 ch. 8 ("the 1995 Act"), making major changes to local election law. The relevant provisions:

• Cities must hold regular municipal elections in November in either odd or even years (not both).
• Council member terms must be four years.
• Mayoral terms must be either two or four years.
• The amendments to § 205.07, subd. 1 take effect January 1, 1998.

The legislation used the unmodified term "city" throughout (without "statutory city" or "home rule charter city" qualifiers), but the technical default in Minn. Stat. § 410.015 says "city" means statutory cities only "[i]n any law adopted after July 1, 1976, ... when used without further description."

David Kennedy of Kennedy & Graven, counsel for the City of Crystal, asked AG Humphrey seven questions about the law's application to Crystal.

Assistant AG Kenneth Raschke, signing for AG Humphrey, gave detailed answers. The headlines:

Q1: Does § 205.07, subd. 1 (as amended) apply to Crystal in 1998? Yes. The 1994 amendment deleted the word "statutory" from the category of cities the subdivision addressed, and the 1995 Act made the section apply to "each city." Minn. Stat. § 200.02, subd. 8 expressly defines "city" for election-law purposes to include both home rule and statutory cities. The § 410.21 charter-control provision (1909) is displaced by the more recent and more specific § 205.02, subd. 2 amendments (most recently 1994), which list specific exceptions for home-rule cities and otherwise subject them to Chapter 205. Under § 645.26 (special-versus-general and last-enacted controlling), § 205.02 wins.

Q2: Are the 1994/95 amendments a "special law" under Minn. Const. art. XII, § 2? No. The constitutional definition of "special law" turns on whether the law "applies" to one or a few local units. The amended § 205.07 applies to "each city" in the state. The fact that some cities will need to change practice and others will not does not make the law special; it applies uniformly.

Q3: Must Crystal take action before January 1, 1998?
Yes, but transition provisions create a dilemma. Sections 26 and 27 of the 1994 Act provide transition schedules. Section 26 covers political subdivisions that chose before January 1, 1995 to hold even-year elections. Section 27 covers those that did not. Crystal had not formally chosen even-year elections, so § 27 governs. Following § 27 will place Crystal on an odd-year schedule by default. But the amended § 205.07 takes effect requiring even-year elections by default. So a city that takes no affirmative action ends up out of compliance with the future general law. The AG suggested cities resolve this by either affirmatively electing even-year elections with a transition plan under section 26 or adopting an odd-year ordinance consistent with section 27, and called the contradiction a possible legislative oversight best resolved by corrective legislation.

Q4: Does the 1995 Act's new § 205.84, subd. 3 (ward transition) apply to Crystal? Yes, qualified. Subdivision 3 lets the governing body of "a city" electing more than one council member in each ward adopt a transition schedule to biennial elections where only one council member per ward is elected at each general election. Although §§ 205.84, subds. 1 and 2 apply only to statutory cities, the new subd. 3 uses "a city" without qualification and refers to a different concept (ward-based staggering), so the AG read it as reaching charter cities. The interpretive question was made harder by Crystal's structure (each ward elects one member; each section elects another), but the AG read the ward-staggering provision broadly.

Q5: Does § 205.07, subd. 3 (referendum on changing election dates) apply to Crystal? No. Section 205.02, subd. 2 expressly excludes § 205.07, subd. 3 from application to a city whose charter provides for the manner of holding elections. Crystal's charter does so.

Q6: If § 205.07, subd. 3 does not apply, can Crystal still subject an election-date-change ordinance to charter referendum? Depends on the charter. AG opinions do not generally interpret local charters. Gould v. City of Bloomington (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) confirms that local charter referenda on city ordinances are generally permissible if the charter so provides.

Q7: Does the pre-amendment § 205.07 apply to Crystal in the interim? No. By its own terms, the pre-1998 version of § 205.07, subd. 1 applies only to statutory cities. § 205.02, subd. 2's general subjection of charter cities to Chapter 205 does not by itself extend each Chapter 205 provision to charter cities; individual sections retain their own scope limits (cf. §§ 205.075 (towns only), 205.84, subds. 1 and 2 (statutory cities only)).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical context: what the AG concluded

The opinion is a comprehensive analysis of how a major change in state election law interacts with home-rule charter authority.

The statutory background. The opinion distinguishes statutory cities from home-rule charter cities. Minn. Stat. § 410.21 provides that charter provisions "shall be valid and shall control as to nominations, primary elections, and elections for municipal offices, notwithstanding that such charter provisions may be inconsistent with any general law."

That 1909 baseline gave charter cities expansive electoral autonomy.

The 1994-95 amendments. The 1994 Act and the 1995 Act made several coordinated changes:

• Section 205.07, subd. 1 was changed from applying to "statutory city" to applying to "each city."
• Council member terms became uniformly four years; mayoral terms became either two or four years.
• Cities had to elect either odd-year or even-year general elections, not both.
• Section 205.02, subd. 2 was amended to subject all statutory and home-rule charter cities to Chapter 205, with specific exemptions.

The § 410.21 versus § 205.02 conflict. Section 410.21 says charter provisions control over inconsistent general law. Section 205.02, subd. 2 says elections in all statutory and home-rule charter cities are governed by Chapter 205 (with specific exceptions). The two cannot both be applied as written when a charter provision conflicts with Chapter 205.

The AG worked through § 645.26's conflict resolution rules:

• Neither is more general or more special than the other (both address how general election laws apply to charter cities).
• The most recently enacted controls (subdivision 4 of § 645.26).
• Section 410.21 dates to 1909 and has not been amended.
• Section 205.02, subd. 2 was first enacted in 1983 and most recently amended in 1994.

The 1994 amendment is more recent, and § 205.02, subd. 2 controls. The legislature plainly intended to extend uniform election day requirements to charter cities.

The textual signal. The 1994 Act struck the word "statutory" from the category of cities to which § 205.07, subd. 1 applies. There is "no other plausible explanation" for that change than the legislature intending the provision to reach home-rule cities as well.

The special-law question. Minn. Const. art. XII, § 2 defines a "special law" as one that "applies" to a single local unit or to a group in one county. A law applies to all cities (or to a single named one); the fact that some cities need to change practice to comply does not make it a special law. The amended § 205.07 applies to every city in Minnesota.

The transition dilemma. Sections 26 and 27 of the 1994 Act provide transition schedules to phase cities into even-year or odd-year elections by 1998. Section 26 applies to political subdivisions that chose before January 1, 1995 to hold even-year elections; § 27 applies to all others. Crystal had not formally chosen even-year elections, so § 27 would apply by default. But § 27's transition leaves Crystal on odd-year elections, while the amended § 205.07 requires even-year elections by default. A city that takes no action would be out of compliance in 1998.

The AG identified the dilemma and noted that cities could resolve it by acting affirmatively: either plan a transition to even-year elections under section 26, or declare odd-year elections under section 27. The AG said the problem may reflect a legislative oversight and suggested corrective legislation.

The mayor-term transition gap. A footnote noted a related issue: the 1995 Act allowed mayors to have two-year terms, but the transition schedules were premised on four-year terms. A mayor's transitional term could end up being five years depending on the council's lot-drawing. Another legislative-oversight matter the AG flagged.

The ward-staggering provision (§ 205.84, subd. 3). The 1995 Act added a new subdivision allowing cities with multiple council members per ward to adopt orderly transition schedules. The AG read this broadly to reach home-rule cities despite the surrounding subdivisions limiting themselves to statutory cities. The reasoning: the new subdivision uses "a city" without qualification; the purpose (orderly transition to biennial elections with one member per ward elected) would be most useful in charter cities where complex ward structures are common; legislative intent suggests broader reach.

The chapter-205 scope point. The AG made an interpretive point in Q7: § 205.02, subd. 2 generally subjects charter cities to chapter 205, but individual provisions retain their own scope. Minn. Stat. § 205.075 covers only towns; § 205.84, subds. 1 and 2 cover only statutory cities. The pre-1998 § 205.07, subd. 1 covered only statutory cities. The 1994 amendment changes that scope going forward.

Common questions

Q: I'm a home-rule charter city clerk. Did my city need to hold even-year or odd-year elections starting in 1998? A: Under the 1994-95 amendments as construed in this opinion, a city had to hold regular elections in either even or odd years, with even years as the statutory default. The AG warned that Crystal's transition schedule could conflict with that default if the city made no affirmative choice. The opinion described ordinances for choosing an odd-year schedule or planning an even-year transition.

Q: Does our 1960s home-rule charter still control over the uniform election day requirements? A: Under the 1995 opinion, no. Minn. Stat. § 205.02, subd. 2 (most recently amended 1994) subjects home-rule charter cities to Chapter 205 with specific exceptions; the 1909 § 410.21 charter-control provision is displaced by the more recent statute under § 645.26's last-enacted rule. Confirm current statute language.

Q: Can we still hold elections in years when no term expires? A: Under the amended § 205.07, no. The amendments require biennial elections (every other year) in November in either odd or even years. Cities with annual elections (like Crystal's pre-1998 practice) had to consolidate to biennial.

Q: Our charter provides for three-year terms. Are those still valid? A: Under the amended § 205.07, council member terms must be four years; mayoral terms are either two or four years. Three-year terms became inconsistent with state law starting in 1998. Your charter provisions to that effect were displaced by the state amendments.

Q: Can we hold a referendum on changing our election date? A: Under the 1995 opinion, the statutory referendum mechanism in § 205.07, subd. 3 does not apply to a city whose charter provides for the manner of holding elections (§ 205.02, subd. 2 expressly excepts subd. 3 for such cities). However, a charter-based referendum may still be available if your charter provides for it. The AG declined to interpret specific charter provisions.

Q: Is the uniform election day law a "special law" requiring legislative naming of affected cities? A: No. Under Minn. Const. art. XII, § 2, a special law applies to a single named city or county. The uniform election day law applies to all cities. The fact that some had to change practice and others did not does not make it a special law.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion contrasts statutory cities with home-rule charter cities. Minn. Stat. § 410.21 gave charter provisions control over inconsistent general law concerning municipal nominations and elections, while later amendments to § 205.02, subd. 2 listed particular exceptions for charter cities.

Before the amendments took effect, § 205.07, subd. 1 applied by its terms only to statutory cities. The AG concluded that the amended version would apply to home-rule charter cities as well.

The 1994 Act was a substantial uniform-local-elections initiative, replacing a patchwork of rules with a single biennial-elections framework. The 1995 Act made technical corrections and added transition provisions. The combined amendments took effect January 1, 1998, giving cities three years to prepare.

The AG identified a conflict between the transition schedule and the amended statute's even-year default, along with an unresolved question about transitional mayoral terms. The opinion suggested corrective legislation for the first problem.

Kenneth E. Raschke, Jr. signed the opinion as Assistant Attorney General for AG Hubert H. Humphrey III.

Citations and references

Constitutional provisions:

• Minn. Const. art. XII, § 2 (special laws)

Statutes:

• Minn. Stat. § 200.02, subd. 8 (1994) ("city" definition for election law)
• Minn. Stat. § 205.02 (cities; application of chapter 205)
• Minn. Stat. § 205.02, subd. 2 (election law applicability to all cities; exceptions)
• Minn. Stat. § 205.065, subd. 4-7 (excepted from charter cities)
• Minn. Stat. § 205.07 (date of city elections)
• Minn. Stat. § 205.07, subd. 1 (uniform election day; biennial)
• Minn. Stat. § 205.07, subd. 3 (referendum on election date change)
• Minn. Stat. § 205.075 (towns only)
• Minn. Stat. § 205.10 (special elections)
• Minn. Stat. § 205.121 (voting)
• Minn. Stat. § 205.175 (canvass)
• Minn. Stat. § 205.185, subd. 2 and 3 (canvass and recount)
• Minn. Stat. § 205.17 (ballots and other procedures)
• Minn. Stat. § 205.84, subd. 1, 2 (ward elections in statutory cities)
• Minn. Stat. § 205.84, subd. 3 (1995) (ward transition; "a city")
• Minn. Stat. § 410.015 ("city" defined as statutory cities only in post-1976 law unless extended)
• Minn. Stat. § 410.21 (1909) (charter controls over inconsistent general election law)
• Minn. Stat. § 412.02, subd. 1 (statutory city term structure)
• Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (1994) (statutory construction)
• Minn. Stat. § 645.26 (special versus general; last enacted controls)
• 1994 Minn. Laws ch. 646 (1994 Act; uniform local election procedures)
• 1995 Minn. Laws ch. 8 (1995 Act; clarifying terms of office and election frequency)

Cases:

• Gould v. City of Bloomington, 394 N.W.2d 149 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (charter referenda on city ordinances permissible)

Related AG opinions:

• Op. Atty. Gen. 63b-5 (cross-reference; election-related)
• Op. Atty. Gen. 629-a, May 9, 1975 (AG does not generally interpret local charters)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Opinions/
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Opinions/64f-19951027.pdf

Original opinion text

ELECTIONS: CITIES: Uniform election day statute applies to charter cities transitional provisions discussed. Minn. Stat. §§ 205.02, 205.07, 410.015, 410.21.

64f
(Cr. Ref. 63b-5)
October 27, 1995

David J. Kennedy
Kennedy & Graven
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402

Dear Mr. Kennedy:

In your letter to Attorney General Hubert H. Humphrey III you set forth substantially the following:

FACTS

The City of Crystal operates under a home rule charter originally adopted in 1960 and comprehensively revised in 1993. Chapter 4 of the charter provides for the conduct and holding of municipal elections in the city. Under chapter 4, a general municipal election is held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of the year in which an election is to be held. The staggered terms of elected officials, a mayor and six council members, are three years; thus an election is held each year, except for an occasional year when no term expires. The mayor is elected at large. One council member is elected from each of four wards and one council member is elected for each of two sections (each section composed of two wards). A primary election is also provided for where more than two persons have filed for an elected office.

Laws 1994, c. 646 (the 1994 Act), as amended by Laws 1995, c. 8 (the 1995 Act) relate, by their titles, to "uniform local election procedures," "city elections," "making uniform certain local government procedures" (1994 Act) and "clarifying terms of office and election frequency in certain cities" (1995 Act) (emphasis supplied).

The 1994 Act and the 1995 Act amended Minnesota Statutes, section 205.07, subdivision 1, to provide that (1) cities must conduct regular municipal elections on the November date in either an odd or even numbered year but not both, and (2) the terms of council members must be four years and the term of the mayor either two or four years. The 1994 Act extended the application of Minnesota Statutes, section 205.02, subdivision 2 to Section 205.07, but excepted section 205.07, subdivision 3 relating to referenda on ordinances changing the municipal election date. Also, the 1995 Act added a new subdivision 3 to section 205.84 relating to elections in wards in statutory cities. Except for the indirect application of amended section 205.02, subdivision 2, there is in the Acts no reference to or use of the term "home rule charter city" — only the term "city" is used — nor is there a statement that the Acts apply to home rule charter cities or that there is an intent to modify the terms of office in home rule charter cities.

The 1994 Act, in sections 26 and 27, contains transition provisions to implement a change to odd or even year elections, but the term "city" only is used. The 1994 Act and the 1995 Act amendments to Section 205.07, subdivision 1 are effective January 1, 1998 (see Section 29 of the 1994 Act and Section 5 of the 1995 Act).

You then ask substantially the following questions.

QUESTION ONE

Does Minnesota Statutes, section 205.07, subdivision 1, as amended by the 1994 Act and the 1995 Act, apply to the City of Crystal?

OPINION

While the 1994 and 1995 amendments to section 205.07, subd. 1 are not presently effective, it is our opinion that, when those amendments do take effect, section 205.07, subdivision 1 will apply to both home-rule and statutory cities, including the City of Crystal.

Section205.07, subd. 1 was amended by Act of May 16, 1994, ch. 646, §6. 1994

Minn. Laws 2492. 2494 (the 1994 Act) to read, in part, as follows:

·subdivision 1. DATE CITY ELECTIONS. The municipal generaln election in each st.atutory city shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in every even-numbered year. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary and subject to the provisions of this section, the governing body of a statutory city may, by ordinance passed at a regular meeting held before September June 1 of any year, elect to hold the election on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in each odd-numbered year. A city which was a village 6ft Jarmary -1, -l-9-14 ftfld before thttt date pro·,ided fet= a system of bie,rnial elections tft the ode Humbcrcd yeM shaH eofltiouc te held its elections m that yeM ttftttl changed ifl aecorda.Rce wittt tht9 scctian.

Section 29 of that chapter provides:

Sec. 29 EFFECTIVE DA TE.

Sections 4, 6, and 17 to 20 are effective on January L 1998. Section 2 is effective for school board members elected after January 1, 1995.

Act of March 2, 1995, ch. 8, § 5, 1995 Minn. Laws 46, 50 (the 1995 Act) further amended

section 20�.07, subd. 1 as follows:

Subdivision 1. DATE OF ELECTION. The municipal general election in each city shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in every even-numbered year. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary and subject to the provisions of this section, the governing body of a city may, by ordinance passed at a regu]ar meeting held before June 1 of any year, elect to hold the election on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in each odd-numbered year. A city may hold elections in either the even­ numbered year or the odd-numbered year. but not bQUL. When a city changes its elections from one year to another, and does not provide for the expiration of terms by ordinance, the term of an incumbent expiring J.t a time when no municipal election is held in the months immediately prior to expiration is extended until the date for taking office following the next scheduled municipal election. If the change results in having three council members to be elected at a succeeding election, the two individuals receiving the highest vote shall serve for terms of four years and the individual receiving the third highest number of votes shall serve for a term of two years. To provide an order1y transition to the odd or even year election plan, the governing body of the city may adop t supplementary ordinances regulating initial elections and officers to be chosen at the elections and shortening or lengthening the terms of incumbents and those elected at the initial election so a:s to cot1form ft9 sooH as possible to the Fcgttlar schedule proYiclcd in seetiofl 412.02, sttbdivisiafl 1. The term of office for the mayor may be either two or four years. The term of office of council members is four years. Whenever the time of the municipal election is changed, the city clerk immediately shall notify ;n writing the county auditor and secretary of state of the change of date. Thereafter the municip�.l general election shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in each odd-numbered or even-numbered year until the ordinance is revoked and notification of the change is made.
Pursuant to section 12 of that Act:

Sections 1 to 4, 6, 7, and 9 to 11 are effective the day following final enactment. Section 5 ;s effective January 1, 1998. Section 8 is effective January 1, 1996.

Thus section 205.07, subd. 1, as it is in effect presently, applies by its terms only to statutory cities. I Commencing in 1998, however, the section will apply to .. each city." It

1. Sec discussion under question seven, infra.a

•

October 2 7, 1995
seems clear that the legislature intended to apply the uniform election day requirements of the
section to home-rule as well as statutory cities. Indeed there is no other plausible explanation n for striking the qualifying word "statutory from the category of cities to which the subdivision
is addressed.

We are aware of Minn. Stat. §§ 410.015 and 410.21 (1994) which provide:

410.015 DEFINITIONS RELATING TO CITIES.

The term "statutory city" means any city which has not adopted a home rule charter pursuant to the constitution and laws; the words "home rule charter city" mean any city which has adopted such a charter. In any law adopted after July 1, 1976, the word "city" when used without further description extending the application of the term to home rule charter cities means statutory cities only.

410.21 APPLICATION OF GENERAL ELECTION LAWS.

The provisions of any charter of any such city adopted pursuant to this chapter shall be valid and shall control as to nominations, primary elections, and elections for municipal offices, notwithstanding that such charter provisions may be inconsistent with any general law relating thereto, and such general laws shall apply only in so far as consistent with such charter.

We d o not believe, however, that either or these sections prevent s application of
section 205.07, subd. 1 to the City of Crystal in 1998.

First, Minn. Stat. § 200.02, subd. 8 (1994) defines "city" for pur poses of the

"Minnesota election law" to mean "a home rule charter or statutory city." Thus the term as
used in section 205.07, as amended, has been expressly extended to home rule as well as
statutory cities.

Furthermore, notwithstanding the wording of section 410.21, Minn. Stat. § 205.02 as
amended by section 4 of the 1994 Act provides as follows:

Subd. 2. CITY ELECTTONS. In all statutory and home rule charter cities, the primary, general and special elections held for choosing city officials and deciding public questions relating to the city shall be held as provided in this
aoo chapter, except that sectioft ftftd sections 205 .065, subdivisoin 4 to 7;
205.07.a. te subdivision 1;. 205.10: 205.121; and 205.175 205.185 205.17. subdivisions 2 and� do not apply to a city whose charter provides the manner of holding its primary, general or special elections.

This provision as amended clearly specifies that municipal elections in both home rule and

statutory cities are to be held in accordance with chapter 205, with expressly specified

exceptions. To the extent that this mandate is incompatible with the language of

section 410.21, it is our view that the provision of section 205.02 will control. Minn. Stat.
§o645.26 provides that where general provisions of law conflict with special provisions effecto

should be given to both if possible, and, if not, then the special provisions should normally

prevail. Inasmuch as sections 410.21 and 205.02 both deal with application of genera! law, as

opposed to charter provisions in municipal elections, neither would appear to be more general

or sp�cial than the other. Furthermore, it is not possible to give effect to both. In these

circumstances the result will be controlled by subdivision 4 of section 645.26 which gives

effect to the law most recently enacted. Section 410.21 was apparently adopted in 1909, and

has not been amended. Minn. Stat.§ 410.21 (1994), History.

On the other hand, section 205.02, subd. 2 was first enacted in 1983 and most recently

amended in 1994 as noted above. Consequently, we think it c1ear that the legislature intends

that the uniform election day provisions of Minn. Stat. § 205.07, as amended, be applicable to

alJ home-rule charter cities when d1e amendments take effect.

QUESTION TWO
If the answer to question no. 1 is in the affirmative, is the amendment to section 205.07, subdivision 1 in section 5 of the 1995 Act (mandatory four-year terms for council members, a two- or four-year term for mayor and biennial elections) a special Jaw within the meaning of the Minnesota Constitution, Article XII, section 2, since on its effective date, the amendment will change the city's three-year terms to two- and four-year terms?

OPINION

We answer your question in the negative. Minn. Const. art. XIJ, § 2 provides in part:

Sec. 2. Special laws; local government. Every law which upon its effective date applies to a single local government unit or to a group of such units in a single county or a number of contiguous counties is a special law and shall name the unit or. in the latter case, the counties to which it applies.

(Emphasis added.) The legislative act in question simply does not meet the above definition. That definition is based upon the government units to which a new law "applies," not merely

upon those which will need to modify past practice in order to comply. On the effective date of the 1994 and 1995 Acts, the amended version of section 205 .07, subd. 1 will apply to "each city" in the state. The fact that some, or even most, cities' terms of office and election schedule may already conform to the provisions of section 205.07, in no way exempts them

from the acts' "application. "

Consequently, we conclude that the acts in question are clearly not special laws within

the meaning of article 12 of the constitution.

QUESTION THREE
If the answer to question no. l is in the affirmative, are the Acts effective to require the City of Crystal to take any action prior to January 1, 1998 OPINION
We answer your question in the affirmative, but we observe that conformity to the

pertinent laws as written leads to at least one dilemma for which we can offer no satisfactory

solution absent action by the city or legislature.

Sections 26 and 27 of the 1994 Act provide detailed transition schedules which are

apparently designed to phase cities into either an even or odd year election rotation by 1998

when the amendments to section 205. 07 take effect. Section 26 applies by its terms to

"political subdivisions that chose before January 1. 1995 to conduct elections in even years."

Section 27 applies to all political subdivisions that did not choose before January 1, 1995, ro

hold even-year elections.

From the facts supplied it does not appear that the City of Crystal has formally chosen to

hold its elections in even-numbered years.2 Thus, the city would be required to follow the

2.o You have indicated that while elections t1sually occur annually there may be occasionalo years in which no election is held because no term expires.o

transition scheduled set out in section 27, subd. 2, �, officials elected in 1996 will serve

until either 2000 or 2002 and those elected in 1997 will serve until 2002, etc.
lbe pC;!entiaJ Jilemma we perceive is that these transitional provisions will place Crystal,

for example, on a schedule calling for odd-year elections, in default of an affirmative act by

the city to establish even-year elections. However, the amended version of Minn. Stat.

§e205 .07, which will take effect in January 1998, requires the City to conduct-even-yeare

eJections, in default of an affirmative choice by ordinance to conduct them in odd-numbered

years. Thus it would appear chat a city which makes no affirmative volitional choice

concerning the timing of its elections is required to fol1ow a transition schedule incompatible

with the future general law for which the transition is intended.

Cities themselves might resolve this contradiction by either affirmatively electing to hold

even-numbered yea'.- elections and providing by a resolution or ordinance for an "orderly plan"

of transition as permitted by section 26, subdivision I of the 1994 Act, or by adopting an

ordinance, expressly providing for odd-year elections consistent with the transition called for

by section 27. If cities such as Crystal do not take such actions on their own volition,

however, it would appear that they will in 1998 be out of compliance with section 205.07

which will require elections in years when no term will be due to expire in the following

January.

It appears that this difficulty may have resulted from an oversight by the legislature. To

the extent that is the case it would best be resolved by corrective legislative action. 3

3.e A second possible difficulty arises from the fact that neither transitional schedulee provided in the 1 �94 Act, nor any modification thereto in the 1995 Act, appears toe specifically address the transitional timing of mayoral terms in a city which chooses toe provide for a two year term for its mayor as permitted by section 5 of the 1995 law. Ite is not clear whether or not that omission is intentiona1. Hov,ever, it does appear that thee transitional schedules were premised upon four year terms. Depending upon the draw ofe lots by the council, it is possible that a mayor•s transitional term could be five years.e

QUESTION FOUR

Does Laws 1995, ch. 8, § 6 (a d d i n g a new su bdivisi on 3 to section 205.84) apply to the City of Crystal?

OPJ.NION

While the matter is not entire1-y free from doubt, we are inclined to the view that the new

subdivision may be applied in the City of Crystal. That subdivision provide�:

Subd. 3. TRANSmON SCHEDULE. The governing budy of a city electing more than one council member in each ward may adopt an orderly transition schedule to biennial November elections in which only one council member in each ward is elected in any municipal general election.

As noted above, the unmodified term "city" as used in the election laws refers to both home-.

rule and statutory cities. The matter is somewhat complicated here by the fact that

subdivision 1 of section 205.84, by its terms, applies only to statutory cities which elect

council members by ward. Subdivision 2 which refers to "the city" in addressing redefinition

of ward boundaries implies references to �ie statutory cities referred to in the first subdivision.

It might be argued, therefore, th;,.t the entiu, section including the new subdivision 3 should be

deemed to deal only with statutory cities. We decline to adopt that construction, however.

The reference to a "a city" in the new subdivision 3 is not expressly or by necessary

impli cation, confined to the statutory cities addressed in the fir.st two subdivisions.

Furthermore, in seeking to effectuate the intent of the Jegislature we should consider both the

occasion and necessity for the law and the consequences of any given interpretation. Minn.

Stat. § 645.16(1)(6) (1994). Here it appears that the legislature wished to allow cities to

provide for staggering of terms within a given ward so that representation of the ward would

reflect voters' attitudes on a more timely basis than would occur if two or more representatives

with four-year terms were elected at the same time.

We can perceive no reason why the legislature would intend to effectuate that policy only in statutory cities. Indeed it would seem that charter cilies are far more I ikely to have a

governmental scheme that would involve two or more council members running in the same

ward. Thus, if we were to interpret the new subdivision as applicable only to statutory cities,

its apparent purpose would not be carried out in, perhaps, a majority of cases in which it could

prove helpful. Consequently, we conclude that section 6 of the 1995 law may be applied to

charter cities.

It also appears that Crystal's scheme can be viewed as "electing more than one council

member in each ward." While each ward individually elects only one council member, each

ward also participates in electing, and is represented by, a second member. Therefore, in our

opinion, Crystal may employ the transitional provision contained in section. 6 of the 1995 Act.

QUESTION FIVE
Does Minnesota Statutes, section 205.07, subdivision 3 apply to the City of Crystal?

OPINION
We answer your question in the negative. Minn. Stat. § 205.02, subd. 2, as amended by

the 1994 Act, expressty provides that section 205.07. subd. 3 does not apply to a city whose

charter provides for the manner of holding elections. The materia] supplied indicates that the

Crystal charter contains numerous provisions concerning city elections.

QUESTION SIX
If the answer to No. 5 is in the negative, is an ordinance changing the election date in Crysta) subject to referendum under the city charter?

OPINION
The answer to this question depends upon the scope of referendum power granted by the

charter. Since our office does not generally undertake by way of opinions to interpret local

charters4 we are not in a position to determine the scope ('f the pertinent charter provisions.

4. �. u_... Op. Atty. Gen. 629-a. May 9, 1975.

Assuming that the charter is construed to provide for referendum of such an ordinance,

however, a referendum couJd in our view, be held on the issue.
g. Gould v. City of Bloomington, 394 N.W.2d 149 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (upholding a referendum on an

ordinance raising city council salaries).

QUESTION SEVEN

Section 3 of the 1994 Act, amending section 205.02, subdivision 1, was effective August 1, 1994. If the answer to question no. 1 is in the affirmative, does section 205.07 as it existed prior to the 1994 Act apply to the City of Crystal?

OPINION

We answer your question in the negative. Section 205.02, subd. 2, as amended, provides generally that elections in all statutory and home rule charter cities shall be held as provided in chapter 205. The subdivision then provides home-rule cities express exemption from certain sections and subdivisions of the chapter. This does not mean that each provision of the chapter not so exempted is applicable to every statutory and home rule city in all circumstances. Many parts of the chapter are further limited by their own terms. E.g., Minn. Stat. §§ 205.075 (towns only); 205.84, subds. 1 and 2 (statutory cities only). Likewise, section 205.07, subd. 1, as it exists prior to the effective date of the 1994 and 1995 amendments, applies, by its terms, only to statutory cities.

Therefore, while the City of Crystal is not exempted by section 205.02, subd. 2, the lack of such exemption is, at present, irrelevant. Until the 1994 and 1995 amendments take effect, section 205.07, subd. 1 does not purport to impose any requirements upon the City of Crystal.

Very truly yours,

HUBERT H. HUMPHREY III
Attorney General

KENNETH E. RASCHKE, JR.
Assistant Attorney General