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 § 26-style transition ordinance) or adopting an odd-year ordinance consistent with § 27, and called the contradiction a "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. Election law in Minnesota has been heavily revised since 1995, and the 1994-95 amendments themselves were modified in the years following the 1998 effective date. The transition issues identified by the AG were likely addressed by subsequent legislative action. Charter cities and their attorneys should consult current statute and any subsequent AG opinions before relying on the specific procedural framework 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. Minnesota cities are organized in two basic forms: statutory cities (Minn. Stat. ch. 412) and home-rule charter cities (Minn. Stat. ch. 410). Statutory cities follow the standard statutory framework. Charter cities adopt and amend their own charters under Chapter 410, which gives charters broad self-governance authority. Minn. Stat. § 410.21 (adopted 1909) 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," and the prior provision protecting pre-1974 villages was struck.
- 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 declare even-year elections with a § 26-style transition, or declare odd-year elections under § 27. The AG flagged the issue as a likely legislative oversight better fixed by amendment than by interpretation.

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 important interpretive point in Q7: just because § 205.02, subd. 2 generally subjects charter cities to Chapter 205 does not mean every section in Chapter 205 applies to every city. Individual sections retain their own scope. Section 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, your city had to hold either even-year or odd-year (not both), and the default in the absence of a council ordinance was even-year. Your city should have affirmatively chosen by ordinance to avoid the transition dilemma. If your city had not acted, the AG's read suggested non-compliance starting in 1998. Most charter cities adopted ordinances during the 1995-1997 window to resolve this.

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

Minnesota cities are governed by either Chapter 412 (statutory cities) or Chapter 410 (home-rule charter cities). Charter cities derived their broad self-governance authority from Minn. Const. art. XII, § 4 and from Chapter 410's framework for charter adoption and amendment. Minn. Stat. § 410.21 (1909) gave charter provisions control over inconsistent general law in the area of municipal elections.

The pre-1994 election law had different rules for different city types. Statutory cities followed the schedule and term rules in Chapter 412 and Chapter 205. Charter cities followed their own charters. School districts, towns, and special-purpose districts had their own provisions.

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 transition was not perfectly worked out, as the AG noted. The default-rule contradictions and the mayor-term gaps were real problems that the legislature later addressed through additional amendments.

Hubert H. Humphrey III was Minnesota AG from 1983 through January 1999. Kenneth E. Raschke, Jr. signed as Assistant AG.

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

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

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.

[The opinion continues with extensive analysis of the 1994 and 1995 Acts, Minn. Stat. §§ 205.02, 205.07, 410.015, 410.21, and the special-law and transition issues. The full text of all seven questions and opinions is reproduced from the PDF at https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Opinions/64f-19951027.pdf.]

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