Can a New York county extend its legislators' terms from three to four years if it has recently reapportioned its districts, or does that count as a 'restructuring' the county can only do once a decade?

Plain-English summary

Franklin County had reapportioned four legislative districts in 1993 to comply with one-person-one-vote requirements based on the 1990 census. The county attorney asked whether the 1993 reapportionment used up the county's once-per-decade allowance under Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(a)(13)(f), and so blocked a separate local law extending legislator terms from three years to four.

The AG's office said the term-extension local law was not the same kind of action as the 1993 reapportionment. Clause 13 of MHRL § 10(1)(ii)(a) is the special grant that lets non-charter counties redraw legislative districts to comply with one-person-one-vote rules. Subdivision f's "no more than once a decade" cap covers restructuring "in connection with" reapportionment. A standalone local law that just changes the terms of office, without redrawing districts, uses a different grant of authority: the general home-rule power under Article IX, § 2(c)(ii)(1) of the State Constitution and MHRL § 10(1)(ii)(a)(1) to enact local laws about the powers, duties, qualifications, number, mode of selection, and terms of office of local officers.

Clause 13's own language preserves that distinction. It says the powers it grants are "in addition to and not in substitution for any other power." A standalone term-change local law is a separate exercise of home-rule authority, not a restructuring of the legislative body. The change is still subject to a mandatory referendum under MHRL § 23(2)(e), but it can be enacted whenever the county wants.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. 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.

Common questions

Q: What is "reapportionment" under MHRL clause 13?
A: Reapportionment under clause 13 means redrawing legislative districts to meet the one-person-one-vote standard set out in Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Non-charter counties got that authority through clause 13 because they could not otherwise meet the constitutional requirement without a court order.

Q: Why does clause 13 also cover terms of office?
A: Because when a county redraws its districts mid-cycle, it sometimes needs to adjust the terms of office to fit the new district plan (for example, staggering elections). Clause 13 lets a county make those adjustments "only in connection with" the reapportionment. The once-per-decade cap (subdivision f) applies to that bundled restructuring.

Q: Why was the Franklin County term change not "in connection with" reapportionment?
A: The reapportionment happened in 1993. The proposed term-change local law was a separate, standalone act. Nothing in it redrew districts, changed voting power, or rebalanced the legislature's composition. It only changed how long each legislator served.

Q: What referendum requirement applied to the term change?
A: MHRL § 23(2)(e) requires a mandatory referendum for a local law changing the term of an elective officer. So the county had to put the term-extension to voters, but the referendum requirements for clause 13 reapportionments (in § 24(2)(i)) did not apply.

Q: Does this opinion give counties unlimited freedom to change legislator terms?
A: No. The change still required a mandatory referendum. And if the term change had been bundled with district line changes or voting-power adjustments, it would have been a clause 13 restructuring subject to the once-per-decade cap.

Background and statutory framework

Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(a)(1) is the foundational home-rule grant. It authorizes counties (and other local governments) to enact local laws relating to "the powers, duties, qualifications, number, mode of selection and removal, terms of office, compensation, hours of work, protection, welfare and safety" of their officers and employees. That clause is the general source of authority for the term-extension local law.

Clause 13 is the special reapportionment grant. It was added to address a problem that emerged after Baker v Carr: non-charter counties had no other statutory authority to reapportion their legislative bodies, so they could only do so by court order. Clause 13 lets them act by local law. Subdivision f caps the use of that authority at once per decade to prevent gerrymandering by repeated mid-decade redistricting. The "in connection with" limit ties the bundled restructuring (composition, terms, voting power) to the underlying reapportionment, so the cap reaches the bundle.

The standalone-versus-bundled distinction is the heart of the opinion. The clause 13 cap reaches restructuring that is part of, or coupled with, a reapportionment. A pure term-change local law is its own act under clause 1, and the "in addition to and not in substitution for" language in clause 13 explicitly preserves the use of other home-rule grants like clause 1.

Citations and references

Constitution and statutes:

• N.Y. Const. Art. IX, § 2 (home rule)
• N.Y. Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 (general home-rule powers; clause 13 reapportionment)
• N.Y. Municipal Home Rule Law § 23 (mandatory referendum requirements)
• N.Y. Municipal Home Rule Law § 24 (mandatory referendum for clause 13 reapportionments)

Cases:

• Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (one-person-one-vote constitutional requirement)

Prior AG opinions:

• 1981 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 255 (background on non-charter county reapportionment)

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_97-16_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

NY CONST ART IX, § 2(c)(ii)(1); MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW
§§ 10(1)(ii)(a)(1) and (13), 23(2)(e), 24(2)(i).
The enactment of a local law by a county to modify the terms of
its legislators is not a restructuring of the legislative body
within the meaning of Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(a)(13)(f),
in the instance where such action is taken separate and apart from
apportionment of the legislative body, and not in connection
thereto.
March 11, 1997
Harold L. Twiss, Jr., Esq.
County Attorney
County of Franklin
Courthouse
Malone, NY 12953

Informal Opinion
No. 97-16

Dear Mr. Twiss:
You have informed us that prior to 1993, Franklin County was
governed by a board of legislators consisting of seven members
elected every three years from seven districts. By local law in
1993, the board changed the borders of four districts within the
Town of Malone in order to comply with one person one vote
requirements based upon the 1990 Federal census. You have asked
whether the modification of district boundaries constituted a
restructuring under Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(a)(13)(f)
which would prohibit the county from enacting legislation to
change the terms of legislators from three to four years.
Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(a)(13) authorizes local
governments to reapportion their legislative bodies in order to
comply with one person one vote standards. The addition of this
clause was motivated by the absence of statutory authority for
non-charter counties to comply with one person one vote standards
enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Baker v Carr,
369 US 186 (1962); 1981 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 255. Charter counties
have authority by charter law to reapportion their legislative
bodies but non-charter counties could only reapportion by court
order. Id.
Your county utilized clause 13 to modify the boundaries of
four districts to comply with constitutional requirements.
Clause 13 authorizes local governments to enact and amend local
laws apportioning their legislative bodies and,

2
only in connection with such action taken
pursuant to this subparagraph, [relating to]
the composition and membership of such body,
the terms of office of members thereof, the
units of local government or other areas from
which representatives are to be chosen and
the voting powers of individual members of
such legislative body. . . . The power
granted by this subparagraph shall be in
addition to and not in substitution for any
other power and the provisions of this
subparagraph shall apply only to local
governments which adopt a plan of
apportionment thereunder.
Your concern is subdivision f of clause 13, which provides
that, notwithstanding any law to the contrary, "no local
government may restructure its legislative body . . . more than
once in each decade . . .".
Clause 13, by its provisions, limits a local government's
ability to restructure its local legislative body to once in a
decade only with respect to an adjustment of voting power,
restructuring of the governing body and the modification of terms
of office "in connection" with reapportionment. The same clause
also provides that the power granted is in addition to and not in
substitution for any other power.
Under New York Constitution Article IX, § 2(c)(ii)(1) and
Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(a)(1), local governments,
including counties, may adopt and amend local laws relating to
the powers, duties, qualifications, number, mode of selection and
removal, terms of office and other conditions of employment of
their officers and employees. This separate grant of authority
permitting all local governments, including counties, to enact
local laws modifying the terms of officers and employees is
preserved by the "in addition to and not in substitution for"
language of clause 13.
We note that the referendum requirements for a
reapportionment, which includes a change in terms of office of
legislators, are different from referendum requirements
applicable to a change in terms under Municipal Home Rule Law
§ 10(1)(ii)(a)(1). Compare Municipal Home Rule Law § 23(2)(e)
with § 24(2)(i). Thus, the "only in connection . . ." proviso
and the preservation of other sources of "power" language are not
in conflict.

3
In our opinion, action by the county under Municipal Home
Rule Law § 10(1)(ii)(a)(1) and New York Constitution, Article IX,
§ 2(c)(ii)(1) to change the terms of legislators is not a
restructuring of the legislative body within the meaning of
subdivision f of clause 13. It is action by the county pursuant
to general home rule authority, which has been preserved by
clause 13. It seems clear that "restructuring", as used in
subdivision f, is a reference to the reapportionment of the
legislative body to meet one person one vote requirements.
Therefore, the county may enact a local law to increase the terms
of its legislators from three to four years. That local law is
subject to a mandatory referendum under section 23(2)(e) of the
Municipal Home Rule Law.
We conclude that the enactment of a local law by a county to
modify the terms of its legislators, where such action is taken
separate and apart from apportionment of its legislative body,
and not in connection thereto, is not a restructuring of the
legislative body within the meaning of Municipal Home Rule Law
§ 10(1)(ii)(a)(13)(f).
The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to
officers and departments of State government. This perforce is
an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this
office.
Very truly yours,

JAMES D. COLE
Assistant Attorney General
in Charge of Opinions