Judge’s Ruling: Method of Placing Strong Mayor Initiative on Ballot is “Unconstitutional”

Read the Superior Court ruling (PDF)

On Thursday January 21st, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Loren McMaster issued his final decision on the legality of the so-called Strong Mayor Initiative, declaring it “unconstitutional.”

As the decision clearly points out, the measure proposes significant changes to the city charter that would “completely overhaul the structure of city government…”

The court made it clear that a measure that makes such radical changes to a city charter cannot be legally placed on the ballot directly through the initiative process – as the Mayor is attempting to do by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers and paid signature gatherers.

Plaintiff’s attorney Lance Olson said the ruling, “affirms what we have argued all along. The Voters may revise the City Charter, but it must be done lawfully and through an open and inclusive process. The approach taken with the strong-mayor initiative violates the state Constitution and for that reason should be removed from the ballot.”

The judge’s ruling outlines the two options – both with ample public participation - that the California Constitution provides for reforming a city charter:

• The first allow the City Council, after public debate, to place a revision before the voters directly.
• The second allows voters to revise a charter by placing an initial measure on the ballot that first asks if voters want to revise their city charter. If they do, then voters are asked to publicly elect a charter reform commission that holds public hearings, considers revisions based on public input, and places their recommended revised charter on the ballot for voters to approve or disapprove.

SAVE Sacramento has believed all along that there is good reason to proceed deliberatively with fundamental changes in the city charter. The process should be open and democratic, not conducted behind closed doors.

Thankfully, the court has now agreed and ruled that the Mayor’s approach is not only wrong-headed, but in violation of the state constitution.