Disclosure: A Director of The Yonkers Ledger is a petitioner on this complaint.
The Second Judicial Department in the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court unanimously rejected the complaint by 12 Yonkers voters that the extension of term limits by the mayor and city council last year required a public referendum.
In 1993 and 2001, Yonkers voted to enact and then uphold term limits for its mayor and city council. These officers were restricted to two four-year terms. However, in 2018 and then again in 2022, the city council–supported by Mayor Mike Spano–amended the city’s charter to extend term limits for themselves.
Yonkers voters go to court
After the second term limit extension in November 2022, 12 Yonkers voters sued the city arguing that state law requires a public referendum for this type of change in government. Represented by famed civil rights attorney Michael Sussman, Westchester County Court Judge George E. Fufidio, Jr. ultimately ruled against these petitioners on April 21, 2023.
However, an appeal was swiftly filed to the Second Judicial Department. The appeal argues that Judge Fufidio and the City of Yonkers rely almost solely on the Molinaro v. Bloomberg case as justification for a term limit extension without referendum. However, Sussman notes that this ruling is unique to that case. In NYC, it only served to address a the financial crisis of 2008, was subsequently reverted, and also involved the participation from an ethics board and a charter revision commission. In Yonkers, no such circumstances existed or precautions taken.
A neighboring case
Heading into appeal, supporters of a term limits referendum saw hope in a recent ruling from this same court. Clarkstown, 18 miles away in Rockland County, implemented term limits for its officers via the town board without a referendum. However, the current Town Supervisor, George Hoehmann, wished to run again despite having already served his maximum term. He argued in court that since term limits were enacted without a voter referendum, they were illegally adopted. After losing his initial case, the Second Judicial Department in the appellate court sided with Hoehmann. He is now a candidate for a third term as Town Supervisor.
The distinction between Clarkstown and Yonkers is that while both seek a referendum on term limits, they are opposite histories and results. The voters of Yonkers twice implemented term limits and were twice overridden by their government. Another vote to retain term limits in Yonkers would prevent its current executive for seeking another term.
The people of Clarkstown never voted on term limits. They were government-imposed and therefore the appellate court ruled that this was in violation of the Municipal Home Rule Law as it “curtailed” the candidacy of officers. Furthermore, there was a supermajority requirement in Clarkstown that was not adhered to–where no such requirement exists in Yonkers.
The appeal hearing
On Friday June 23rd, a group of petitioners and supporters traveled by bus to Brooklyn to watch the hearing. The roughly 20 minute proceeding did not sway the court’s opinion that the Yonkers and Clarkstown matters were distinct enough to not merit the same referendum requirement. With a unanimous decision delivered, there is no further legal action planned by these 12 Yonkers voters.
A referendum, however, may still be a potentiality. Council member and mayoral contender Anthony Merante has spearheaded a petition campaign to get term limits on the ballot in November. New York state law requires roughly 5,000 signatures to begin the process. From our reporting, the group has well over 4,000 so far. But, the clock is ticking towards a deadline in mid-July.
Primary elections are this Tuesday, June 27th. Both candidates seeking an unprecedented fourth term, Mayor Mike Spano and fifth district City Council member Mike Breen, will both be facing challengers on the ballot.
