City of Manchester v. Secretary of State
13 A.3d 262
| N.H. | 2010Background
- Petition to amend Manchester’s charter to cap annual budget increases by CPI; public hearing followed by review under RSA 49-B:5-a; City appealed secretary of state’s non-objection; declaratory judgment action filed; court later added a transferred question on two-thirds override; court held amendment is invalid and preempted; remanded.
- Charter amendment petition was supplemented with signatures triggering review and public hearing; state agencies reviewed for consistency with general laws; no objection issued.
- The City argued a spending cap in charter conflicts with the budget process required by RSA 49-C:23 and the voting rules in RSA 49-C:12, I; Cashin petitioners aligned with preemption/authority claims.
- The case consolidates disputes about whether the spending cap is preempted by state law governing municipal budgeting and whether it improperly curtails the elected body’s budget authority.
- The Court ultimately held that the spending cap is inconsistent with state law and preempted, remanding the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does RSA 49-C:23 preempt the spending cap in the charter? | Cashin/City: cap conflicts with required budget process. | NHTAC/state agencies: cap is structural, fits within charter budgeting. | Yes; cap preempted by RSA 49-C:12 I and 49-C:23. |
| Does the cap impair the mayor-board budget authority under RSA 49-C:12 I? | Cap overrides majority budget vote; improperly restricts ordinary business. | Cap allows override by two-thirds; not a total impairment. | Yes; cap conflicts with simple majority requirement of 49-C:12 I. |
| Does the charter amendment unlawfully exceed permissible charter processes under RSA 49-B/49-C? | Amendment exceeds statutory framework for charter changes. | Amendment falls within permissible charter mechanisms. | Not necessary to reach beyond preemption; resolved on preemption issue. |
| Did the two-thirds override provision conflict with RSA 49-C:12, I? | Two-thirds override undermines majority voting rules. | Override provision exists only to override cap; not prohibited. | Affirmed conflict; would bar simple majority budgeting. |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Hooksett v. Baines, 148 N.H. 625 (2002) (preemption analysis; municipal authority vs. state law)
- City of Manchester Sch. Dist. v. City of Manchester, 150 N.H. 664 (2004) (home rule framework; charter forms and budgeting mandates)
- Coco v. Jaskunas, 159 N.H. 515 (2009) (statutory interpretation in light of overall scheme)
- City of Claremont v. Craigue, 135 N.H. 528 (1992) (explicit budgeting process implications under charter)