State ex rel. Schmidt v. City of Wichita
303 Kan. 650
| Kan. | 2016Background
- Wichita voters approved a citizen-initiated ballot summary in April 2015 that purported to amend the municipal code to reclassify certain first-offense possession of ≤32 grams of marijuana (and related paraphernalia) by persons 21+ from a misdemeanor to an infraction with reduced fines and reporting/referral limits.
- The petition filed January 7, 2015, did not include a verbatim copy of the proposed ordinance; signatures and a brief descriptive statement were submitted instead.
- Sedgwick County Elections Office certified the petition had sufficient signatures; the city council voted to submit the issue to the electorate and scheduled the question for the ballot. The ballot used a general descriptive summary rather than the full ordinance text.
- The Attorney General opined the proposed ordinance likely conflicted with state law and questioned compliance with K.S.A. 12-3013; the State filed a quo warranto action in the Kansas Supreme Court seeking to void the ordinance.
- The Kansas Supreme Court retained original quo warranto jurisdiction, held the Initiative failed to comply with K.S.A. 12-3013(a) because the proposed ordinance was not filed with the city clerk along with the petition, and issued a writ declaring the ordinance null and void; the court declined to decide remaining constitutional and statutory issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (City / Initiative) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether K.S.A. 12-3013(a) required filing the full proposed ordinance with the city clerk | Statute expressly requires that "such ordinance and petition shall be filed with the city clerk;" petitioners failed to file the ordinance, so the process was defective | Substantial compliance was sufficient; the petition and public notice (website, media) satisfied statutory objectives | Held for State: literal statutory language and legislative objectives require the proposed ordinance be filed with the clerk; failure to do so voids the initiative |
| Whether quo warranto was an appropriate procedural vehicle and whether the Supreme Court should exercise original jurisdiction | The matter presents issues of significant public concern (potential statewide criminal-law conflict and statutory compliance), justifying original quo warranto relief | City argued quo warranto was improper because district court declaratory relief was adequate and fact development was needed | Court retained original jurisdiction and granted quo warranto relief (though one concurring justice would have remanded) |
| Whether the ordinance conflicted with uniform state law under the Home Rule Amendment | State argued the ordinance impermissibly conflicted with state criminal statutes (preemption) in multiple respects | City contended only some provisions arguably conflicted and others could be severed; also argued other defects were procedural | Not reached: court avoided the constitutional (preemption) question because procedural defect was dispositive |
| Whether the ordinance and ballot process satisfied other statutory/technical requirements (ordaining clause; administrative-exception) | State raised additional grounds (lack of ordaining clause; ordinance possibly administrative and thus ineligible for initiative) | City maintained those issues were not dispositive or could be remedied | Not reached: court resolved case on filing requirement and did not decide these additional issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Elkins v. Moreno, 435 U.S. 647 (U.S. 1978) (courts should avoid unnecessary constitutional decisions)
- McAlister v. City of Fairway, 289 Kan. 391 (Kan. 2009) (statutory initiative and referendum process and requirement to pass or submit petition-proposed ordinance unaltered)
- City of Wichita v. Sealpak Co., 279 Kan. 799 (Kan. 2005) (admissions against interest may be dispositive in determining compliance)
- State v. Leavenworth, 75 Kan. 787 (Kan. 1907) (quo warranto appropriate to restrain municipal usurpation)
- Sabatini v. Jayhawk Constr. Co., 214 Kan. 408 (Kan. 1974) (quo warranto is an appropriate means to attack validity of municipal ordinance)
- Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 1107 (Kan. 2013) (constitutional questions should be avoided where possible; constitutions are the work of the people)
- Wilson v. Sebelius, 276 Kan. 87 (Kan. 2004) (avoidance of unnecessary constitutional rulings; appellate courts need not reach constitutional claims when alternative grounds dispose)
- City of Lawrence v. McArdle, 214 Kan. 862 (Kan. 1974) (upon certification, governing body must pass the petition-proposed ordinance without alteration or call an election)