Ready Lawsuit Challenging Extension of Term Limits; Mayor Signs Disputed Bill

As this newspaper went to press Nov. 3, Mayor Bloomberg signed into law an amendment to the Term Limits Law permitting him to seek a third term, and a coalition of elected officials — two of whom are seeking to succeed him — prepared to challenge the change in court.

MAYOR BLOOMBERG: He signs, they sue.

The two would-be mayoral candidates, City Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr. and U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, were joined by Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum and three City Council Members who voted against the amendment in announcing the planned lawsuit Oct. 29 on the steps of City Hall.

Cites 'Constitutional Issues'

Their lead attorney, former Giuliani administration Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro, said there were "fundamental, constitutional issues at stake" because Mr. Bloomberg and the Council had legislatively altered a law passed 15 years ago and then reaffirmed in 1996 by voter referendums.

"There's a blatant conflict of interest here in the way that the Council acted and the way that the Mayor acted," Mr. Mastro told reporters. "This is changing our electoral system entirely when the voters spoke and said, 'We want a two-term limit.' What could be a more-blatant use of your office to gain a personal advantage?"

The Chief-Leader/Pat Arnow UNDOING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE: Attorney Randy Mastro accuses Mayor Bloomberg and a majority of the City Council of a 'blatant conflict of interest' in amending the Term Limits Law so that they can seek third terms without using the same type of voter referendum that created the original law. Looking on are, from left, City Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr. and City Councilman Bill de Blasio.

City lawyers have cited two previous court rulings that they believe make it likely that the new law will withstand legal challenges.

One permitted then-Council Speaker Gifford Miller and five other Council Members who, because they were elected to a shortened second term prompted by the redrawing of Council boundaries consistent with the 2000 Census, would have otherwise been forced from their jobs after as little as six years in office, to seek a third term. In Mr. Miller's case, because he first joined the Council as the result of a special election at the beginning of 1996, that allowed him to serve nearly 10 years in office.

Buffalo Ruling's Precedent

The second was a 1961 state Court of Appeals ruling that allowed the Buffalo Legislature to amend a law that had been approved in a voter referendum.

Mr. Mastro said there have been enough legal changes in the nearly 50 years since that case that he believed it would not loom as an unshakable precedent. In the case of Mr. Miller, he said, the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court majority opinion stated that it was permitting "just a tweak in the law" to prevent an injustice to Mr. Miller and his five colleagues who would otherwise have been permitted less time in office than other Council Members were given under the eight-year limit that took effect after 1993.

Asked about Mr. Mastro's comments, mayoral spokesman Jason Post replied, "We're confident that the measure that was passed in the Council Chamber will be upheld in the courtroom."

Prior to the 29-22 vote in favor of the bill at the Council Oct. 23, the Conflicts of Interest Board had ruled that the Council could act without engaging in a violation of the city's Ethics Law. Mr. Mastro suggested that the board itself suffered from a conflict in making that ruling, noting that its members were "appointed by the Mayor on the advice and consent of the City Council."

'People's Voice Ignored'

The elected officials who took part in the press conference restated many of the arguments they had made prior to the vote.

"The people's voice was wantonly ignored by the Mayor and the Speaker of the City Council," said Brooklyn Councilman Bill de Blasio, referring to Christine Quinn.

Council Member Letitia James added, "Democracy should not be tampered with or eroded for any one official, regardless of their popularity." She was alluding to Mr. Bloomberg and a Quinnipiac Poll released two days prior to the vote that showed he had a 75-percent approval rating among those surveyed. The poll also indicated, however, that 89 percent of New Yorkers believed that a change in the Term Limits Law should be done only by referendum.

Mr. Bloomberg and his supporters have pointed out that under the law such a change can also be effected either through a City Council vote or legislation in Albany.

'Democracy Undermined'

Comptroller Thompson said that in pushing the bill through, "democracy was undermined and suspended in New York City."

Congressman Weiner scolded the Council majority, saying that body "is supposed to be the check on the Mayor when he makes aggressive grabs for power."

Brooklyn Council Member Charles Barron said Mr. Bloomberg had tried to head off the legal challenge by reaching out to dissenting Council Members in an appeal for unity, but claimed he had responded, "I will see you on the battlefield."

He said he advised the Mayor, "Don't sign your bill. You have a chance to redeem yourself and respect the people's process."

Mr. Barron scoffed at Mr. Bloomberg's claim that he had shunned a referendum because he feared it would encounter a legal challenge, saying, "Nobody would have taken him to court if he had done it right."

Too Late to Be Viable?

Mr. Bloomberg's Counsel, Anthony Crowell, and Corporation Counsel Michael A. Cardozo had both told a Council hearing a week prior to the vote that they believed the process of getting a referendum onto the ballot and having it approved in time for an orderly 2009 election made it an unworkable option.

Mr. Mastro said the plaintiffs in the case would seek an expedited ruling to avert such problems. And Mr. Weiner interjected that Mr. Bloomberg himself, who had considered seeking a third term at least since the spring but did not publicly declare his intent to do so until last month, bore the responsibility for "any complications related to the timing" of the lawsuit and the referendum it could produce if successful.

Another attorney involved, Norman Siegel, said the group would probably seek to have a couple of ordinary citizens who had voted in the 1993 and 1996 referendums serve as the lead plaintiffs in the case.