VII.F. Move to Amend

BRIAN C. McGRAW
Attorney at Law
106 North Wisconsin Avenue
P.O. Box 619
Muscoda, Wisconsin 53573-0619
608 -7 39 - 423 4 I 3 48- 423 6
Fax 739-4355
MEMO
TO:
City of Platteville Common Council
Eileen Nickels
Attn:
FROM: Brian C. McGraw
CityAttomey
RE:
Move to Amend Petition for Direct Legislation
DATE:
November 4,2015
A Petition ("the Petition") under Wis. Stat. Section 9.20 was filed with the City Clerk on
October 28,2015. The Petition seeks the passage of a resolution which states:
Whereas the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission and
related case law allows unlimited political campaign spending to influence local, state, and federal
elections; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that "We the People" of the City of Platteville, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy
from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the comrpting influence of unregulated
political contributions and spending. We stand with the Move to Amend campaign and communities
across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating:
1. Onlyhuman beings - not corporations, unions, non-profits or similar associations - are endowed
with constitutional rights, and
2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not
equivalent to limiting political speech.
Be it Further Resolved, that the City of Platteville Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this
resolution to our state and federal representatives with instructions to enact resolutions and
legislation to advance this effort.
Pursuant to Section 9.20
if the City Clerk
proper form and so certifies, the Clerk
days from the date the Petition is
determines the Petition to be suffrcient and in
" ... shall forward it to the Common Council..." within
filed. Wis.
15
Stat. Section 9.20 (3).
Once certified and forwarded by the Clerk, the Common Council
". .. shall, without alteration, eitherpass the ordinance or resolution within 30 days following
the date of the Clerk's final certificate, or submit it to the electors at the next spring or
general election, ifthe election is more than ó weeks after the date of the Council's . .. action
on the petition or the expiration of the 30-day period, whichever first occurs. If there are 6
weeks or less before the election, the ordinance or resolution shall be voted on at the next
election thereafter. The Council or Board by a three-fourths vote ofthe members-elect may
order a special election for the purpose of voting on the ordinance or resolution at any time
prior to the next election, but not more than one special election for direct legislation maybe
ordered in any 6-month period." Wis. Stat. Section 9.20 (3).
The Clerk determined the Petition to be suffrcient and in proper form. Once forwarded to the
Common Council, the 30-day period referenced above will begin to run. During the 30-day period
followingthe Clerk's certification, the Common Council needs to determine whethertheresolution
proposed complies with the requirements of Wis. Stat. Section 9.20 and certain judicially imposed
limitations on the use of petitions for direct legislation. The judicially imposed limitations are set
forth in State ex rel. Althouse v. Cit-v of Madison, 255 N.V/. 2d 449 (Wis. 1977) as follows:
1. Whether the ordinance or resolution is legislative in nature;
2. Whether the ordinance or resolution
proposes new legislation and does not repeal existing
legislation;
3. Whether the ordinance or resolution exceeds the legislative powers conferred upon the goveming
body; and
4.
Whether the ordinance or resolution modifies statutorily prescribed procedures or standards.
The issue of whether the Petition is "sufficient" concerns whether the requisite number
eligible electors signed the Petition. The issue ofwhether the Petition is in
a
of
proper form concems
the form of the question. The question must be posed in a manner such that a negative vote is
interpreted to disapprove of the proposition or an affinnative vote is interpreted to approve the
proposition, and use the proper GAB (Govemment Accountability Board) form. The Petition
satisfies these two requirements. It has been signed by more than the required number of electors
and the question is posed properly using the proper form.
The next issue for the Common Council to address is whether the Petition violates any ofthe
four judicially imposed limitations on the use of direct legislation.
With respect to limitation #1, a resolution is legislative if it relates to subjects of apermanent
and general character or
if it
prescribes a new policy or plan. Heider v. City of Milwaukee, 305
N.W. 2d 178, 181 (Ct. App. 1981). The Petition satisfies this requirement
as
it proposes a new
policy or plan.
With respect to limitation#2, the Petition proposes new legislation and does not repeal an
existing ordinance or resolution.
With respect to limitation #3, this is perhaps
a
more difficult issue to address given that the
process for amending the U.S. Constitution is wholly outside of any matter which the Council could
effect. Yet, the Council can and does occasionallytake positions on issues of public importance and
communicates those positions to the legislature or other decision makers to make thern aware ofthat
position. Given this fact, the Petition arguably does not exceed the legislative powers conferred
upon the Common Council and satisfies this tirird limitation.
With respect to limitation #4, the Petition does not
seek to modify statutorily prescribed
procedures or standards.
My opinion is the Common Council must either
pass the proposed resolution without
alteration within 30 days following the Clerk's certification or subrnit the resolution to the electors at
the next spring or general election.
Respectfu
lly Submitted,
4"r,""høa¿furrd
Brian C. McGraw
BCM/pls
1270Perry Drive
Platteville, WI53818
October 28,2015
Platteville Common Council
75 North Bonson Street
Platteville, WI53818
RE: PETITION X.OR DIRECT LEGISLATION
Dear Common Council Members:
On behalf of Platteville Move to Amend, please find enclosed a petition for direct
legislation bearing the signatures of 835 individuals, a number of electors equal to at least
l5% of the votes cast for govemor at the last general election in Platteville. Although the
Board could itseHpass the proposed resolution, pursuant to Wisconsin Statute $ 9.20(4),
we request that it refer the attached proposed resolution, without alteration, to a vote of
the Electors on the April 5,2076 ballot in Platteville. V/e believe that the voters of
Platteville should have the opportunity to directly and democratically express themselves
on this matter.
This resolution calls for a Constitutional Amendment declaring that:
1) Only human beings - not corporations, unions, nonprofit organizations, or similar
associations - are endowed with constitutional rights; and
2) Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is
not equivalent to limiting political speech under the First Amendment.
A o'Yes" vote on this resolution would indicate support for a Constitutional Amendment,
while a "No" vote would indicate opposition to an Amendment.
As the individual filing on behalf of Platteville Move to Amend, please contact me
directly should you have any questions or concerns about the validity or sufficiency
our petition.
""RrÌ;QtWM
Sincerely,
Richard Rundell
Citizenof Platteville
Platteville Move to Amend Member
608-348-5583
Enclosures
cc: Jan Martin, City Clerk
of
STATE OF MSCONSIN}
GRANT COUNTY}
CITY OF PLATTEVILLE}
I, ]an Martin, the duly appointed Citv Clerk for the City of Platteville, County of
GranÇ State of Wisconsiry do hereby certify that the petition filed in my office on
October 28,2015 by Platteville Move to Amend has sufficient numbers of signatures
and is in a proper form per Wisconsin Statute 59.20(3).
Dated this 4ft day of November,20lï:
Jan Martin, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A UNITED STATES CONSTITUNAL AMENDMENT
Introduced by PETITION FOR DIRECT LEGISLATION:
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections
Commission andrelated case law allows unlimited political campaign spending to influence
local, state, and federal elections; and
BE IT RESOLVED, that "We the People" of the City of Platteville, Wisconsin, seek
to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the comrpting
influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with the Move to
Amend campaign and communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to
the United States Constitution stating:
I. Only human beings - not corporations, unions, non-profits or similar associations are endowed with constitutional rights, and
2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is
not equivalent to limiting political speech.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Platteville Clerk is directed to forward
resolution to our state and federal representatives with instructions to
enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort.
a copy of this
Approved and adopted by the Common Council of the City of Platteville this
of November,2015.
THE CITY OF PLATTEVILLE,
By: Eileen Nickels, Council
ATTEST:
Jan
Martin, City Clerk
President
_
day
Pr,nrrnv rr.r.E
MOVE
To
AMEND
locnL Clvrc
A
Acrrox OncaxrzATroN
@ Working lo Get the Money out of Politics O
"6.$'.6.6.6.$,.6.6.,fi.$'.$,
rè.,è. rè, èø,èr rè" rè, rè.,è" rè. rè,
"Corporqlions qre nol people ond money is not speech."
Join us in working to overcome the Supreme Court's rulings
in "Citizens United" ond reloted coses which ollow unlimited spending
to influence locol, stote ond federol elections.
We con do this by estoblishing o U.S. Constitutionol Amendment.
.6.6.6 "6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6
êr
rè. rè. rè.
ê" è. rè. rè. ô. rè",è"
September ond October we ore collecting the necessory signotures to ploce o
referendum on the April 2016 bollot in Plotteville, Wl. The referendum will soythot the
citizens of Plotieville wont Wisconsin's Congressionol delegotion to support, and the
Wisconsin Legisloture to rofify, crn omendment to the U.S. Constitution stoting:
This
. Only human beíngs
not corporoÍions, uníons, non-p rofits or similar
ossocl'ofions
ore endowed wílh consfifuflbnol rights;
2. Money is nof speech, ond fherefore reguloting political contribufíons ond
spending is nof equlvolent to límiting politícol speech.
I
.6 "6 .6.6.6.6
.6.6.6.6.6
rè. rè.,è. rè. rèr,èr,à" rè.
ê. è.,è.
ln o democrocy leoders represent the public-ot-lorge. ln on orislocrqcy (or otigorchy),
mostly the desires of ihe richest citizens end up being reflected in governmental octions.
ln the post severol decodes, especiolly of the federcl ond sTcte levels, we hove moved
away from o democrocy ond much closer to on oligorchy.
A conslilulionol omendment is the first ond extremely importont step
the
- ond perhops
only siep
to reverse this situotion ond lo moke our politicions ond government
once
cgoin responsive
to We fhe People rolher thon to lhose who provide huge compcign
donotions.
o non-porlisqn issue, since every single citizen, no motter whot porty they supporf, is
equolly offected by the issue of money in politics. Eighty-three percenl of Americons -81% of Republicons, TBT" of lndependents. ond 85% of Democrots -- wcnt limits on the
omount of money thot corporotions, unions, other orgonizotions, ond weolthy individuols
con spend to influence our elections. (An AP pol reparted tn fhe Los Ange/es Jimes, Sept. t6,2012)
This is
.6 *6 .6
.ô.6.6.6 .6.6.6.6
rè. rè.,è,
è. rÞ rè. rèr rè. rÞ,õ. ê,
"Politics oughl lo be the port-time profession of every citizen who would protect the
rights ond privileges of free men." Dwight D. Eisenhower
How we got to now (wi'lh the "help" of the Supreme Court)
The events thot brought us to lhe oligorchicol conditions of todoy evolved from on 188ó
court cose of Sonfo Cloro County v. Soufhern PocÍlic Roilroad, which gove birth to the
fiction of corporote personhood. The Supreme Court cose of Buckley v. Voleo in 1976
creoted onoiher ficiion, mcking money equivolent to free speech.
Citizens United wos the lobbying group thot wos the plointiff in o Supreme Court cose
which begon os o chollenge io vorious stotutory provisions of the Biporfison Compoign
Reform Act of 2002, known os the "McCoin-Feingold" low. A provision of lhis low borred
corporotions ond unions from poying for polilicol ods mode independently of condidote
compoigns. On Jonuory 21,2010, in Cilizens Uniled vs. F.E.C., the Supreme Court
overturned this provision, decloring thot corporotions, os "persons," conr'ìot hove their
"speech" limited by government. This opened ihe floodgotes of big money contributions
from corporotions in the election process.
o result, even well-meoning politiciqns ore fropped by the cunent system. lf lheir
compoigns don't occepl lhe huge omounts of money, it's extremely difficult to get
elected. lf they do occepl the money cnd get elected, there is on unspoken expectotion
lo promote fhe legislotion desired by their weolthy donors (on oligorchy) ond not of the
generol citizenry whom they should be representing (o democrocy).
As
Our Representotives in Congress ond lhe Senote spend opproximotely 5O% of lheir time
doing their own lobbying with billionoires ond for corporote money. Of their remoining time
spent legislofing, it's often to the odvontoge of their compoign funders, even if the
legislotion is not ín the besi interests of ihe generol public. The end result is thst our notionol
government ond stote governments cre heovily influenced by corporotions ond billionoires
instecd of government lhot is of the people, by the people, for the people. Democrocy,
ond the very sovereignty of our nolion, now needs lo be restored.
Ihe needed chqnge
l's
well underwayll
At the nofionol level, sixteen slote legislotures hove olreody colled on Congress, requesting
on omendment to the U.S. Constitution for rofificotion: Conneclicut, Colifornio, Howoii,
Morylond, Mossochusetts, New Mexico, Rhode lslond, Delowore, lllinois, New Jersey,
Oregon, Vermonl, Colorodo, Montono, West Virginic ond Moine. ln Wisconsin, sixty
communilies hove clreody possed either o referendum or o resolution osking for o
Constiiutionol Amendmenf, ond now Plofteville ond severol olher SW communilies qre
working on theír own referendum to join with ihose sixty communities olreody on record os
supporling o move fo omend.
cbout Move To Amend efforls of lhe stote ond notîonol level, visit the nolionol MTA
website, MoveloAmend.org, the slote MTA website, WiMTA.oro, cnd www.storyofstuff.org
to wotch o 9 minute video, "Slory of Citizens United v. FEC." For more informotion on how
you con participafe in fhis locol moveme nt to gef rnone y out of polifics by creoting o 28th
Amendment to the Unìted Stofes Consfífution, contocl Dick Rundell 348-5583 or Charlie
To leorn
Clork 778-8435.
.6.6ff.qf.6 "gf,.6 .6.6 .6.6.6 ô.
rè. rè. rè. rè.,ã.
è. êr,è.
rè.
rè.
"liberty cqnnol be preserved wilhoul q generol knowtedge omong lhe people,
who hove o righl...ond o desire lo know." John Adoms