2004-03 Council Member Term Limits Article III, Section 3-2, Hawaii County Charter

Home

Honorable Bob Jacobson May 26, 2004 Page 4 a period longer than four consecutive two year terms of the council unless a period of at least two consecutive two year terms of the council has intervened without such person serving on the council; that the provisions of this amendment shall apply commencing with the nominations for the election for the council term commencing December 1, 1993, and that consecutive terms of service on the council to which members were elected prior to December 1, 1993 shall be counted in determining eligibility for office under this section; and to give effect to the above provisions by repealing existing Section 2 and 12 of Article IX be approved? State ex rel. Mirlisena v. Hamilton County Board of Elections, 67 Ohio St.3d 597, 622 N.E.2d 329 (1993). Recognizing the opinion of the Corporation Counsel is merely an opinion, the million dollar question, so to speak, is what would a Hawai'i court do, if asked to determine the applicability of the Charter's term limit provision to members of the Council who were elected contemporaneously in 1996 with the Charter amendment. Case law In the above-cited State ex. rel. Mirlisena v. Hamilton County Board of Elections, supra, the voters of the City of Cincinnati passed the above language, which effectively placed term limits on city council members. This language contained the effective date of the amendment, together with a retroactive provision expressly including the terms of council members who were already serving. Complicating matters in the Mirlisena case was a separate charter amendment introduced by the council which provided, inter alia, that there would be no term limits imposed on any council candidate. Not surprisingly, both charter amendments passed, adding further ambiguity to this issue. Mirlisena, a councilman first elected in 1985, and who had been reelected in subsequent elections in 1987, 1989, and 1991, sought reelection in the 1993 election, notwithstanding the fact he had served four consecutive two-year terms, and would be theoretically barred from running again by the charter term limit amendment. The Supreme Court of Ohio found the retroactive provision of the charter amendment unconstitutional. The Ohio high court reasoned as follows: ...the Ohio Constitution provides, in part, that "[t]he general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws * * * ." Since we have indicated that we will apply, absent any direction from the Cincinnati City Charter,