Appeals Court Upholds Term Limits Revision

Updated, 5:59 p.m. | To the term limits opponents who hoped the courts would overthrow a law allowing city elected officials to run for a third term this fall, the fight is essentially over.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a January ruling by a lower court, dismissing a lawsuit that sought to overthrow the legislation, which extended the time a city politician can serve in office from two to three four-year terms. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg signed the legislation on Nov. 3, after several bruising weeks of hearings, protests, public debate and closed-door negotiations.

In its opinion, a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said that although Local Law 51, as the term-limits extension is known, “no doubt stirred controversy,” it did not violate the constitutional and legal points raised by the plaintiffs.

The panel’s conclusion reads in part:

It is not the role of this court to interject itself into city politics. We shall only adjudicate the constitutional and legal claims properly before us, which we have analyzed exhaustively. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the District Court’s judgment granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiffs’ amended complaint.

Corporation Counsel Michael A. Cardozo, the head of the Law Department, which represented the city, said in a statement:

We are pleased that the appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court ruling and found in the city’s favor on all claims. The Court agreed that there was no merit to the plaintiffs’ claims that Local Law 51 violated the federal Constitution or any provision of state law. This ruling will give New York City residents the opportunity to vote for officials of their choice.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs — a group that included the city’s comptroller, William C. Thompson Jr.; the public advocate, Betsy Gotbaum; voters; and aspiring City Council candidates — had argued that federal, state and city laws were violated when the two-term limit, which had been established by referendum in the 1990s, was amended legislatively.

Mr. Thompson, who intends to challenge Mayor Bloomberg in the fall election, said in a statement:

I am disappointed in today’s decision by the Court of Appeals. What has occurred over the last few months is an astonishing display self-entitlement by Mike Bloomberg who feels that New Yorkers do not have the right to vote on this important issue. New Yorkers want new leadership and a mayor who understands the needs of the entire city and they will vote for change on Nov. 3.

The plaintiffs’ appeal revolved around the following arguments:

• The term-limits extension violated First and Fourteenth Amendment rights because it did not allow voters to be part of the decision and because it was approved by the same elected officials who will benefit from it.
• It violated a state law that mandates a referendum to modify or annul any law enacted by one.
• It violated the city’s conflict of interest regulations because it conferred a political benefit to the elected officials who approved it.

The appeals court disagreed, even if the judges recognize that some people might have the “justifiable reaction” of feeling that the law extending term limits disregards the opinion they expressed in the polls.

Randy M. Mastro, a former deputy mayor who is representing the plaintiffs, said of the judges’ opinion:

While the courts may have found this term limits extension to be within the legal authority of the mayor and City Council, that doesn’t make it right. What the mayor and City Council did here in extending their terms by legislation, and thereby thwarting the will of the voters, was simply wrong and undemocratic.