Term Limit Challenges And Christine Quinn

New York is in a tizzy over the term limit debate (not to mention the crisis on Wall Street). With Bloomberg's announcement to run for a third term possibly coming tomorrow, questions as to the feasibility of the plan are arising, particularly the support from Christine Quinn and ultimately the legality of overturning the will of the voters that was expressed in 1993 and 1996. First we have Quinn on the record coming strongly against changing the rules ten months ago, just as the Mayor has made stern statements in the past as well.

From The NY Daily News:

The press office of Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who has been unusually quiet since the news broke of Mayor Bloomberg's intention to change term limits via legislation, just released the following statement:

"The pending announcement that Mayor Bloomberg will seek to change New York City's term limits law is a significant development for the City of New York. Speaker Quinn takes that announcement seriously and will be discussing its legislative implications with her colleagues."

Bloomberg can't make the change he's proposing without Quinn, and Quinn, like Bloomberg, is on the record saying there should be no changes to term limits.

Her statement on the subject last December was pretty emphatic:

"I will neither support legislation nor will I seek or support a new referendum eliminating or altering term limits.

Over the last two years, the City Council has pursued an agenda of reform and democratization.We have strengthened our lobbying and campaign finance laws, increased transparency in the budget process and improved our constituent services by implementing CouncilStat."

"I believe that overruling the will of New Yorkers - who have voted twice in favor of term limits - would be anti-democratic and anti-reform."

Obviously she is in quite a bind over this. She wants to appease Bloomberg but risks taking down whatever "reformer" is left in her public image, especially after the slush-fund scandal. The Mayor believes he has enough money to drown out a negative reaction from the voters, but she certainly does not and that is important if she ever does finally get the courage to officially run for Mayor, whether that be in 2009 or 2013.

The bill to make Bloomberg's re-election run legitimate also has its legal challenges. Good government groups are pissed at this oligarchic move and are threatening to sue Bloomberg and his cohorts in court to put an end to this. Jerry Goldfeder has his doubts about the Mayor's ability to pull it off, given how limited the proposal for extending the current term limits actually is.

Also from the NY DN:

Election Law attorney Jerry Goldfeder, who returned this summer to private practice after a stint in AG Andrew Cuomo's office, said he would be "surprised" if a legislative effort to change term limits doesn't generate at least one legal challenge.

He concurred with the suggestion that such a challenge might be based on the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but also raised another intriguing possibility.

It could be deemed a conflict of interest for sitting Council members to vote on a term limits extension, particularly if it only applies to current office holders, Goldfeder said.

"If it's a one-shot deal, then there might be an issue as to whether or not the Council is just acting for themselves," said Goldfeder, who declined to go into too much detail, since he might be involved in future litigation.

Obviously this all about looking out for number one, the voters be damned. Bloomberg's excuse to run again (because the markets are in trouble) is as honest as Sarah Palin talking about....well, anything really. Hopefully Quinn will come to her senses and leave this to the voters to decide. If not the courts have good reason to dismiss this crap outright as soon as a purely self-interested city council voted to pass it.