In not so unexpected news, Judge Charles Sifton in Brooklyn denied the plantiffs from overturning the Mayor and Council's decision to extend term limits. It was a slim chance that New Yorkers would be given the right decision here, so it is on to the next battle.
From The Daily Politics:
US District Court Judge Charles Sifton has rejected a legal challenge to the term limits extension sought and signed into law by Mayor Bloomberg, agreeing with the city's argument that opponents of the change will have the ability to demonstrate their displeasure at the voting booth.
"To permit this particular group of legislators and city officials to run for re-election and thereby offer the voters the chance to select seasoned leaders at a time when the economic position of the city must be dealt with serves a legitimate government purpose," Sifton wrote."Because no fundamental right was infringed, and because the term limits amendment bears a rational relationship to a legimtiate government purpose, no reasonable fact finder could conclude the defendants had violated plaintiffs' substantive due process rights."
Sifton also found "no admissable evidence" to support the claim that there was a quid-pro-quo between Bloomberg and Ron Lauder, in which Lauder was promised a seat on the next Charter Review Commission that would review whether term limits should be permanently extended in exchange for his support of letting the current crop of elected officials seek a another four-year term.
So there could be an appeal, there could be a fight with the Federal authorities at DoJ (most likely in Obama's Administration by the looks of things) or we could just go straight to city politics and like the Judge said, let the voters decide in the ballot box. Chances are electoral politics is going to be where the deal is done. No matter how much mayoral candidates gripe and stand tall in front of the court, they'll have to take the Mayor down the old fashioned way.
Sadly though, the Judge, in my view is wrong that a fundamental right was infringed upon. His decision sounds a lot like Bloomberg's take on it, basically, if people have a problem with what I did, vote me out. However, the people had clearly expressed their intent about term limits....twice. No matter how you feel about the theoretical side of things, the intent of New York voters was firm. Yet Bloomberg and 29 CMs went along with him anyway for their own personal gain. That intent is there for anyone to see, whether they choose to accept the reality of the situation is another.
|