Peace group seeks court action on city refusal to set referendum

By Adam Tobias of the Daily Times staff
Friday, January 20, 2006 1:06 PM CST

A representative from the Watertown Peace and Democracy Coalition has filed a civil action against the Watertown Common Council because it refused to place a referendum question on the April ballot asking if the United States should immediately withdraw its troops from Iraq.

Penny Eiler, a member of the local peace coalition, is seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the common council to either adopt the resolution or refer it to a vote of the electors within a 30-day time period starting Jan. 13, the date the petition was certified to the common council. She is also requesting the city covers her court costs and attorney fees.

The Watertown Peace and Democracy Coalition is trying to get a question on the April general election ballot that would ask, “Be it resolved that the city of Watertown urges the United States to begin an immediate withdrawal of its troops from Iraq starting with the National Guard and Reserves.”

A petition with 986 valid signatures was submitted to City Clerk Mike Hoppenrath on Dec. 23, 2005. He issued a certification of the petition on Jan. 3 and verified it had enough signatures to comply with State Statute 9.20.

Hoppenrath said the petition was insufficient though because it sought to exercise legislative powers not conferred on a municipality.

ADVERTISEMENT

Eiler then amended the petition question and Hoppenrath issued an amended certificate of sufficiency on Jan. 13. The city clerk noted the amended petition was now sufficient under 9.20.

The common council declined to put the referendum question on the ballot on Jan. 3 and Tuesday and those who voted against it said the question was not a proper subject under the state statute.

Aldermen also said if the troop question was placed on the ballot it could open the door to an abundance of petitions on national issues. They also said the city has no control over the troops being withdrawn and it could create a bipartisan split of the city.

David Austin, the attorney for Eiler, said it is mandatory for a common council to act on a petition for direct legislation. He added under 9.20 it says that a common council has to either adopt the resolution or refer it to a vote of its electors.

At Tuesday's council meeting both Hoppenrath and Assistant City Attorney Tom Levi said they felt the amended petition could be placed on the ballot under State Statute 9.20.

However, City Attorney Bob Bender said today that the referendum question is not a proper subject for 9.20.

Mayor John David said today he has no idea how the case will turn out.

“All I can say right now is the case is in the hands of our city attorney,” David said. “I have given it over to him and he will defend us in court.”

The matter will be heard at the Jefferson County Circuit Court on Feb. 7 at 8:30 a.m. with the Branch II Circuit Court Judge William Hue presiding. Three hours have been set aside for the hearing.