Judge blocks ballot questions to create term limits for elected Allegheny County positions

The ruling reverses the will of Allegheny County Council, which voted to include a referendum in November.

By PAULA REED WARD and MEGAN TROTTER TribLive

Voters won’t get to decide in November after all if they want term limits for Allegheny County’s elected officials.

A judge this week reversed the will of Allegheny County Council, which voted in April to put the question on the ballot, ruling that the issue must first be studied by a commission.

Sheriff Kevin Kraus filed a lawsuit in May challenging the ordinance creating the ballot question, arguing that council did not have the authority to try to institute term limits over his office.

In his 38-page opinion, Common Pleas Judge John T. McVay disagreed — but only to a point.

“I conclude that Allegheny County Council has the power to propose substantial and fundamental changes in term limits for elected officers, including the sheriff, to Allegheny County voters, and Allegheny County voters have the right to vote on those changes,” McVay wrote.

However, McVay continued, the state law governing home rule charters “ must be followed, and council’s power through ordinance has limits.”

For a county with a home rule charter to implement term limits, the judge said, it must follow the process set forth in the statute — appointing a commission to study the matter.

In addition to the sheriff, the county’s other row offices that would have been affected by the ballot question were controller, district attorney and treasurer.

Tom King, the solicitor for the Pennsylvania Sheriffs’ Association, which filed a motion to intervene in the case, said Friday both parties might appeal McVay’s decision — though for different reasons.

Regardless of any appeal, King said there is no way the question can now be on this fall’s ballot.

“We’re satisfied with the decision because it stops this from being on the ballot for the time being,” King said.

Abigail Gardner, a spokeswoman for Allegheny County, declined to comment, as did Kraus.

Council Chief Clerk Jared Barker said council members planned to discuss the ruling at Tuesday’s regular council meeting.

Plain language

The ordinance challenged by Kraus, and passed by council in April, would have allowed voters to decide whether county row offices and council seats should be capped at three terms, or 12 years.

It also would have changed the term limit for the county executive from its current limit of three consecutive terms to three terms in total.

Kraus, who was just reelected to his second term as sheriff, filed a lawsuit challenging the proposed ballot question as it applied to his office, arguing that it violates the Pennsylvania Constitution by attempting to impose term limits through local legislation.

Further, he argued that making the legislation retroactive is illegal because it disenfranchises voters who did not know when they voted for Kraus earlier this year that his time in office could be limited.

Council’s attorneys said Kraus is misinterpreting state law. Instead, they said, the home rule charter does allow for the creation of term limits.

After reading the parties’ briefs and hearing oral argument on July 29, McVay agreed.

“The language and text of the Pennsylvania Constitution … could not be plainer,” he wrote.

Neither the state Constitution nor the General Assembly deny a home rule charter county the authority to set term limits on sheriffs.

However, the statute governing home rule charters in Pennsylvania explicitly requires the creation of a commission to study the question, McVay wrote.

‘Fundamental change’

Under state law, to amend the charter, the public must first vote to create a commission to study the question, and then choose from among nominees to fill those seats.

Council attempted to argue to the court that a study commission is not required because the ballot questions would change only “the method of electing a municipal governing body,” not eliminating offices or changing their duties.

However, the judge disagreed, calling the imposition of term limits “ a fundamental change in government,” which requires study by a commission.

“(W)hile I recognize council’s power to enact a term limit ordinance, I think that power is not limitless and certainly not when elections of county officials and the need to inform the electorate of substantial changes to their government are statutorily triggered,” Mc-Vay wrote.

Council Solicitor Frederick Frank said council members were reviewing the judge’s decision on Friday.

“Allegheny County Council is gratified that the decision reaffirms our power under the charter to propose substantial and fundamental changes in term limits for the county elected officials to the voters,” Frank said in a statement on behalf of county council.