CC_Minutes_2004_1115 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Neal Beets June 17, 2004 Page 4 of 5 restrictions on feedlots. In each case, the local restrictions were based on the environmental impacts of feedlots. Different panels of the Minnesota Court or Appeals reached different conclusions on the issue of preemption. The couli in ValAdCo found that state environnlental regulations fully occupied the field and that the restrictions were preempted by state law while the court in Canadian Connection found that the restrictions were not preempted. The basis for the different conclusions appears to be only that in ValAdCo the controls \vere in a permitting process while in Canadian Connection the controls were in the zoning regulations. Because there are no clear factors to consider, it cannot be certain how a court would rule on the question. An ordinance requiring candidates for City office to disclose canlpaign contributions greater than $100 does not affect the general populace of the state. As previously explained, only residents of the City may hold City office; therefore, the effects of such an ordinance are limited to the residents of the City. Because none of the considerations for preemption exist, a City ordinance that candidates for City office must disclose campaign contributions greater than $100 is not preempted by the Minnesota Election Law. Conflict with State Statute. A City ordinance is invalid when it conflicts with a state statute. An ordinance conflicts with a state statute when the ordinance and the statute contain express or implied terms that are irreconcilable. The Minnesota Election Law requires candidates for public office to report contributions that, in the aggregate, are greater than $500 in a year. Would a City ordinance that requires candidates for City office to report campaign contributions greater than $100 conflict with a State statute? The short answer is: No. An ordinance is invalid as conflicting with a statute when it permits what a statute forbids or forbids what a statute expressly permits.I3 No conflict exists where an ordinance is merely additional or complimentary to or in aid and furtherance of the statute.I4 An ordinance that requires the disclosure of campaign contributions greater than $100 is in addition to and complimentary to the statute that requires the reporting of contributions greater than $500. The ordinance and statute do not have irreconcilable requirements. A candidate can comply with the City ordinance and be in compliance with the statute. Such an ordinance is also complimentary and aids in the furtherance of the Minnesota Election Law as a whole. Under the Minnesota Election Law, the maximum aggregate contribution a candidate may receive from an individual or committee in a year is $300. IS As previously stated, Minnesota law requires a candidate to report only contributions that are equal to or greater than $500.16 When these requirements are read together, the state required 13 Mangold, 143 N.W.2d at 816. 14 [d. at 817. 15 Minn.Stat. 9211 A.12. 16 Minn.Stat. 9211 A.02, subd. 2.