HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-06 CC OrdinanceORDINANCE NO 99-06
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA SUSPENDING THE OPERATION AND
EFFECT OF ORDINANCE NO. 97-04 AND SECTION 2.08.060
OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND CAMPAIGN
EXPENDITURES PENDING RESOLUTION OF LEGAL
CHALLENGES TO THE CALIFORNIA POLITICAL REFORM
ACT OF 1996 (PROPOSITION 208)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMCULA-DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine
and declare that:
A. Proposition 208, "The California Political Reform Act of 1996," (the "Act")
was passed by the voters of the State of California on November 5, 1996. The Act
provides for limits on campaign contributions and authorizes cities to establish voluntary
expenditure ceilings for campaigns for candidates for elective office and the controlled
committees of such candidates.
B. On April 8, 1997, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 97-04 adding
Sections 2.08.060 to the Temecula Municipal Code establishing a voluntary campaign
expenditure ceiling for the campaigns of candidates for election to the city council and
provided for an increase in the campaign contribution limits pursuant to the Act and
specifically Government Code Section 85400(c).
C. On January 6, 1998, United States District Court Judge Lawrence K.
Karlton in the case of California Prolife Council v. Scully, et al (case no. CIV S-96-1965
LKK/DAD) ruled that the contribution limits imposed by the Act are unconstitutional and
he enjoined the Fair Political Practices Commission from enforcing any part of the Act.
D. The Fair Political Practices Commission ("FPPC") ordered its lawyers to
immediately appeal Judge Karlton's entire decision to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals. In addition, the FPPC decided not to seek a stay of Judge Kadton's order
enjoining enforcement of the Act, citing the additional confusion such a stay would
likely cause during the 1998 election cycle.
E. On January 5, 1999, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Judge
Kadton to conduct a full trial on the issues of the case and upheld the preliminary
injunction prohibiting the FPPC from enforcing the provisions of Proposition 208, but
did not resolve the legal questions at issue in the case.
Ords/99-06 1
F. Section 2.08.060 of the Temecula Municipal Code is now unenforceable
given the Court's order in California Prolife Council v. Scullv, et al. because the legal
authority for Section 2.08.060 is Government Code Section 85400(c) which is part of
Act which was invalidated by the court and the enforcement of which was enjoined by
the Court.
G. Substantial confusion will occur in the electoral process for the City's
November 1999 elections if the City Council does not cladfy the effect of the Court's
ruling in California Prolife Council v. Scullv, et al. upon Ordinance No. 97-04 and
Section 2.08.060 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
H. Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 36934 and 36937, the
City Council hereby finds and determines that a current and immediate threat to the
public health, peace, safety and general welfare exists which necessitates the
immediate enactment of this Ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public
health, peace, safety and general welfare, based upon the facts set forth in this
Ordinance and the facts presented to the Council.
SECTION 2. Pending the resolution of the legal issues concerning The California
Political Reform Act of 1996 in the case of California Prolife Council v. Scully, et al (case no.
CIV S-96-1965 LKK/DAD) or further action of the Council with respect to this Ordinance, the
operation and effect of Ordinance No. 97-04 and Section 2.08.060 of the Temecula Municipal
Code are hereby suspended.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or word of this Ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decisions shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of
Temecula hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted this Ordinance, and each
and all provisions thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provisions may
be declared to be invalid.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance being an Urgency Ordinance shall be effective as of the
date is adopted and shall remain in effect in accordance with its terms.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance as an urgency
ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law.
Ords/99-06 2
PASSED AND APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 26th day of January, 1999.
ATTEST:
Mayor
i';~~"~t'~ [ '~C~~
Jones, C
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 99-06, was duly adopted and passed as an urgency measure at a
regular meeting of the City Council on January 26, 1999, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Comerchero, Lindemans, Roberts, Ford
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone
Sus es C
Ords/99-06 3