Pratt County District Court Judge Bob Schmisseur has ruled in favor of the Karen Detwiler petition to allow voters to determine if the vote of the Pratt City Commissioners to extend Maple Street should be repealed.
Schmisseur’s judgment directed an election be held on the Detwiler Maple Street Extension petition as provided for in Kansas Statue K.S.A. 12-3013(a).
By Kansas’s statute K.S.A 25-3601(6), any person challenging the validity of a petition question has the burden of proof at the trial court level and the City of Pratt failed in that burden, Schmisseur said in his memorandum decision Monday afternoon.
A trial was held Wednesday March 10 to determine the outcome of a lawsuit filed by the City of Pratt challenging the validity of Detwiler’s Maple Street Extension petition and a second petition seeking to put the annexation of property of land around the extension property to a vote of registered voters.
Detwiler acknowledged, through her attorney Kyle Steadman, that the annexation petition didn’t meet Kansas’s law and Schmisseur ruled in favor of Pratt on the annexation petition.
In the city lawsuit against the Maple Street extension petition the city claims the words “ordinance” and “resolution” are not in the petition and the petition is not worded as a formal “resolution” or “ordinance.” The applicable Kansas statute suggests one of the two terms should be in the language of the petition, Schmisseur said.
Detwiler countered that the action was not an ordinance and not a resolution but a simple motion on a matter that was not on the meeting agenda.
Detwiler also suggested that Kansas Statutes requires second-class cities to pass a formal ordinance for a street extension with copies filed with the county clerk and register of deeds.
Schmisseur said the City of Pratt apparently concedes that the City Commission approval of the Maple Street extension was not a formal ordinance. But the question of if the City Commission acted properly in passing the Maple Street extension ordinance wasn’t raised in the pleadings and would not be resolved in this case, Schmisseur said.
Detwiler claimed that her petition did comply with state statutes. A letter from Pratt County Counselor said the petition was in appropriate statutory form but the terms “ordinance” or “resolution” in the title of the petition, it was not written in the form of a proposed ordinance or resolution and the subject matter of the petition may be administrative.
Detwiler further claimed that the use of formal ordinance or resolution language in the petition was inappropriate since the City failed to adopt a resolution or ordinance.
She also claimed as a self-represented party, technical rules should not apply to her. The court rejected the self-represented argument. Detwiler had consulted with a Pratt and Wichita lawyer in the previous case so there is no suggestion that she is unable to pay a lawyer, Schmisseur said.
As to compliance to a statutory requirement, Schmisseur found that Detwiler’s petition complies.
“A review of the Detwiler petition clearly indicates its purpose is to repeal the actions of the City of Pratt Commissioners to extend Maple Street. There can be no confusion to the potential voters as to what a “yes” or “no” vote means,” Schmisseur said. “Given the implementation of the Maple Street Extension was without formal ordinance or resolution, the Court would find the Detwiler petition substantially complies with K.S.A 25-3601(c).
The matter of whether the extension is administrative or legislative was more difficult and after reviewing several cases, Schmisseur said that no evidence, stipulations or affidavits were offered to the trial court for consideration to determine the facts and apply them to appropriate guidelines, Schmisseur said.
He also said that Steadman cited State ex rel Malone v. Jacobs that held that when a second class city, both parties agreed Pratt is city of the second class, passes an ordinance for purposes of widening a street is carrying out a legislative purpose rather than a legislative one and that makes it subject to petition and voter approval. There is no discernable distinction between widening a street and extending a street for purposes of determining is an ordinance is legislative or administrative, Schmisseur said
There is no indication the Kansas Supreme Court has abandoned the legal precedents established in Malone v. Jacobs and the court is not permitted to ignore authority of the Kansas Supreme Court.
This was Detwiler’s second attempt to petition to allow voters to vote on the extension of Maple Street. In the first case the court found that the petition did not comply with statutory requirements.
