H. W. THUNE and Another v. JOHN M. HETLAND and Others

Minnesota Supreme Court1911-05-19No. Nos. 17,222 — (249)

114 Minn. 395

Summary · law.co

Holding. The state statute governing local option votes does not apply to cities operating under home rule charters, and a home rule city's charter provision requiring only a majority of votes cast on a licensing question does not violate state law. The judgment was affirmed.

The city of Ada, Minnesota, a fourth-class municipality operating under a home rule charter, held an election on March 14, 1911, to decide whether to permit the sale of intoxicating liquor. Of 254 votes cast on the license question, 131 favored it and 123 opposed it. The city council determined that a majority of votes cast supported licensing. A local voter and taxpayer sought an injunction to prevent the council from issuing liquor licenses, arguing that state law required a different standard for determining voter approval. The central dispute was whether a state statute governing local option votes applied to home rule cities or whether the city's charter provision—requiring only a majority of those voting on the specific question—controlled.

The court held that the state statute at issue did not apply to home rule municipalities. Home rule charters may establish their own procedures for licensing decisions, including different vote-counting methods, provided the charter does not violate the state's declared public policy. The court concluded that the Ada charter's requirement of a simple majority among those voting on the license question did not conflict with any state policy prohibition. Accordingly, the council's determination that the license question carried was valid.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Applicability of state local option statute to home rule municipalities
Whether home rule charters may establish their own majority vote requirements for liquor licensing
Conflict between state statute and home rule charter provisions

Procedural posture

The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants on the pleadings, and the state of Minnesota appealed.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Bunn, J.

The city of Ada, in Norman county, Minnesota, is a city of the fourth class operating under a home rule charter adopted pursuant to article 4, § 36, of the constitution. Defendant Hetland is mayor, defendant ITerringer clei’k, and the other defendants members of the city council. At an annual election held March 14, 1911, the question of granting license for the sale of intoxicating liquors in the city was submitted to the voters. A total of 254 votes were cast on the question, 131 votes being in favor of license and 123 against. The total number of voters who voted at such election for mayor, clerk, and members of the council was 265. Eleven voters thus failed to vote on the question of license. The council determined that a majority of the votes cast at said election were in favor of license. Thereafter certain residents of Ada applied to the council for licenses to sell intoxicating liquor. Plaintiff, a legal voter and taxpayer in Ada, brought this action to enjoin defendants from granting any licenses to sell liquor. The state of Minnesota intervened, asking in its complaint the same relief. Defendants answered, and the case was by agreement submitted to the trial court for decision on the pleadings. The-court rendered a decision in favor of defendants, judgment was entered thereon, and the state of Minnesota appealed.

The question involved is whether section 1533, Revised Laws of 1905, applies to cities of the fourth class operating under home rule charters. If it does, then, as there was not a.“majority of votes cast at the last election at which the question of license was voted upon” in favor of license, the sale of liquors is forbidden. State v. Village of Osakis, 112 Minn. 365, 128 N. W. 295. But, if this section does not apply, license carried under the provision of the charter of Ada that requires only a majority of those voting on the question. We are satisfied that section 1533 has no application to cities operating under home rule charters.

A city council may grant licenses, without submitting that question to a vote of the people, if it is so provided in its charter. Kleppe v. Gard, 109 Minn. 251, 123 N. W. 665. If this is not subversive of the declared policy of the state, certainly the provision of the charter of Ada requiring a submission of the question to a vote of the people, and making the result depend upon the votes of those voting on the question, does not violate the declared policy of the state. It is true that, under the constitutional amendment authorizing cities to frame their own charters, such charters must be in harmony with and subject to the laws of the state; but this limitation only forbids the adoption of any charter provision contrary to the public policy of the state, as declared by general laws, or to its penal code, for example, provisions providing for the licensing of prize fighting, or gambling; or prostitution, or those which are subversive of the declared policy of the state as to the sale of intoxicating liquor. Grant v. Berrisford, 94 Minn. 45, 101 N. W. 940, 1133.

Section 1533 is a part of the local option law of the state, applicable only to those towns and municipalities that are authorized by that law to vote upon the question of issuing license. It does not declare any policy of the state as to the number of votes necessary to cqn stitute a majority, tbat would make a provision in a borne rule charter, fixing tbe number as a majority of those voting on tbe question, out of harmony with tbe laws of tbe state.

Judgment affirmed.