Mills v. Sweeney, 219 N.Y. 213 (1916)

A municipality cannot enact ordinances for public policy referendums without explicit legislative authority, as such power is not implied from general welfare clauses and is reserved to the state legislature.

Summary

This case concerns a taxpayer’s action to prevent the City of Buffalo from spending public funds to publish election notices for a public policy referendum authorized by a city ordinance. The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the city’s common council had the authority to enact such an ordinance under the city charter’s general welfare clause. The Court held that the general welfare clause did not grant the power to enact an ordinance involving a referendum, as the state legislature reserves the power to deal with referendums directly and in express terms. The ordinance was deemed invalid, and the injunction against publishing the notices was upheld.

Facts

• The City of Buffalo’s common council enacted an ordinance allowing for public policy questions to be submitted to voters via referendum upon petition by 5% of registered voters or by a resolution of the Common Council.
• The ordinance required the city clerk to publish notices of the referendum questions in daily newspapers.
• A taxpayer brought an action to restrain the expenditure of public money to publish the election notices, arguing the ordinance was illegal.

Procedural History

• The lower court ruled in favor of the taxpayer, enjoining the city from publishing the notices.
• The Appellate Division certified questions to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the common council’s power to enact the ordinance and whether subsequent legislative enactments ratified it.

Issue(s)

• Whether the common council of the City of Buffalo had the power to enact an ordinance providing for public policy referendums based on the city charter’s general welfare clause.
• Whether the ordinance had been ratified by subsequent legislative enactments.

Holding

• No, because the general welfare clause does not grant the common council the authority to enact ordinances involving referendums; this power is reserved to the state legislature.
• No, because the subsequent legislative enactments did not validate the ordinance, as a void ordinance cannot be ratified in such a manner.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the general welfare clause of the city charter, which allowed the Common Council to enact ordinances “for the good government of the city,” did not implicitly grant the power to create a referendum process. The Court emphasized that when the state legislature intends to allow for referendums, it does so explicitly, citing examples in the General City Law, Town Law, Liquor Tax Law, and Village Law. The Court also noted that the city’s charter already contained specific provisions for referendums under certain circumstances, implying that these provisions were exclusive. The Court pointed out the broad and indefinite nature of the ordinance, allowing for potentially useless public action invoked by a small proportion of voters. The court argued that allowing such an ordinance would permit municipalities to infringe upon the spirit and policy of the state, particularly concerning elections. Furthermore, the court cited Dillon’s Municipal Corporations, stating that a municipal corporation cannot adopt bylaws that infringe the spirit or are repugnant to the policy of the state as declared in its general legislation. Regarding ratification, the Court found that the ordinance, being enacted without authority, was void from the start and could not be validated by subsequent general legislative enactments. The Court clarified that it did not question the legislature’s power to provide for advisory referendums but only held that the legislature had not delegated such power to the Buffalo Common Council. The Court emphasized, “All we hold in the present case is that it has not delegated the power to provide for such a referendum in Buffalo to the common council of that city. It certainly has not done so in express terms; and we think it equally clear that it has not done so by implication.”