Annexation lawsuit: Judge rules against Bloomington on constitutional claim, but it’s not over
On Tuesday, judge Nathan Nikirk issued a ruling that denies the city of Bloomington’s constitutional challenge to a 2019 state law, which causes annexation waivers to expire after 15 years.
Nikirk’s ruling, on five consolidated lawsuits, affects Bloomington’s annexation in five different areas. There’s one lawsuit for each territory.
Even if the city of Bloomington does not appeal the ruling, that does not mean that the question of annexation in the affected five areas is settled.
There’s more to the five consolidated lawsuits than the constitutional claim.
Nikirk’s Tuesday ruling has no effect on the separate litigation for two other areas (Area 1A and Area 1B) about which a bench trial was held in early May.
A ruling on the merits of annexation in those areas could be expected towards August.
Nikirk’s Tuesday ruling was made just on the constitutional claim that was common to the five consolidated lawsuits, which were filed by the city of Bloomington, in connection with annexation ordinances enacted in fall 2021.
By the third week of February 2022, remonstrators in five of the seven areas that Bloomington wanted to annex had gathered enough signatures—from more than 65 percent of landowners—to block Bloomington’s annexation effort.
But the signatures depended crucially on the 2019 law, which affects the status of waivers of the right to remonstrate—which were signed by many property owners in exchange for a city sewer connection.
The 2019 law says that such waivers of the right to remonstrate are good only for 15 years. After 15 years, a property owner is free to sign a remonstrance petition.
The city of Bloomington filed its lawsuits based in part on the idea that the 2019 law is a violation of the contracts clause of Indiana’s state constitution and the U.S. Constitution.
Without the 2019 law, many of the signatures of remonstrators would not have counted. In fact, without the 2019 law, none of the five areas would have had valid remonstrance signatures from more than 65 percent of landowners.
It was Cathy Smith, who was Monroe County auditor at the time, and who had the statutory responsibility of counting the signatures. Smith applied the 2019 law when she made her tally, so it was Smith who is the named defendant in Bloomington’s lawsuits.
There is still something left in the individual remaining consolidated lawsuits, without the constitutional claims. That’s why the Tuesday ruling was just about motions for a partial summary judgment.
Bloomington’s complaint for Area 4, for example, like the complaints for the other areas, includes the allegation that Smith, as auditor, “appears to have counted multiple defective remonstrance petitions that should have been rejected.” For the Area 4 lawsuit, the petitions were specific to Area 4. For the Area 5 lawsuit, the petitions were specific to Area 5, and so on.
Because Bloomington’s lawsuits included a constitutional challenge, attorneys from the Indiana attorney general’s office helped represent Smith’s side.
In his Tuesday ruling, Nikirk rejected Bloomington’s argument that the 2019 law violates Indiana’s state constitution. He agreed with previous court cases that say the clause serves to protect contracts between private parties and does not give local governments a right to object to the validity of statutes that release obligations due the state or themselves.
Nikirk also rejected Bloomington’s argument that the 2019 law violates the U.S. Constitution. The judge cited previous cases that led him to conclude that cities cannot invoke the contracts clause in the U.S. Constitution against their states.
Bloomington’s third claim was that a finding for the validity of the 2019 law would violate fundamental fairness, because it would allow the state legislature of 2017 to benefit from its unlawful action that year to enact the law that suspended Bloomington’s in-progress annexation.
In rejecting the third claim, Nikirk cited to a previous case that says a court can evaluate only the boundaries of legislative power, not the wisdom of legislative policy
Well after close of business on Tuesday, The B Square emailed the city of Bloomington administration with a question about any plans to appeal. Given Wednesday’s Juneteenth holiday, and the complexity of the issue, a response might take a few days. This article will be updated accordingly.
Updated: Around 8:20 a.m. on Wednesday, June 19, 2024, city communications director Desiree DeMolina responded to The B Square’s question:
While we are disappointed with the result and had hoped the Court would have ruled in the City’s favor, we always understood that challenging the General Assembly would be difficult. Regardless, we respect Judge Nikirk’s ruling and appreciate his thoughtful approach to this matter.
At this point, we are carefully weighing the costs and benefits of an appeal and will make a decision regarding our next steps in short order. Meanwhile, we look forward to receiving an order from Judge Nikirk in the underlying annexation case in due time.
