La Palma’s Term Limits Are Illegal, Judge Rules : Elections: Decision cites another ruling that general-law cities may not limit stints on councils. An appeal is planned.

La Palma’s 10-year-old law limiting City Council members to two terms in office is illegal, an Orange County Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday.

Judge William F. Rylaarsdam said that a higher court ruled three years ago that cities bound by California general law may not limit the number of terms city council members may serve.

John L. Fellows III, an attorney for La Palma, said he will file an immediate appeal.

Rylaarsdam’s ruling was a victory for two-term Councilman Richard Polis, who sued La Palma July 15 after City Clerk Pamela Gibson refused to accept his nomination papers to run for a third term. Polis was attending an out-of-town conference Wednesday and could not be reached for comment.

Polis has said that he wants to challenge the term-limit law because it does not offer residents a choice and because it was enacted by so few voters in 1982. Although the measure won by a 2-to-1 margin, voter turnout was only about 10%, Polis said. Also, because La Palma’s pool of potential council candidates is small, the city shouldn’t restrict incumbents from seeking reelection, he said.

“I really feel a two-term limit is not in the best interest of the city,” he said.

Polis’ victory in Superior Court, however, does not mean that his name will appear on the Nov. 3 ballot. An appeal will suspend the Superior Court ruling, which will allow the city clerk to keep Polis’ name off the ballot, Fellows said. However, Polis may ask the 4th District Court of Appeal to allow his name on the ballot while the appeal is under way, Fellows said.

Rylaarsdam said he based his decision on a case decided in South San Francisco in 1989. A two-term city councilwoman in that city filed for, and won, a third term, despite a city law limiting council members to two consecutive terms. A resident sued to overturn her election.

However, both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal ruled that cities following general state law may not set election restrictions that supersede state election codes. Because state law does not set term limits for municipal offices, cities may not either, unless they have adopted charters. Charters allow cities to adopt laws differing from the state’s, although most California cities do not have charters.

Rylaarsdam’s ruling probably will not stop other general-law cities in Orange County from adopting term limits, city officials said Wednesday.

Yorba Linda, which follows state election law, has placed an initiative before its voters on the Nov. 3 ballot that would set up term limits. The initiative, however, would be suspended unless the state Legislature adopts a law allowing general-law cities to enact term limits, City Councilman John M. Gullixson said.

If Yorba Linda’s term-limit initiative passes but the state still does not allow term limits, Gullixson said, he will ask the City Council to adopt the law itself.

The city, however, would not try to enforce a term-limits law because such a law would be illegal, he said. That way, the Yorba Linda law would never find its way into the courts. Instead, the law would act only as a City Council and voter-approved “policy” until sometime in the future when the courts or the Legislature allows term limits in general-law cities, Gullixson said.

Villa Park has treated its term-limit law as a policy, allowing two-term council members to file again. Two years ago, Councilman Jim Fasbender challenged the two-term policy and ran for a third term. He lost the election, however.

Laguna Niguel, which is also a general-law city, will likely take a similar “policy” approach to its proposed term-limit law, City Manager Tim Casey said. The City Council voted initial approval to a term-limit law last week. If the council adopts the law Aug. 4, the city will likely not enforce it because of the likelihood of losing a legal challenge, Casey said.

The law would serve only as a strong policy statement limiting council terms, he said. If a council member challenged the ordinance, it would be up to the voters to decide whether they wanted to elect him or her to a third term, Casey said.