Earl T. Mcintosh Files a Lawsuit vs The City of Topeka
FEATURED
Topeka Resident Files Lawsuit Against City Council Over Petition Inaction
Topeka, KS – August 13, 2024 – Local resident Earl T. McIntosh has filed a petition for mandamus against the City of Topeka in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, alleging the city council failed to act on a certified petition that met all legal requirements under Kansas law.
Background of the Petition
McIntosh’s legal action stems from a Topeka property tax petition, which officially launched on January 31, 2024, with the goal of securing enough signatures to force a citywide vote. The petition required 2,941 valid signatures to be certified by the Shawnee County Election Commissioner.
After a months-long effort, McIntosh and his supporters collected and submitted 5,386 signatures on June 24, 2024. By July 5, 2024, the Election Commissioner verified 4,445 signatures, confirming that the petition exceeded the required threshold.
City Council's Inaction Sparks Legal Challenge
Following the certification, McIntosh formally submitted the verified petition to the Topeka City Clerk on July 8, 2024. The petition was then presented to the Topeka City Council for consideration on July 9, 2024.
However, instead of following the procedure outlined in K.S.A. 12-3013(a)—which requires the council to either adopt the proposed ordinance or put it to a public vote—the council took no action. During the council meeting, the city attorney, mayor, and a council member spoke against the petition, while two Topeka residents spoke in favor of it.
Legal Action Demands Compliance
Arguing that the city council failed to fulfill its legal obligations, McIntosh filed a petition for mandamus in Shawnee County District Court. Under K.S.A. 60-801, a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel a public official or government body to perform a duty required by law.
McIntosh is requesting a court order mandating that the City of Topeka either enact the proposed ordinance or submit it for a public vote, as required by Kansas statutes.
With this legal filing, the case now awaits a response from the City of Topeka. If the court grants the writ of mandamus, the city council could be forced to take action, either passing the ordinance or allowing Topeka residents to vote on it directly.
McIntosh, representing himself with assistance from a Kansas-licensed attorney, remains firm in his demand for government accountability.
Earl McIntosh Challenges City of Topeka’s Motion to Dismiss in Property Tax Petition Dispute
Topeka, KS – November 11, 2024 – A legal battle between Earl T. McIntosh and the City of Topeka over a proposed property tax ordinance has intensified, with McIntosh filing a Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss in Shawnee County District Court. The dispute revolves around the city's failure to act on a certified petition that sought either adoption of a new ordinance or a public vote on the matter.
Background of the Case
McIntosh originally filed a petition for mandamus, arguing that under Kansas law (K.S.A. 12-3013), the Topeka City Council was required to either approve the ordinance or submit it for a referendum. The proposed ordinance was designed to regulate conditions under which the city could increase property taxes.
The City of Topeka filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that:
The proposed ordinance is unconstitutional.
A referendum is not authorized under K.S.A. 12-3013(a).
The ordinance is administrative, not legislative, making it ineligible for public referendum.
McIntosh’s Counterarguments
1. Constitutionality is Not Relevant to This Case
McIntosh asserts that the constitutionality of the ordinance is not yet an issue since the ordinance has not been adopted. He argues that the city's failure to act is the central legal concern, not whether the ordinance would later withstand constitutional challenges.
2. Kansas Law Does Allow a Referendum
The City of Topeka cited a previous court case, Ramcharan-Maharajh v. Gilliland, to support its claim that the ordinance is not subject to a referendum. However, McIntosh argues that this case is not applicable, as it dealt with an attempt to overturn a past action, whereas his petition seeks a prospective policy change.
3. The Ordinance is Legislative, Not Administrative
The Kansas Supreme Court, in McAlister v. City of Fairway, outlined four key guidelines to determine whether an ordinance is legislative (can be subject to a referendum) or administrative (cannot be subject to a referendum):
Legislative ordinances create new laws, while administrative ordinances execute existing laws.
Legislative acts establish broad policies, while administrative acts handle specific details of policy implementation.
Administrative decisions require specialized municipal expertise, whereas legislative decisions reflect public policy choices.
If the state legislature delegates decision-making authority to elected councils, rather than voters, the issue is administrative.
McIntosh argues that his proposed ordinance meets the definition of a legislative act because it:
Establishes new policy on property tax increases.
Applies broadly rather than to a narrow administrative function.
Does not interfere with statewide tax regulations but instead defines how Topeka will handle local tax increases.
Based on this reasoning, he concludes that the ordinance is legislative and eligible for public referendum.
McIntosh has requested that the Shawnee County District Court deny the City's motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed. If the court agrees, the City of Topeka may be forced to act—either adopting the ordinance or allowing residents to vote on it.
This case could set an important legal precedent in Kansas regarding citizens’ rights to petition for tax-related policy changes.