The legislation would have asked voters to put into effect a 12-year, three-term limit on council members and row officers.
Last week, a judge ruled that a series of questions on the November ballot that could enact term limits for Allegheny Council officials must be removed because County Council did not follow the legally required process for the measure.
The legislation would have asked voters to impose 12-year, or three-term limits on council members and row officers, including the sheriff, district attorney, and treasurer.
The judge’s ruling came after Allegheny County Sheriff Kevin Kraus filed a lawsuit against the county in May, claiming that the ordinance passed by County Council in April was an illegal exercise of the county’s authority.
Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge John McVay ruled that the council did not follow proper procedures, but did not rule that the county could never impose term limits in the future.
The ordinance says that any term already in progress on January 15, 2027 would count as the official’s first term. Judge McVay rules that the retroactive nature of the proposal is illegal.
“As a practical matter it seems to me that the term limit should take effect before any individual is elected and begin with the next election cycle,” the judge wrote.
State law requires a government study commission process before voters are given the opportunity to fundamentally change a local form of government. This law was not followed by Allegheny County Council.
“I find it hard to imagine a more substantial change to a form of government than imposing term limits. A study commission is a heightened form of due process creating a more informed electorate, at least in theory,” the judge wrote.
“While Allegheny County has the power to propose term limits and the voters ultimately have the right to vote on term limits, and without all of the voters in the Commonwealth and the state legislature amending the Pennsylvania Constitution, I have concluded a study is first required.”
Should County Council pass legislation to create term limits in the future, this ruling means that any new ordinance to create term limits cannot go into effect retroactively and a study would have to be conducted on the issue first.
“Because there is language in the opinion that may prompt appellate action by any or all parties involved, further comment would be inappropriate at this time,” Kraus said.
He filed the lawsuit because he was elected to a four-year term last year, and applying the term limits in January would mean that his current term would count toward the proposed limit despite the rule not existing when he was elected.
