Thirty-seven days after County Executive Ryan McMahon accidentally signed a law, sending Onondaga County scrambling into legal contention and confusion, the county has come to an agreement.  Voters will be able to vote in November for one — or both — of 12- and 16-year term limits for the c ounty executive and comptroller. If one reaches majority support, it will become law. If both do, the one with more yes votes will become law.  The accidentally signed law will be withdrawn and all missed deadlines to put the new referendum on the ballot will be waived. The legislature still needs to pass the agreed-on proposal in the September session, and the county executive needs to sign it.  “The judge’s order and stipulation is what makes this all possible,” said Dustin Czarny, who sued his fellow elections commissioner, Kevin Ryan, after Ryan refused to put the referendum on the ballot. The county could not have decided to waive deadlines or choose which of two passed referendums became law without the judge allowing it. “That’s why it was important to go to court.”  The solution was agreed on by both McMahon and the Onondaga County Legislature under the supervision of a judge. But it is very similar to a solution McMahon recently proposed about. The only difference is that that would’ve sent the referendums to ballot in November 2027, while this one will send them to ballot in November 2026.  “There has been plenty of disagreement along the way, and at times the fight over process regrettably overshadowed the policy itself,” McMahon said in a press statement, adding he was glad the legislature had accepted his solution. “It is time to get back to the work that matters to the people we serve. They gain nothing from political fights over who gets the last word. Today, we agreed that the last word belongs to voters.” McMahon has in the past expressed his preference for a four-year term limit. A bill that would send that limit to referendum failed on the floor in July.  None of the legislators ever brought McMahon’s proposed compromise to the floor. After backing a four-term limit in July, Republicans in the legislature proposed a three-term solution, which would not require a referendum to become law, in August. They said at the time that if Democrats supported it, there would be enough votes to override a veto from McMahon should it come to that.  The legislature will vote on that law in September. Because that law would not require a referendum, Democrats have expressed concern that a law determined without voter input could be overturned.  A press statement from the legislature said that the agreement “protects the Legislature’s commitment to voter choice and addresses the County Executive’s request to include a 16-year term limit question on the ballot.” One reason the county took the issue to court was the “democracy question,” as framed by Legislature Chair Nicole Watts in early August, raised by the accidental signing, attempted retraction, and blocking of the referendum from the ballot.  Democrats in the legislature, legislature clerks and Czarny framed their choices throughout the saga as matters of process. Rather than making decisions out of political will, they were following the laws laid out in the county charter, they argued. By contrast, McMahon and Ryan framed their own choices as common sense — if everybody knew what the county executive had meant to do, they shouldn’t act against that, they suggested.  Both county lawmakers and outside lawyers have expressed in the past a concern that the accidental signing could set a precedent allowing lawmakers to overturn laws after the fact without additional process by claiming that it was not their intent to agree to them.  County lawmakers have also argued that the decision of a Board of Elections commissioner to block the referendum from the ballot would set a dangerous precedent.  “We cannot just let a democracy question lie open,” said Watts when explaining the possibility the legislature would sue.  That question will not be answered by this county. But neither will new precedent be set.  The county sidestepped these concerns. Watts called the saga “not how we govern,” and all parties involved signed an agreement stating that this would not set legal precedent.  If these circumstances arrive again in the future, the county will immediately go to court to resolve it through mediation, according to the agreement.  Czarny said his largest concerns revolved around precedent and they have now been resolved.  The total cost of the legal action to the county cannot be determined yet, said Comptroller Marty Masterpole. He said he had yet to see invoices sent by the four sets of outside lawyers. Masterpole also said it was not possible to estimate the scale of the cost at this point. Even before the fight began, the county was expecting to end the year $500,000 over budget in spending on outside lawyers.  These term limits will not take effect until 2030, and previous terms will not count against the incumbents at that time. That means McMahon and County Comptroller Marty Masterpole could legally hold onto their positions until 2042 or 2046, depending on which law passes.  The last day to put a local law on the agenda for the September legislative session, is Saturday. That is not the only time crunch: ballots need to be printed in September. The post Onondaga County officials come to term limits agreements, sidestep “democracy question” appeared first on Central Current. ...read more read less