Opinion | St. Paul’s Question 1: The real story behind the civil penalties referendum

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

St. Paul voters face a critical decision in a referendum Nov. 4: whether to grant the city broad, unchecked power to impose civil penalties. If approved, the ordinance in question will give the city unbridled authority to impose monetary penalties for the violation of any civil ordinance. Unlike a fine for a parking ticket, there is no cap for St. Paul’s proposed civil penalties and, if enacted, such monetary penalties will be adjudicated by City Hall.

To implement civil penalties, the City Council needs to amend the City Charter — our city’s constitution. Amending the charter concerns the most fundamental rules of our local government. Historical precedent has been to honor the democratic process and let St. Paul residents decide via a ballot question. The history of how the city attempted to evade the people’s vote on this matter is as troubling as the proposed ordinance itself.

The legal way around the democratic process is a unanimous City Council vote and a positive recommendation from the Charter Commission. The latest proposal is the third attempt by city officials to give themselves the civil penalty power without residents’ approval. Attempts to sidestep voters started in 2019 with a failed City Council vote and continued in 2021 with a failed Charter Commission vote.

The current proposal was initially passed in 2025 when the City Council delivered the requisite unanimous approval and a newly installed Charter Commission of city insiders voted to support it. Advocates celebrated the orchestrated power grab as a hard-fought victory, while silently ignoring the right of voters to decide this fundamental issue.

Fortunately, a successful grass-roots petition foiled the city’s plot to circumvent voter participation. Not surprisingly, more than 2,000 residents signed a petition agreeing that residents, not a handful of city insiders, should have the right to decide this matter. Now that the people have spoken, city special interests have ramped up their misinformation campaign, claiming without evidence that “corporate landlords” and “wealthy interests” are blocking workers’ and renters’ rights by opposing civil penalties. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What supporters won’t tell St. Paul voters is that the potential for abuse of civil penalties is very real. First, the proposed charter amendment sets no limits on which ordinances may have civil penalties. There is no maximum fine amount nor a limit on the number of times someone can be fined. In effect, it grants the city a blank check to inflict financial distress on residents. In contrast, state law caps both criminal and civil citations at $1,000.

Next, there are no meaningful guardrails to restrain the reach of civil penalties. Finally, there’s no workable remedy available for residents who contest inequitable action by the city.

Supporters argue that each proposed civil penalty will have three readings and a public hearing. But they fail to disclose that only four City Council votes are needed to pass any civil penalty ordinance and that recourse for the average resident would be expensive litigation.

Most troubling, though, is that the City Council will be playing a shell game by wearing two conflicting hats: serving both as a legislative body to write the civil penalty ordinance and then functioning in a quasi-judicial capacity to decide the fate of those cited for a violation. Instead of first appearing before a neutral Ramsey County judge or a jury of their peers under the current criminal citation model, a civil penalty defendant will appear before a “judge” who works for and is paid by the city. That is self-dealing by any definition and the antithesis of fair or democratic local government. We can do better.

With a historically high vacancy rate in downtown, a shrinking municipal tax base and a struggling mayor being challenged within his own party for re-election, it is no surprise that the city is looking for new revenue sources. The city’s proposed civil penalty power is flawed and misguided. Please vote “no” on Nov. 4 and send elected city officials the message that residents want more transparency and fairness.