Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 410.20 (2026)
Recall And Removal Of Officers; Ordinances
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Such commission may also provide for the recall of any elective municipal officer and for removal of the officer by vote of the electors of such city, and may also provide for submitting ordinances to the council by petition of the electors of such city and for the repeal of ordinances in like manner; and may also provide that no ordinance passed by the council, except an emergency ordinance, shall take effect within a certain time after its passage, and that if, during such time, a petition be made by a certain percentage of the electors of the city protesting against the passage of such ordinance until the same be voted on at an election held for such purpose, and then such ordinance to take effect or not as determined by such vote.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1959–2024 · leading case: Tyler Vasseur v. City of Minneapolis, Ginny Gelms, in her Off. capacity as Elections Manager, Hennepin Cnty., 887 N.W.2d 467 (Minn. 2016).
Tyler Vasseur v. City of Minneapolis, Ginny Gelms, in her Off. capacity as Elections Manager, Hennepin Cnty., 887 N.W.2d 467 (Minn. 2016). “Because Minneapolis did not choose, in its charter, to permit citizens to “submit[] ordinances to the council by petition” of thosé residents, Minn.Stat. § 410.20, the City argues that the wage amendment conflicts with state law and therefore cannot be placed on the ballot.”
Nordmarken v. City of Richfield, 641 N.W.2d 343 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). “Minn.Stat. § 410.20 (2000). The City of Richfield adopted a home rule charter that reserves to the people of the city the powers of initiative and referendum.”
Jacobsen v. Nagel, 96 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 1959). “” Specifically with reference to recall, § 410.20 provides that the charter may “provide for the recall of any elective municipal officer and for his removal by vote of the electors of such city.”
Hanson v. City of Granite Falls, 529 N.W.2d 485 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). “They claim that the district court incorrectly interpreted the Granite Falls City Charter and Minn.Stat. § 410.20 (1992) as authorizing voter referendums on ordinances only.”
Kay \KT\" Jacobs v. City of Columbia Heights", 9 N.W.3d 536 (Minn. 2024). “, Charter §§ 47–52; see Minn. Stat. § 410.20 (2022) (authorizing a home rule charter city to “provide for the recall of any elective municipal officer and for removal of the officer by vote of the electors of such city” in its city charter).”
Op. Atty. Gen. 59a-30 (Minn. Att'y Gen. 1996). “The legislature has specifically addressed the authority to provide for removal of elected city officials by charter through the enactment of Minn. Stat. § 410.20 (1994), which provides in part: [S]uch commission may also provide for the recall of any elective municipal officer…”
The Centennial Fire Fighters Relief Ass'n v. The City of Lino Lakes, Anoka Cnty. Auditor, Jonell Sawyer in her Off. capacity, Minnesota Sec'y of State, Steve Simon, in his Off. capacity (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). “App. 1995). 6 City Charter ch. V, § 5.01 (2014) The right of the electorate to influence the affairs of a city council is limited to influencing the passage and repeal of ordinances, and recall and removal (which is not involved in this case).”
Tyler Vasseur, VS. City of Minneapolis, Ginny Gelms, in her Off. capacity as Elections Manager, Hennepin Cnty. (Minn. 2016). “provide for submitting ordinances to the council by petition of the electors of [a] city," Minn. Stat. § 410.20 (2014), the Minneapolis City Charter does not include such a provision.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.