Town of Fond Du Lac v. City of Fond Du Lac
22 Wis. 2d 533, 126 N.W.2d 201, 1964 Wisc. LEXIS 358 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal annexation is void if the annexing city secures elector signatures through economic coercion, such as offering benefits or making threats, or if it gerrymanders the territory's boundaries in an arbitrary and capricious manner, such as by creating an island of excluded land solely to prevent residents from participating in the annexation process.
Facts:
- The City of Fond du Lac sought to annex adjacent territory from the Town of Fond du Lac.
- The City, which owned most of the land in the target area, needed signatures from a majority of the electors residing there.
- To obtain one family's (the Haensgens) signatures, the City offered them one year of free rent.
- To obtain another family's (the Zimphers) signatures, the City threatened them with eviction.
- The City drew the annexation boundaries to create a 300-by-130-foot island of unincorporated Town land.
- This island was surrounded on three sides by the newly annexed territory and on the fourth side by the City's existing boundary.
- The City's sole purpose for creating this island was to exclude the electors residing there from participating in the annexation proceeding.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs filed an action in a trial court seeking a declaratory judgment that the City of Fond du Lac's annexation ordinance was void.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the City of Fond du Lac.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a municipal annexation ordinance void if the city secures the required signatures from electors through economic coercion and gerrymanders the territory's boundaries by creating an 'island' of excluded land solely to prevent electors from participating in the process?
Opinions:
Majority - Hallows, J.
Yes, the annexation is void. Signing an annexation petition is a political right analogous to voting and must not be improperly influenced by economic pressure. By offering free rent and threatening eviction, the City engaged in conduct equivalent to buying votes, which defiles the integrity of the political act and invalidates the coerced signatures. Furthermore, while municipalities have discretion in drawing annexation boundaries, this power is subject to a 'rule of reason.' Creating an island of unincorporated territory solely to disenfranchise electors and ensure the success of the annexation is an arbitrary, capricious, and unjustifiable action that constitutes an abuse of discretion, rendering the annexation invalid.
Analysis:
This decision establishes critical limitations on a municipality's power in annexation proceedings, placing the integrity of the political process above a city's property interests or expansionist goals. It extends the 'rule of reason' test, traditionally used to evaluate the suitability of included land, to also scrutinize the exclusion of land, particularly when done to manipulate a political outcome. The case solidifies the principle that elector participation in annexations is a protected political right, treating petition signatures like votes that cannot be coerced or purchased, thereby setting a higher standard of conduct for municipalities in such matters.
