Hours after a Johnson County judge declared her ruling on three resident-led petitions in Prairie Village, she appears to have reversed course on two of them.
That led to confusion Wednesday afternoon among both city officials and petition supporters and threw fresh uncertainty on top of an already simmering political issue in the Johnson County suburb.
As it stood Wednesday night, the judge’s latest order says a petition seeking to adopt a new form of city government is valid to be put on the ballot, while a rezoning petition and another petition seeking to abandon the city’s current form of government do not meet muster to go before voters.
What happened?
Johnson County District Court Judge Rhonda Mason heard arguments last week about the three petitions: one that seeks to define “rezoning” in order to limit multi-family developments in most of the city, and two other petitions that aim to make major changes to city governance.
In an oral summary of her ruling in court Wednesday morning, Mason validated the governance petition that seeks to “abandon” the city’s current mayor-council form of government, and tossed out both the “rezoning” petition and the governance petition that seeks “adoption” of a new form of city government.
But later Wednesday afternoon, Judge Mason’s written ruling was published to the online court docket, amending her previous oral ruling and reversing course on the two governance petitions.
According to Mason’s written ruling, the “adoption” petition is now legally valid to appear on a ballot before Prairie Village voters. In turn, she determined the “abandon” petition does not meet legal requirements.
The “rezoning” petition remained ineligible to be put on the ballot, according to Mason’s written ruling, same as in her oral ruling.
The city says attorneys are scheduled for a call with Mason on Thursday morning to clarify the situation.
Below is a copy of the judge’s written ruling.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab What does the “adoption” petition want?
The “adoption” petition seeks to replace the city’s current “mayor-council” form of government with a “mayor-council-manager” form of government.
The petition includes language that would cut the city council in half from 12 councilmembers down to six, effectively ending the terms of six current councilmembers two years early.
Under the language of the petitions, the six councilmembers elected in the upcoming November election would be the only ones to serve on the new city council.
In her written ruling published after 4 p.m. Wednesday, Judge Mason wrote, “After further review, the Court amends its oral order and finds that the Adoption Petition substantially complies with relevant law in both procedure and substance.”
She added: “The Adoption Petition can be submitted to a vote before the electors of Prairie Village, Kansas.”
What about the “abandon” petition?
This was the petition Mason initially cleared for the ballot in her oral ruling from the bench Wednesday morning.
But as she did with the “adoption” petition, Mason reversed her earlier order on the separate “abandon” petition to say it did “not substantially comply with relevant law” and that it was “legally insufficient” to appear on the ballot.
The “abandon” petition aims to do away with the city’s current mayor-council form of government. The petition’s organizers — PV United, also called Stop Rezoning Prairie Village — have called the current form of government a “strong mayor” form and indicated an interest in paring back mayoral power.
Judge’s comments in court led to confusion
During the oral ruling Wednesday morning, Judge Mason did briefly appear to mix up the “abandon” and “adoption” petitions when speaking.
Attorney Joe Hatley of Spencer Fane LLP, representing the city, asked for clarification during Mason’s oral ruling, after Mason initially said the “abandon” petition was insufficient and discussed the lack of term limits outlined for all offices, though the “abandon” petition does not contain language about term limits.
Hatley asked Mason if instead she meant the “adoption” petition, which does include language about term limits.
Mason responded that she was talking about the “adoption” petition being insufficient, and that the “abandon” petition complied with state law.
That was later reversed in Mason’s written ruling.
Responses from the city and PV United
Late Wednesday afternoon, the city issued the following two-sentence statement:
“Judge Mason’s written ruling contradicts the oral ruling given this morning. The judge will meet with attorneys tomorrow morning and more information will be posted at that time.”
The Post reached out to PV United spokesperson Dan Schoepf, who said he has “nothing to share at this point due to the confusion.”
