Court of Appeals of Kansas, no. 101,804, June 11, 2010: The appellant lacked standing under Kansas law to challenge the city’s refusal to hold a referendum for two citizens-proposed ordinances about the establishment of a historic district, and to challenge the city council’s exclusion of one of its members from an executive session held to discuss these proposed ordinances. Appellant owns a business within the proposed district but does not live in the city and cannot vote there. The court reasoned that only those entitled to vote in city elections have standing to challenge whether the city holds a vote, and only those who live there may challenge city council procedures. The court noted that “if the city is violating [appellant's] rights as a property owner—either by enacting the ordinances or by refusing to do so— [appellant] may sue to obtain redress for that violation.”
Decision available at http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/CtApp/2010/20100611/101804.pdf.