City of Edgerton sues residents over data center petition legality
The City of Edgerton, Kansas, has sued residents who submitted a petition calling for a vote on a proposed data center or an ordinance preventing future data centers. The city claims the proposed ordinance was illegal and factually deficient, while residents argue their First Amendment rights are being violated. This legal action is seen by residents as a retaliatory tactic to silence public opposition.
The City of Edgerton, Kansas, has filed a lawsuit against residents Dr. Kimberly Twente and Carrie Schmidt, along with a non-profit entity, after they submitted a petition seeking a public vote on a proposed data center or the implementation of an ordinance to prevent future data centers. The petition, which garnered the required number of signatures and was approved by Johnson County election officials, included a proposed ordinance that the city claims is illegal and "factually deficient," asserting it contained unverified claims and was administrative in nature, which is prohibited under Kansas law.
Dr. Twente expressed deep disappointment, viewing the lawsuit as a retaliatory and bullying tactic designed to silence citizens exercising their First Amendment rights. She highlighted a pattern where the City of Edgerton has approved projects despite public opposition, prioritizing corporations over constituents. Twente also raised concerns about data centers' potential negative health and environmental impacts, accusing the city of misrepresenting the lawsuit's purpose on its website by suggesting it was a favor to ensure petitioners' involvement in court proceedings. The city's FAQ page, stating it wasn't trying to stop a vote, was directly contradicted by the lawsuit's request for a permanent injunction against the petition ordinance.
Carrie Schmidt, another defendant, echoed Twente's sentiments, labeling the city's action as a bullying tactic aimed at intimidating lawful petitioning. Attorney Linus Baker, representing the residents, called the lawsuit a First Amendment violation, arguing the city should have challenged itself if an injunction was needed against the entity capable of calling an election. He stated that the city bypassed its statutory options—either passing the ordinance or submitting it to a vote—by creating a third option to sue the petition organizers. Baker intends to ask the district court to dismiss the claims against his clients and award attorney fees.