Councilman John Mirisch challenged the city’s term limits with legal action that was rejected on Feb. 23. (photo courtesy of the city of Beverly Hills)

On Feb. 23, L.A. Superior Court Judge Lisa Sepe-Wiesenfeld rejected a lawsuit filed by Councilman John Mirisch which sought a court order to allow Mirisch to run for a fifth term on the Beverly Hills City Council. The lawsuit challenged Measure TL, which was passed in the city of Beverly Hills in 2022 and limits council members to three terms in office.

“We’re pleased that the court upheld the will of the voters as reflected in the term limit initiative,” Beverly Hills City Attorney Laurence Wiener said in a statement.

David J. Carroll, an attorney with Ellis George LLP representing Mirisch in the lawsuit, responded in a statement on behalf of Mirisch.

“While we respect the court’s ruling on the petition, we were disappointed by the outcome,” Carroll said. “We believe state law prohibited the city from adopting a term limit ordinance that counts terms served before its adoption, and that Beverly Hills voters should have been given the opportunity to elect Mr. Mirisch as their City Council representative in June 2026.”

In 2022, Beverly Hills voters passed Measure TL, which established a three-term limit for City Council members during their lifetime. However, in the same election where Measure TL was passed, Mirisch was elected to a fourth term in office. Measure TL indicated that a council member’s previous terms should be counted when determining when a term limit is reached.

In 2012, then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris issued an opinion that stated terms served before a local term limit ordinance is passed do not count toward term limits.

“A term served on a town council that was served prior to the effective date of a local initiative term-limit ordinance may not be counted against the term limit imposed by that ordinance,” the opinion read.

Additionally, California Government Code 36502 states that “any proposal to limit the number of terms a member of the City Council may serve on the City Council, or the number of terms an elected mayor may serve, shall apply prospectively only.”

Mirisch cited the opinion and the government code in his argument. However, Sepe-Wiesenfeld ultimately ruled in favor of the city, stating that the attorney general’s opinion, “while it may provide some guidance to the court, is not legally binding on this court or on respondents.”

Additionally, the judge cited a legally binding appeals court decision which supported counting past terms.

Sepe-Wiesenfeld also stated that the “prospective-only” clause in Government Code 3602 functions to prevent a council member from being removed from office due to a term limit ordinance, but not to prevent cities from enacting term limit ordinances that count previous terms.

“Term limits are ‘analogous to a minimum age requirement, which looks at an event in the past – the person’s birth – to determine his or her present eligibility to drink, smoke, run for office, etc.’” the ruling read, citing the court of appeals decision.