The City of Whitefish, at the direction of city council, has responded to a lawsuit filed last month against the city asking the courts to void a recently voter-approved referendum. The city says they are legally required and morally compelled to respond to the lawsuit, and they hope to defend the “constitutionally protected citizens’ right of referendum.”

Council directed city attorney Mary VanBuskirk to write a response after a Jan. 3 executive work session that was closed to media and the public.

In November, city voters approved a ballot referendum to repeal a 2010 city-county agreement regarding planning jurisdiction in the two-mile planning doughnut around Whitefish. The referendum passed with a 1,444 to 738 vote.

A lawsuit against the city was filed Dec. 22, 2011 by Lyle Phillips, Anne Dee Reno, Ben Whitten and former councilor Turner Askew. Kalispell lawyer Duncan Scott is the attorney representing the plaintiffs. They argue that the referendum was illegal, and therefore void.

The case was assigned to Flathead County District Court Judge David Ortley.

The city said the lawsuit took them by surprise.

“This unexpected action, coming coincidentally right before the normally peaceful Christmas holiday, required the City to respond to the lawsuit,” a city press release said.

The city response argues that the referendum was “a valid and proper exercise of the city’s constitutional right to repeal” the council's vote to approve the 2010 interlocal agreement.

Beyond defending the referendum, the city will ask the District Court for an injunction to prevent the county from implementing interim zoning in the doughnut.

“The electoral and property rights of Whitefish and doughnut residents can be harmed without recourse if Flathead County is allowed to proceed with interim zoning on Jan. 12,” the city noted in their press release.

City manager Chuck Stearns said the city is waiting for a response from the judge. Until Jan. 12, the city continues to have jurisdiction over the doughnut area, he said.