A federal appeals court concluded Tuesday there are no constitutional obstructions to letting Mayor Michael Bloomberg run for a third term this year.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said that absent a flaw in the law or a violation of the Constitution, ”It is not the role of this court to interject itself into city politics.”

The appeals court acknowledged that some people think a change in law allowing Bloomberg to run again disregards the will of people who voted for term limits. But the court said it can decide only constitutional issues and legal claims.

Bloomberg persuaded the City Council last fall to extend term limits so he could run for a third term this year. The billionaire businessman said he wants another term so he can use his financial background to help the city navigate the fallout from the economic crisis.

The appeals court called Bloomberg’s reason for wanting a third term a ”legitimate objective” and said it was inconsequential that the city ”also may have been motivated by political reasons — the desire to remain in office and in positions of seniority.”

The appeals court said the law did not interfere with a fundamental right. The ruling was unlikely to be appealed, in part because the Supreme Court would have to agree to take the case.

The term-limit change gave dozens of elected officials the chance to seek re-election and made it likely that some who might otherwise seek the mayoral post would not run because they would face an incumbent with unlimited campaign funds.

The city’s comptroller, its public advocate, several council members and some residents brought a lawsuit in federal court in Brooklyn seeking a declaration that the term limits extension was unconstitutional and invalid. The lawsuit argued that the law was an ”incumbency re-employment program” to allow ”those in power to have the opportunity to remain in power.”

The lawsuit claimed violations of the First Amendment protection of an effective vote and its protection against legislative actions that chill protected speech. It also said the measure violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of due process.

The lawsuit sought to bar the Board of Elections from listing term-limited city officials on the ballot in next year’s elections.

The lawsuit noted that term limits were put in place to prevent entrenchment of incumbents in office in a city where only two of 107 incumbent City Council candidates lost a re-election bid in the past decade.

New Yorkers voted in 1993 and 1996 that they wanted term limits to keep mayors from serving more than two consecutive four-year terms. The last mayor to do so was Ed Koch, who stepped down in 1989. The appeals court said it was not necessary to have a referendum to reverse the law.

The lawsuit was tossed out in January by U.S. District Judge Charles Sifton, who said the plaintiffs had failed to show their First Amendment rights were affected.

Norman Siegel, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, called it ”a dark day for democracy and for the voters of New York City.”

He said the term limits extension will become ”part of the legacy of the Bloomberg administration.”

Siegel said he did not yet know whether there would be further appeal.

Another plaintiffs’ lawyer, Randy Mastro, said approval from the courts does not make what Bloomberg and City Council did right.

”What the mayor and City Council did here in extending the term limits and thwarting the will of the voters is simply wrong and undemocratic,” said Mastro, a deputy mayor under Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

City attorney Michael A. Cardozo said the ”ruling will give New York City residents the opportunity to vote for officials of their choice.”

Source: AP