Key legal question
Whether the refusal to vote on the agenda-removal motion violated political rights.
Extracted holding
No violation: the chair could treat the motion as inadmissible because it would have effectively suspended naturalization proceedings contrary to the applicable transitional regime and the duty to decide within a reasonable time.
Extracted reasoning
A motion whose purpose was to postpone all naturalization cases until later legislative changes would have led to an impermissible suspension of proceedings and a denial of justice under Art. 29 para. 1 BV. It was not for the municipality meeting to review the legality of the cantonal transitional rules.