Supporters of two ballot proposals rejected by the Minneapolis City Council on legal grounds took their cases to court Friday, contending that voters have a right to weigh in on both issues in the November election.

Hennepin County Judge Susan Robiner listened to nearly three hours of arguments from attorneys representing the backers of a charter amendment proposal to raise the city’s minimum wage to $15 per hour and a separate proposal that would amend the city charter to require all Minneapolis police officers to carry professional liability insurance.

Both groups filed lawsuits after the City Council voted last week to block the proposals from the ballot.

A majority of council members said they agreed with the legal opinions of City Attorney Susan Segal, who said the two issues did not fit within the narrow scope of topics that can be voted on by the public as a charter amendment.

Direct referendum or ballot initiative votes on city policies are not permitted under Minneapolis’ charter.

In court Friday, lawyers from the city attorney’s office told Robiner that the minimum-wage advocates were trying to use a charter amendment to avoid a City Council vote on the matter.

He said the charter’s primary focus is on the broad outline of city government, such as the balance of powers and responsibilities of city departments. Specific ordinances, meanwhile, are determined by direct action by the council.

“To allow a charter amendment to pass as an initiative is an end-run around the fact that we don’t have [power of] initiative in Minneapolis,” said Assistant City Attorney Brian Carter.

But Bruce Nestor, an attorney representing the four low-wage workers named on the lawsuit — who are working with the groups 15 Now, Centro de Trabajadores Unidos en Lucha and Neighborhoods Organizing for Change — said the city’s legal interpretation is too narrow.

He and the attorney representing the police-insurance matter said the judge should order the city to put the issues on the ballot. Nestor argued that Minneapolis’ charter, and those of other Minnesota cities, include provisions for items far beyond the scope of the charter, such as requirements about fire-prevention efforts and regulations for midwives.

He said the minimum-wage question fits as a charter amendment because it considers broad issues of the health and welfare of the city — and would not necessarily lead to more groups trying to pass direct legislation at the city level.

“We are not looking at opening up some kind of floodgates here,” he said.

Meanwhile, Tim Phillips, an attorney representing the Committee for Professional Policing, which wrote the petition to put the police-insurance amendment on the ballot, said he disputes the city’s assertion that the new rule would conflict with state law. The group contends that the requirement would cut down on cases of officer misconduct because individual police officers involved in such cases would likely see their insurance premiums go up — and they’d be on the hook for paying for it.

Assistant City Attorney Tracey Fussy said the proposal would conflict with a state law that requires cities to defend their employees in court cases. Plus, she said, officers who are involved in cases that are dismissed in their favor — or more benign lawsuits, like those involving car crashes — would see their premiums go up.

Robiner asked several questions of the attorneys in both cases, and directed them to submit written legal briefs and responses by Aug. 19. It’s likely she will issue a decision early the following week, as both cases face a tight deadline. The city must submit any municipal issues to the county by Aug. 26, and attorneys in both cases said they need time for both Robiner’s decision — and the decision of a higher court judge, if there are any appeals — to meet that deadline.

Erin Golden • 612-673-4790