an ordinance even though the Charter is silent on this point. We disagree. Just because citizens can shield positive enactments from repeal or amendment by the city council or the mayor does not mean that they have standing perpetually to bar future action on rejected proposals, or none-nactments. A successful “no” vote may memorialize public opinion on an issue at a particular time and place, but the rejection of a proposal by a public referendum is not an enactment of positive law that can be shielded from subsequent modification. Finally, we are not persuaded by Hotze’s reliance on federal legislative standing cases to support his position. Hotze asserts that, as a voter in the 1985 referendum, he became a legislator. See Blum, 997 S.W.2d at 262 (citing Glass, 244 S.W.2d at 649) (<HOLDING>). Then he contends that, as a legislator, he
holding that a wide application was required given the legislative intent for the remedial provisions of the act holding that in the absence of a legislative invasion of constitutionallyprotected rights the judicial branch of government must respect and defer to the legislatures exclusive policy decisions recognizing that immigration policy is the clear purview of the legislative branch recognizing a settlement prevented a municipal referendum as it was not a legislative action recognizing that citizens who exercise their rights under the initiative provisions act as and become in fact the legislative branch of the municipal government 