I =>think<= it’s all about one term of legislation incumbering another terms ability.
Well, it violates the constitutions incumbrance clauses for bodies like Congress and the Senate and certain executives and judiciaries.
But I don’t know if City charters have similar clauses, or rules about lame duck sessions that may prohibit certain types of legislation, but if the State Constitution has similar clauses then no, it wouldn’t be legal.
Worst case is it’s merely violates the “spirit” of whatever charter/constitution they are using — because we know that Democrats have no problem with violating the “spirit” of laws in order to assume more powers.
The major elect ran and was elected to a legally defined office. One would think that any changes would have to be prospective, not retroactive. Otherwise, one would be nullifying an election.