[env-trinity] Trinity Journal: Judge tosses initiatives

[Tom Stokely]

http://www.trinityjournal.com/news/local/article_3132ec5c-7d91-11e3-992a-0019bb30f31a.html 

Judge tosses initiatives

Posted: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:15 am
Sally Morris The Trinity Journal | 0 comments
A visiting judge from Colusa County ruled in Trinity County’s favor Tuesday on three separate lawsuits involving proposed voter initiatives that proponents have been trying to get on the ballot over the past two years, effectively dismissing them all.The first one known as The Responsible Government Act (or RGA) was submitted for the ballot two years ago by proponent Fred May of Hayfork and the Trinity County Constitutional Law Alliance. It was disqualified by the county elections office for insufficient signatures that contained post office boxes, but not physical addresses.
May sued the county and its top elections official Deanna Bradford, claiming elections fraud and seeking a court order forcing the county to place the measure on the ballot.
The other two initiatives were submitted last year by a different set of proponents and are known as the We the People’s Reaffirmation of Constitutional Rights Act and Forest Fire Prevention Act. Those measures were certified by the elections office as containing sufficient signatures to qualify for the June 2014 ballot.
However, the Trinity County Board of Supervisors filed a pre-election challenge to halt the process, claiming the initiatives were not proper for the ballot because they would violate many state and federal laws. The proponents were Diane Richards, Firenza Pini and Shirley Armstead of Hayfork, Kay Graves of Lewiston, Nancy Mok and Diana Sheen of Weaverville.
The initiative proponents were all represented by an attorney from San Francisco, William Abbott. The county was represented by its former County Counsel attorney Derek Cole in the hearings held Monday and Tuesday in Trinity County Superior Court in Weaverville.
The visiting retired judge William Able concluded that all three of the proposed initiatives violate the single subject rule in the state’s election code.
Regarding May’s case against the county alleging elections fraud, Able said the elections code “is succinct and very clear that physical addresses are absolutely mandatory on the signature page. I don’t see anything in the record to persuade this court today to deviate from what the law clearly says.”
He added that even if the county elections staff made a mistake in what was told to the proponent, “and I’m not saying they did, but even if the county messed up, the law clearly requires a residential address. It says so in bold, capital letters on the sample signature page.”
Abbott argued that the actions of the elections office and county counsel at the time, Derek Cole, “were reprehensible. My client jumped through every hoop and did everything possible over and over again to try to conform to the rules that kept shifting. At first the elections staff tried to be helpful, but at some point Mr. Cole took over with a plan to keep it off the ballot no matter what. Nothing in elections code gave him that power and this county has trampled people’s rights to use the initiative process.”
Abbott said May was initially told by elections staff that post office boxes would be allowed, then 10 days later was told that was a mistake. Then he said former County Clerk/Recorder/Assessor and Voter Registrar Dave Hunt, who later resigned, told May he could re-submit the initiative with new signatures. When May did that, the signatures were refused and the process was halted.
Derek Cole responded that May, a “prolific writer,” had been “peppering elections staff every day and they did their best to give him answers.”
He said that as the county’s lawyer at the time, he was asked for advice by the elections official “so I looked up the applicable law and gave that advice. We applied the law as it is clearly written and it was done right in both situations — the post office boxes and the recirculation, but they have come up with this false conspiracy theory. All we can do is rely on what is in the law.”
Cole added that the RGA clearly violated the single subject rule as well by including so many different topics and proposed actions.
A stay request from Abbott allowing time to subpoena Dave Hunt as a witness was rejected by Judge Able, who also agreed the law is clear regarding recirculation.
“It says once you submit, that is final. It is done. You cannot resubmit. If it’s not good enough, you can start the process over, but that is the law. The county elections official cannot send it back to collect more signatures because that is not the law anymore,” he said, denying May’s request for an order to place the initiative on the ballot, adding “the law is clearly not on your side in this.”
On the We the People initiative and Forest Fire Prevention Act, the judge said the measures are too broad and do not legally satisfy the initiative process.
He supported that conclusion by listing some of the subjects included in the We the People initiative on constitutional rights ranging from elimination of the East Connector Road project and county Planning Department to a moratorium on eminent domain and general plan amendments, search warrants, code enforcement “and unfettered rights to the use of property. The initiative is beyond the scope of power contained in the initiative process.”
Regarding the Forest Fire Prevention Act, the judge reached a similar conclusion, saying “this thing can never be enforced. You can’t do what you’re trying to do and it would create a nightmarish burden on everyone involved. What matters most is the initiative is unlawful, attempting to legislate matters that have totally been pre-empted by state and federal law.”
The judge did not grant any of the parties reimbursement of attorney fees and other costs associated with the lawsuits. Abbott argued that his clients were entitled to recover costs incurred fighting to place issues on the ballot whether they prevailed or not. Cole said that although the county’s challenge to halt the We the People initiatives was written broadly at first to include a standard request for attorneys’ fees to discourage frivolous lawsuits, that request was later withdrawn.
“We just want a ruling on the merits,” he said.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20140115/236f282c/attachment.html>