Lawsuit aimed at a controversial county measure tossed out
By TONY BURCHYNS Staff Writer
San Jose – A federal judge denied a request to remove Measure A from the Nov. 7 ballot, squelching what environmentalists say was an effort to derail the controversial land-use initiative.
The ruling, made by Judge Ron Whyte Friday, asserts the civil rights case brought against the county alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act is not a slam dunk, and an injunction would place undue hardships on the Santa Clara Registrar of Voters’ office by requiring re-printing of election materials and notification to voters of the change.
“More importantly,” the seven-page ruling states, “the public interest does not favor an injunction” because if the court incorrectly removes the item from the ballot, it will have “improperly interfered with the voting rights of Santa Clara County voters as a whole on an issue of public importance.”
The request to quickly sideline controversial Measure A – which would limit development in certain hillside and rural areas of the county – arose from a lawsuit filed in early August claiming county officials had violated the Voting Rights Act by allowing Measure A promoters to circulate petitions for the initiative without printing them in the same languages required of county ballot materials.
Those languages, per federal law, are: English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese and Tagalog.
The Ninth Circuit in 2005 held the Voting Rights Act applied to privately circulated recall petitions in California, but the same court decided to review the decision in April and ordered its original opinion withdrawn. Oral arguments before the higher court took place in June. The matter is still under submission.
The lawsuit was filed by a pair of South County residents who oppose Measure A and two non-English speaking county residents who say they were prevented from making a decision on the petition because they could not read it.
One of the plaintiffs in the case is Clarence Stone, a member of the Alliance for Housing and the Environment, a group of farmers, Realtors and hillside property owners fighting the initiative put forth by the nonprofit People for Land and Nature.
The alliance did not give money to support the lawsuit.
Jay Ross, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, said Friday he did not know whether his clients would ask for a jury trial if it came to that.
Stone could not be reached for comment Monday. While he opposed Measure A, Stone told the Dispatch in August the request for a preliminary injunction was not motivated by politics. “We believe there’s a violation of the Voting Rights Act,” he said at the time. In a separate interview, Stone would not comment on how he teamed up with the two non-English speaking residents to file the suit.
Peter Drekmeier, PLAN’s campaign coordinator, disagrees the case is solely intended to help map out an uncertain legal landscape dealing with civil rights and citizen-generated petitions.
“We think (our opponents) are very nervous about Measure A going to the people,” Drekmeier said. “They are trying to derail us with these frivolous lawsuits.”
Drekmeier was additionally referring to a separate lawsuit brought against the county on Friday alleging certain arguments in the “Yes on Measure A” ballot statement are “brazenly” false.
A hearing in that case, which doesn’t put the initiative itself at risk, but could require portions of the ballot statement to be deleted or rewritten, happens today.
Tony Burchyns covers the county for The Dispatch. Reach him at 779-4106 ext. 201 or tb*******@*************es.com.
