HOLLISTER
– A judge Wednesday denied a resident’s attempt to remove the
Growth Control Initiative from the March ballot and immediately
enact it as a previously passed ordinance.
HOLLISTER – A judge Wednesday denied a resident’s attempt to remove the Growth Control Initiative from the March ballot and immediately enact it as a previously passed ordinance.
The lawsuit challenged the legality of language in a signature referendum that put the controversial measure on the ballot, but the judge said state election laws do not clearly apply to referendums.
Therefore, he denied the writ of mandate – filed by San Juan Bautista resident Rebecca McGovern – to remove the initiative from the ballot.
McGovern and her attorneys with the environmental firm, Earthjustice, anticipated a victory would lead to re-establishment of the initiative as the ordinance passed in April by the Board of Supervisors. The referendum led to the Board rescinding that approval and sending it to the voters.
“The referendum shall remain on, or be placed on, the March 2004 ballot,” said visiting Santa Cruz Superior Court Judge Robert Yonts – moments later, his decision resulted in applause from a gallery of about 30 residents.
McGovern’s attorneys had claimed two statements, allegedly mandated by the state elections code, were wrongly left off the referendum.
Yonts, however, disagreed. While state law requires that certain signature petitions include the wording, he said there is “uncertainty and confusion” about whether it applies in this case.
“I just have to say that justice prevailed,” said Tom Tobias, chairman of the No on Measure G Committee and president of the San Benito County Farm Bureau. “People want to see it on the ballot, and that’s where it should be.”
The ruling from Yonts – appointed in early November after the county’s two local judges disqualified themselves because of conflicts – set the stage for an appeal process.
After the 2 p.m. hearing, McGovern’s two attorneys said they plan to file with the California Court of Appeal–Sixth Appellate District within a week. If that court accepts the case, it would be heard in San Jose.
“I think the judge made a mistake,” McGovern said. “It’s just going to prolong the whole thing.”
If Earthjustice’s attempt with the Court of Appeal fails, it would likely close at least one chapter on the divisive Growth Control Initiative issue.
The initiative has been the subject of debate since it was drafted about a year ago. After the Board of Supervisors approved it outright as an ordinance, the No on Measure G Committee collected signatures from nearly 6,000 residents to have the board repeal it. Then the supervisors – despite legal advice against it, citing the omitted language from the referendum – voted to send the initiative to the ballot.
Members in attendance from the No on Measure G Committee exulted after Wednesday’s ruling – at least for now. After the hearing adjourned, they shook hands, hugged and smiled as they left the courtroom.
“We’re hoping they don’t (appeal). We’re hoping they accept the judge’s decision,” Tobias said.
His committee defended the case, even though the Board of Supervisors was the party being sued; supervisors voted in early October in closed session to remain impartial on the matter, and did not direct the county counsel to defend the case.
The Earthjustice attorney Trent Orr said he went into Wednesday’s proceeding uncertain how the judge would rule but vowed his client would appeal.
“We still think we have a very strong case on the merits,” Orr said. “There is definitely an appeal coming, very soon.”
Tobias, meanwhile, said members of the committee met after the hearing and decided to file a claim against the county – because it stayed out of the suit – seeking attorneys’ costs for the case. The board’s non-action, Tobias said, forced the committee to defend the county’s residents at a “great expense.”
“We’re fighting for everybody to have a say in the matter,” Tobias said.
