By Robert Haugh
Yesterday, the City received a letter warning that the ballot language for the Measures to eliminate the right of Santa Clarans to vote for the Police Chief and City Clerk is deceptive and biased.
The letter was written by attorney Bradley Hertz of the Sutton Law Firm, one of California’s top political law firms.
Hertz is representing Satish Chandra and Joyce Davis who both were on the Charter Review Committee that came up with the recommendation for the measures. Carolyn McAllister, a community leader, is also a plaintiff.
The Measures will be on the March 2024 ballot.
Hertz focused his letter on the Police Chief’s Measure and wrote:
“Because the ballot question as presently worded – ‘Shall an amendment to the City Charter providing that the Police Chief position be appointed by the City Manager be adopted?’ – fails to inform voters that the Police Chief position is currently an elected position, it is biased, likely to prejudice voters in favor of the Measure, violates the law and must be amended before being presented to the voters.
Further, although California Elections Code section 9051 permits local ballot questions to be up to 75 words, the question as currently worded is only 21 words.
Accordingly, there is plenty of room to add words that would explain that the position of Police Chief is currently an elected position, thus making the ballot question impartial and legal.”
City Attorney Glen Googins wrote the Measure’s language and almost identical language for the City Clerk Measure.
Googins did not respond to a request for comment.
Hertz states in his letter that Googins himself raised issues about the ballot language at the December 5 City Council meeting.
“You appear to have acknowledged that the ballot question pushes the envelope by saying that if the question is challenged in court, a Judge may agree that it is legally problematic,” wrote Hertz.
Coincidentally, in 2022, the Civil Grand Jury issued a report entitled: “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped.”
The report concludes that “Yes, sometimes voters are being deceived.”
The Grand Jury report cites some recent local examples:
In addition, “the Civil Grand Jury discovered that some local governing entities presenting measures for a public vote create ballot questions that are purposefully misleading so they may obtain their desired result.”
Hertz’s letter suggests that will be an argument used in the legal challenge.
“Assistant City Manager Cynthia Bojorquez acknowledged that the ballot question was developed from successful language in similar measures in other local jurisdictions,” wrote Hertz.
Hertz asked for the City to respond by today or he’ll file a lawsuit on Monday to meet the upcoming ballot deadlines.
This is a developing story.
[…] The ballot language is being challenged as being biased by a potential lawsuit. […]
Buchser Alum
What I pointed out is stating that we are the only city in California that allows its residents to elect their chief and clerk is a piss poor argument to not allow it.
mrhmyers,
The uniqueness is not an argument for or against election.
You said: “The uniqueness is not an argument for or against election.”
Yet you are the one that brought it up in a proposed ballot statement.
“…A yes vote would end Santa Clara’s existing practice of electing the police chief and Santa Clara would no longer be the only city in California that elects its police chief.”
No, you’re right, it isn’t worth beating this dead horse.
Santa Clarins do deserve an elected chief, They deserve the best that is qualified and available candidate from anywhere. Nikolai & Haggag have no “rights” to their office, they must earn the right to serve. What is fundamental, certainly not your arguments. They have the right to apply for the honor to serve the City of Santa Clara.
How would opponents of appointment feel if the wording were this:
Shall an amendment to the City Charter providing that the Police Chief position be appointed by the City Manager be adopted? A yes vote would end Santa Clara’s existing practice of electing the police chief and Santa Clara would no longer be the only city in California that elects its police chief.
Transparent & factual! Just what this city needs. And you likely aren’t being paid an exhorbibant salary…
We are also in the minority in terms of having our electric utility. Does that make it bad? Why don’t we just have the governor appoint all the sheriffs instead of having them elected?
So glad people like you are in the minority.
mrhmyers,
Going against the grain does not really matter or not by itself. But the position that Robert Haugh is writing from is complaining that it is prejudicial to not cite the fact that we currently elect our police chief. I think that the pro appointment people would complain that it should be cited that we are the only city in California who elects our police chief. So I proposed an addition that should satisfy both sides.
Whether or not we should appoint or elect our police chief has nothing to do with whether we should have our own city electrical company.
You might as well have asked “We area also in the minority in terms of having a Spanish mission. Does that make it bad?” Or that we have an amusement park.
Matt, I’m more concerned about the citizens’ rights. They are being abused.
As previously noted: The last city to change its city clerk charter in Santa Clara County was Morgan Hill and their 2018 ballot language read, “Shall the office of the City Clerk be appointed?”
In King County, WA they put a measure on the ballot to change the Sheriff from an elected to appointed position in 2020. The ballot language read, “Shall the King County charter be amended to return the position of King County sheriff to an appointed position with a requirement for consideration of community stakeholder input during the selection process and to make the county executive responsible for bargaining working conditions with the department of public safety’s represented employees?”
Neither of those ballot’s language needed to express that the Clerk or Sheriff positions were presently elected and no one in either voting district challenged the language used. I haven’t seen the letter from Bradley Hertz, does anyone know if he referenced case law that would give City Attorney Googins, City Manager Grogan, the City Council, or the voting public any reason to believe Mr. Hertz isn’t just saber rattling for a few easy bucks?
According to a 2020 CalMatters report about lawsuits against state-wide ballot language, “… state courts seem generally inclined to defer to the Attorney General’s choice of verbiage” and in ‘slapping down’ many of those lawsuits Sacramento Superior Court Judge Laurie Earl wrote in her decision, “The Court is not a copy editor.” https://calmatters.org/politics/2020/08/california-proposition-descriptions-lawsuits-attorney-general/
Play football Jed, not local politics.
If a GoFundMe or similar is established to pay for plaintiff legal fees, put me down for a sizeable donation.
This stunt by the 49er 5 to deceive voters and twist the results in favor of their real boss, Jed York, needs total transparency and publicity in exposing the rot underlying this ballot measure.
If somebody knows of a fund that has been established to support legal fees against the wording of this ballot please consider sharing it here.
Thanks Robert for keeping us informed.
It used to be that political turmoil in Santa Clara was a big deal. Now, thanks totally to the niners and their minions, it is an every day occurrence. Just look at the last couple of years, it isn’t decreasing, it is increasing.
The motion was made by Becker. But it was Jain’s motion
Santa clarans deserve an elected chief and clerk.
Nikolai and Haggag have rights. It is fundamental. It is a right they deserve.