The county says MROSD opponents didn’t get enough signatures. Next stop: court

posted by Barry Parr on Jul 12, 2004 at 02:39 pm in  Government
3 comments • Click to email this story

The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District will not be on the November ballot, if the County’s signature count is upheld. Opponents of the MROSD were only able to gather 3,443 valid protest signatures versus 4,071 required to bring about a vote in November.

According to the certification [PDF] posted on the San Mateo County Elections web site, 1,757 of the 5,340 signatures collected were invalid. Most were duplicates or not registered.  MROSD supporters were only able to gather 140 valid withdrawals.

In an email to the Southcoast mailing list, Catherine Peery reports:

...a lawsuit on this is being heard tomorrow at 9 am in Judge Forcum’s court, room 2H in the Board of Supervisors building (400 County Center).  The total of duplicate and nonregistered signatures is about half of the rejected total.  There are some questions about whether both duplicates (the valid and invalid) were not counted, etc.  So, I think...its off the ballot, but the methods for invalidating were not as clear cut as the certification would imply.  The judge who agreed to hear the case said a 34% rejection rate was a red flag.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that this wound up in court.

Comments

Comment 1 by SwingFiddle  on  Jul 12  at  6:23pm  •  All my comments • 

Ms Woodward expressed forcefully in court on July 8, that no decision had been made, no petitions have been declared invalid, etc.

That job by law goes to the LAFCO Executive.

Presumably Mr. Slocum affixed his signature somewhat later in the day than Ms. Woodward did promise, as an officer of the court, that no decision had been made.

In question are the status of 698 signatures (and 16 withdrawals) that the elections office did invalidate on ‘technical’ issues.

Judge Forcum’s courtroom might well offer some passionate arguments as MROSD and LAFCO lawyers seek to avoid a vote of the people, perhaps more entertaining than the S. Peterson trial down the hall… SF

Incidentally, it is probably more correct to say that there were 3,443 valid (and unwithdrawn) signatures, of the 4,071 needed.

Comment 2 by Barry Parr  on  Jul 13  at  12:23am  •  All my comments • 

You’re right about the count. I corrected it. I’m looking forward to see how this turns out.

Comment 3 by SwingFiddle  on  Jul 13  at  7:34pm  •  All my comments • 

Today Judge Forcum did issue a temporary restraining order against LAFCO proceeding any further with the matter, pending a hearing regarding the handling of the protest petitions at SMC Elections department.

He said that the plaintiffs had demonstrated more than enough ‘infirmities’ in the validation/invalidation processes, that warranted a more thorough examination. In particular, he expressed concern that many petitions had been disqualified on narrow, technical interpretations of CA statutes. He expressed concern that coastside voters who had taken the trouble to sign a petition should be included, and not excluded for slight imperfections in their petitions.

SF


Add your own comment

Please Register and Log in to post a comment.

 

Get your story or comment on Coastsider. If you're a member, log in to submit a story. Not a member? Please register to submit a story.
Search Coastside and San Mateo County media.