Judge implies county’s petition count wasn’t impartial, delays case

The judge in the MROSD petition case has implied that the county elections commission was not impartial in its counting, and extended the deadline. San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Carl Holm will hear oral arguments in the case August 5. Apparently he must reach a decision by Aug. 6 to place a measure on the November ballot. Holm gave the lawyers until next Friday July 30 to file briefs on the case.

Neither the Mercury News, the San Mateo Times, nor the San Francisco Chronicle gives enough information to really understand this case, although the Merc has the most detail. I think this has become too arcane for baysiders to be interested. I’d like to hear more about this hearing from people who were there, but most will probably keep quiet while the case is up in the air.

MROSD’s opponents are taking two approaches, attempting to have some 650 invalidated petitions declared valid and trying to get the judge to order LAFCO to call for an election regardless of the outcome of the petition review.

The Mercury News reports that the judge expressed his concern that the county elections commission was not impartial, referring to county elections manager David Tom:

"I was led to believe Mr. Tom was trying to do things objectively’’ rather than helping the annexation cause, Holm said.

 

FOR OTHER VIEWS: See comments on this story for a pro-annexation account of the hearing. See comments on an earlier story, for an anti-annexation account.