Francis noted that the city laterally chose to interfere in the petition, and told Judge Hintz that any reference to the November election could be struck, as a city-funded special election could be held. “I think the court erred,” said Francis.“Suffice it to say,” Prop. 77 was a “completely different case,” said City Assistant Attorney John Cotti, who detailed the variances. “...In this case there was no compliance,” and although the We CARE petition “specifically stated amending the General Plan,” same was not reflected in the document. Herrera was fulfilling her “ministerial duty” as the elected City Clerk in rejecting the petition, Cotti added.“I had the impression” in the Prop. 77 case, that a “clerical person sent off the next to the last draft of the petition to the Attorney General,” said Judge Hintz. “All the petitions were the same, there was no dispute on what the signatories were signing... it was differences with grammar and punctuation issues,” and no one argued that the petition itself was “defective.” The state case is “very different” from the We CARE petition issue, he added.Judge Hintz said he would issue a ruling later this week. After the hearing, Francis said that the “people’s business deserves better treatment.”“The state Supreme Court decision (upholding Prop. 77) makes us feel better about what we’re trying to do,” and ultimately We CARE will prevail, said Larry Sagely of We CARE.
Disputed petition: Land-use measure court decision pending
August 17, 2005
Santa Paula News
A Ventura County Superior Court judge will rule later this week on whether or not he will reverse his earlier decision to keep an area land-use measure off the ballot.
By Peggy KellySanta Paula TimesA Ventura County Superior Court judge will rule later this week on whether or not he will reverse his earlier decision to keep an area land-use measure off the ballot. Even if Judge Steven Hintz reverses his earlier action to uphold the We CARE petition rejected by City Clerk Josie Herrera, the measure would likely miss the November ballot.Land-use attorney Richard Francis asked the court to order a retrial on the petition that would lock down development for the next 20 years on more than 81-contiguous acres, unless voters approved larger commercial/residential developments.Although the petition garnered the number of qualified voters’ signatures, Herrera rejected it due to the omission of where the new measure would fit into the city’s General Plan and Housing Element document. We CARE filed the lawsuit against Herrera and the City Council.In the wake of the California Supreme Court decision to allow the statewide redistricting Prop. 77 on the ballot, Francis told Judge Steven Hintz that We CARE’s petition should have a retrial. “The California Supreme Court said the people have the right to petition the government,” and even if the measure is illegal, a decision on same would come after such a measure is successfully passed, noted Francis. He added that the full text of the We CARE measure, including its placement in city documents, would be in the voters’ information pamphlet.
