Posted on 06/07/2005 9:43:51 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
A twist in the Mount Soledad cross saga pits the lawyer fighting to move the towering symbol against a fresh foe: Padres broadcaster Jerry Coleman.
Coleman wants to sign the ballot argument in support of keeping the cross on its La Jolla hilltop. But attorney Jim McElroy has asked a Superior Court judge to rewrite the argument, which McElroy claims is misleading, and exclude Coleman's signature because he missed a filing deadline by one week.
The argument is the latest in a 16-year court battle.
On July 26, San Diegans will vote on a successor to Mayor Dick Murphy, who leaves office July 15. They also will approve or reject a plan to give the cross site to the federal government in an attempt to bypass a federal court ruling that its presence on city land violates the state constitution.
In a legal challenge filed Thursday, McElroy asked that the ballot argument be revised before being mailed citywide this month.
McElroy also says that Coleman, whose signature is set to be one of five on that ballot argument, should not qualify because he missed a deadline and submitted a week late a signed statement that the argument was valid.
Two lawyers representing the authors of the argument in support of the land transfer contend that McElroy, who wrote the argument against the measure, wants to suppress the other side and that the text and signatures should stand.
The City Clerk's Office said Coleman's signature should appear on the ballot. His affidavit about the validity of the statement was submitted Thursday, a week late, but his signature was turned in before a May 27 deadline, election official Bonnie Stone said.
San Diego Superior Court Judge William C. Pate will meet today with attorneys to consider setting a court date. Friday is the printing deadline for election officials to make major changes to ballot materials.
Attorney Charles LiMandri, who represents Coleman and three others who signed the ballot argument, said yesterday that the wording of their argument is legitimate.
McElroy faults the argument in support of the land transfer for characterizing the lawsuit brought by his client, atheist Philip Paulson, as frivolous; stating that a vote against the measure will "place many other noble symbols of our past in jeopardy," and using words such as "only," "necessitating" and "permanently" in ways that are misleading.
The ballot argument says, for example, that a yes vote would "permanently preserve Mount Soledad – as it is, where it is." McElroy says existing case law says the cross must be moved. LiMandri says the cross would be allowed to stay because it is part of a war memorial.
Paulson filed his lawsuit in 1989. In 1991, a federal judge ruled the presence of the cross on city land violated the "no preference clause" of the state constitution, which bans religious symbols on public land. An injunction has been on hold while various solutions were attempted.
Maybe the athiests will agree to a compromise keeping the cross if a condom was put over it.
This seems to be a good idea, since we NEVER see any bone-headed legal rulings coming out concerning Federal Land........
didn't the ACLU get involved in this??
And here I thought that all votes should be counted.
He is a baseball announcer, for the Padres, and was a Yankees player.
His career was interrupted by WWII and Korea when he left baseball to fly for the USMC. He was the only baseball player called to active combat duty in both World War II and the Korean War. San Diegan Ted Williams also served in both wars, but Williams remained stateside during World War II. Coleman retired from the USMC fleet reserves as a lieutenant colonel.
He is a "no bones about it" person. He say what he thinks and has always espoused the highest of core values: God, Country and Family.
The Koran must be protected on Federal land ...Guantanamo...but any Cross on Federal land must be destroyed. This is the state of our Courts today....we NEED Conservative judges on our Courts.
Here's a thought...
What if the ACLU threw a fine, and no one paid? I mean, just never paid? What would happen to the city that said, "Yeehaw, you won a bet with your friends - we're not paying"...
What would happen if all the cities that were being sued refused to pay, all at once? If all these cities being sued got together and just decided they were not going to pay, who would possibly be able to enforce any fines?
Had you not clarified the issue as regarding the Mount Soledad Cross, I'd have thought that Soledad Miranda was once again a center of controversy...
Very good observation. I plan on using that the next time I argue with a lib. Let me know where to send the royalty check.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.