Posted on 07/13/2005 6:46:14 PM PDT by SmithL
SAN DIEGO – A judge ruled Wednesday that a proposal to keep a 43-foot cross atop Mount Soledad by having the city of San Diego donate surrounding land to the federal government may be placed on the July 26 ballot.
"This is a proper subject to place before the voters," Judge Patricia Yim Cowett said after listening to oral arguments.
The judge asked for further briefing on whether the city was the actual owner of the land and if it was, whether it could donate the property to the federal government.
If there was a change in the way the city parkland was used, Proposition A may require the approval of two-thirds of those casting ballots to pass, the judge said.
Further arguments were scheduled for July 21, five days before the election.
Attorney James McElroy had filed a lawsuit on behalf of atheist Philip Paulson in hopes of preventing the city clerk and county registrar of voters from certifying the results of the vote on Proposition A.
Outside court, McElroy said he was "happy" that the judge might take action on the ballot measure before July 26.
Phil Thalheimer, chairman of San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial, told reporters he was "delighted" that the judge was letting the issue remain on the ballot.
"We're confident we're going to prevail," Thalheimer said.
The San Diego City Council decided in May to put the issue on the ballot.
City Attorney Michael Aguirre said last month that the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that it would not be proper for the city to transfer the cross to the federal government because it would be done primarily to preserve a religious symbol.
A 16-year battle over the Mount Soledad cross began when Paulson sued the city, arguing that the religious symbol's presence on public land violated separation of church and state provisions in both the U.S. and California constitutions.
Judges twice ruled that the sale of the land to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, which maintains the site as a veterans memorial, was unconstitutional.
San Diego votes last November rejected Proposition K, which would have authorized another sale of the land in an effort to correct the constitutional violations.
I don't vote in the city of San Diego but I know many who do. I'll urge them all to vote for this.
Ping!
LOL!!! Both of us escaped the San Diego madness!!! I moved to Arizona two weeks ago and Onyx is off to Mississippi this week!!!! You can understand why, now!
Yeah....I know you're gone.
Thought you'd still like to see the shanagans (sp?) of your old stompin' grounds.
How do you like your new home?
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!!!!
I HATE that weather! I think (THINK!) I'd rather do the cold than that heat.
I know.
IT'S A DRY HEAT! HAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAAA
later pingout.
PLEASE pass the word. Polls show Prop A is right on the edge or just above this sudden, higher watermark so turnout is *CRITICAL*.
What was the reasoning for that nonsense?
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.