Can everybody say "next stop: appeals court" or "it's time to fire the City Clerk?"
The City is claiming some future court should hold a trial, claims there's overwhelming latches evidence, judge demands to know what other evidence there would be. City talking latches again. Complaining about costs but judge calls him on why the City would say wait even longer. City lawyer says the judge would know they're right if the judge had more time to consider their information. Judge asks if the code in conflict with the charter is invalid... eventually the city lawyer agrees.
Female judge... why did the clerk decide without benefit of legal advice. Claims the case involving a special election to fill a city council seat, involving a would-be candidate possibly excluded by term limits, and said the city clerk at the sole authority to decide who goes on the ballot.
Female judge emphasizes ONLY TWO. City lawyer asked if charter is ambiguous, he's twisting in the wind saying it's not after just arguing it was! Says the city clerk can't arbitrarily decide who to put on the ballot (i.e. a near 3rd place winner).
I totally agree that "it's time to fire the City Clerk" but since he serves are the pleasure of the embattled City Council, what are the chances he'll be held accountable for this "we can be creative too" mess when he can claim a legal fig leaf? Now that we'll have the Democrat's hand-picked Mike Aguire, in there as City Attorney starting Monday, it looks like the Dems have gained major ground in San Diego.