Redistricting measure is off the ballot(Judicial tyranny III)

S D Union ^ | July 22, 2005 | Bill Ainsworth

[radar101]

A Sacramento judge tossed one of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's initiatives off the Nov. 8 ballot yesterday, ruling that proponents of the proposal to change the way political boundaries are drawn violated the state constitution by circulating two versions of the measure.

Backers of Proposition 77 admitted making the mistake, but argued that the differences between the versions were trivial.

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian disagreed.

"They are not simply technical. Instead, they go to the substantive terms of the measure," she wrote.

Daniel Kolkey, an attorney who argued in favor of Proposition 77, vowed to appeal. "No one was misled," he said after the ruling. "This matter ought to go on the ballot."

[VeritatisSplendor]

This is an interesting screwup. The legal question is a close one, it's clear the signatures were for a ballot measure that differed slightly from the one that will actually be on the ballot. Although I don't like that Arnold's initiative is being thrown out, I can't say the judge is ruling improperly. It's for the higher courts, not a local judge, to decide whether the differences are non-trivial, because there is no standard for deciding that in California and they will have to invent one.

[VeritatisSplendor]

My previous reply was a bit muddled. The judge actually did rule that the differences were non-trivial. My point is that the differences were indeed of substantive impact, although on very minor substantive points, and it is for a higher court to decide whether changes of substantive impact can be "trivial" if the differences are small enough (it is established law that differences in wording which have NO impact on the substance can be "trivial", but the local judge didn't feel comfortable going beyond that standard and declaring actual substantive differences as small enough to be "trivial").

[fifedom]

I am not as charitable in my opinion of the judge. Any differences should be resolved in favor of the 900,000+ people who signed the petitions. Why is it that the judges are all against judicial activism in cases like these where a narrow interpretation favors the Rats. Another example that comes to mind is the Washington state governor's election case where the judge said there were irregularities aplenty but to rule in favor of the Republicans would have been judicial activism. But in any case, it looks like it's off. According to NPR, any appeal would have to be resolved by next Tuesday in order to meet deadlines for the election.

[calcowgirl]

FYI--As of 1992 (The Business Journal Serving Greater Sacramento, March 23, 1992 v8 n52)

Gail Ohanesian
Presiding judge
Sacramento County Municipal Court Sacramento

Age: 44

Ohanesian is responsible for the administration of the trial court that hears all the county's misdemeanor cases, felony arraignments, early dispositions and preliminary hearings, and civil cases involving amounts of less than $25,000. The Municipal Court also handles traffic matters and small-claims cases. Currently, there are 15 judges and five commissioners in the court.

Ohanesian worked 14 years in the Legal Division of the state Department of Transportation representing the department in highway-related lawsuits. She was appointed to the Municipal Court in 1987 by Gov. Deukmejian and was elected by her colleagues to serve as presiding judge in September 1990. Ohanesian is a Sacramento native with a law degree from McGeorge School of Law.

[goldstategop]

People WERE misled. You have to take care in preparing a ballot measure and in using the SAME exact language in both the title submitted to the Attorney General and in the actual ballot measure itself. Stylistic differences are huge because technical wording affects the legal interpretation of the measure. Ted Costa's people screwed up. When you don't follow the law, people who worked hard to bring something like this to a vote get hurt. Either do it right or don't do it at all.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[goldstategop]

If the proponents followed the law, it would have been easier to defend the measure in the event voters approved it. It looks like the Prop. 77 people played fast and lose with the truth hoping no one would find out. Idiots. If libs pulled this kind of stunt, we'd be livid about it and rightfully so. Ted Costa is an old hand at this and his people should have carefully checked to make sure everything was in order BEFORE they had the Attorney General look at their initiative. They have no one to blame but themselves for where their political and switch has put them. The judge followed the law. If she made a special exception for people who didn't know what they were doing, it would lower the bar for other people to engage in the same kind of shenanigans.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)