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