Judge Rules It Was Legal To Mislead Voters About Tax

KTVU.com ^ | July 18, 2008

[calcowgirl]

OAKLAND, Calif. -- A judge said Friday that it was legal for Oakland city and elected officials to mislead voters about a 2004 ballot measure that promised to hire police officers, saying that his hands are tied by an appellate court ruling.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch said the key factor in deciding whether the city of Oakland should be allowed to continue collecting taxes authorized by Measure Y is the language of the ballot measure itself, not what was said in chapter headings or in election materials distributed to voters.

Marleen Sacks, an attorney who lives in Oakland and filed suit against the city asking that it be forced to return $60 million to its taxpayers, alleging that it has failed to live up to its promise to hire more police officers, said Roesch's ruling "gives any politician a license to lie" to voters to get measures passed.

[calcowgirl]

This serves as a good warning for California's November election, with 12 Propositions qualified for ballot.

Always read the fine print.

[FlingWingFlyer]

One of the DemocRATS’ best tactics is misleading people. We all need to get used to it. There is nothing democratic about the DemocRATik Party. Their jackass mascot is appropriate though.

[goldstategop]

There's nothing illegal about lying in the descriptive language of the measure or an accompanying pamphlet. The judge is right: ignorant voters should read up the legal text of the measure to find out what it really says. In a free society, its the voter's obligation to educate himself and learn all he can about the issue he's going to be voting on. Don't let that job fall to the politicians, the media and interest groups.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[proxy_user]

Well, if it was illegal for politicians to lie, our whole political system would grind to a halt.

[coloradan]

Well, if it was illegal for politicians to lie, our whole political system would grind to a halt.

Given all the crap that's come out of Washington (and Denver) lately, that might not be such a bad thing.

[calcowgirl]

One of the DemocRATS’ best tactics is misleading people.

Correction:

One of the DemocRATS’ politicians' best tactics is misleading people.

In California, at least, misleading voters on ballot initiatives is not limited to the Democrats.

Some folks still wrongly believe that Arnie's "spending cap" proposition had something to do with curtailing spending.

[calcowgirl]

Well, if it was illegal for politicians to lie, our whole political system would grind to a halt.

LOL! Good point. ;-)

[Libertarianize the GOP]

If the judge had ruled otherwise we would have judges overturning elections because some candidate or a proponent of a candidate/ballot measure said something the court believes was false. That would really leave us ruled by judges.

[rawhide]

Something similar happened here in Georgia a few years ago and the local government lost. The local governments would promote a ‘Special Local Option Sales Tax’ for the voters to approve. These SPLOST’s were a special sales tax implemented to raise funds for different projects like maybe a new school, or new fire stations, road construction, etc.

Anyway the additional sales tax would be in effect for maybe 5 years, but after maybe 3 years enough tax money was raised to complete the project listed in the SPLOST the voters approved. But the local government kept collecting the tax and using it in whatever way they decided.

A lawsuit was brought against these government crooks and the State courts ordered them to stop the tax after the goal was accomplished. They could only use the tax money needed to complete whatever projects were spelled out on the SPLOST and after enough was raised, the SPLOST tax had to stop.

[null and void]

Well, if it was illegal for politicians to lie, our whole political system would grind to a halt.

This would be bad because?

[Puppage]

One of the DemocRATS’ best tactics is misleading people

And, those very same mislead people just re-elect those who duped them.

Who's worse?

[the_daug]

Amazing! The judge didn't overrule the voters when he had the chance.

[PackerBoy]

The title is misleading. The judge did not say that lying was legal. The judge ruled that the words spoken at the time the law was enacted are not relevant to the law's meaning. This is a very old and basic -- and important -- legal concept.

Imagine the chaos that would ensue if every law or contract could be undone by people saying that they meant something else, intended a different result, or exchanged spoken words that differ from the wording of the written law or contract.

Of course, lying politicians should get their just desserts at the ballot box or through recalls.

[Mark]

If a proposition states that all of the funds are put in a “Lock Box”, then everything is OK. (/Lib spin off)

[pacpam]

Somewhere along the lines of obligation, it seems the presentation should be honest. Two sets of rules engenders failed government. Oh, we seem to be there.

[azhenfud]

"gives any politician a license to lie"

LMAO!

Don't worry, the new kid's still a learnin'.

[xDGx]

It’s all about checks and balances.

Politicians send judicial a check, and everything balances.

[itsahoot]

its the voter's obligation to educate himself and learn all he can about the issue he's going to be voting on. Don't let that job fall to the politicians, the media and interest groups.

Unfortunately, we don't have that kind of voter, so we suffer at elected criminal hands.

[SierraWasp]

Yup! Judges everywhere in this country are gonna rule this way cause political expression and/or speech are truly protected, even when truly false and/or erroneous!

Notice how it's always "buyer beware," or "caveat emptor" in political matters but not in matters of consumerism anymore!

In my industry regulators warn us constantly in our mandated "continuing education/indoctrination" courses that "buyer beware" was only in "the bad old days."

Now-a-days, under the new protections provided by our blessed and beloved parental public officials, it's "seller beware" or we'll pull your livlihood and maybe even send you to prison for being non-compliant and a threat to out defenseless, government schooled, society!!!