Correspondence - Item #17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Santa Ana Mayor and City Council June 18, 2024 Page 2 complies with statutory standards, seeMartinez, 142 Cal. App. 4th at 1248, a court may grant relief Ðonly upon clear and convincing proof that the \[challenged\] materials in question \[are\] false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of \[Section 9051\],Ñ Yes on 25, 189 Cal. App. 4th at 1453 (quoting Elec. Code § 9092), see also McDonough v. Super. Ct., 204 Cal. App. 4th 1169, 1173 (2012) (citing Elec. Code § 9295(b)(2)). Ballot language may be deemed insufficient only in a clear case, and Ðall legitimate presumptions should be indulged in favor of the propriety of the \[drafterÓs\] actions.Ñ Yes on 25, 189 Cal. App. 4th at 1453 (quoting Epperson 2 v. Jordan, 12 Cal. 2d 61, 66, 70 (1938)). Yes on 25 exemplifies the discretion courts afford to drafters. In Yes on 25, a court of appeal reversed the lower courtÓs ruling striking the following ballot language: CHANGES LEGISLATIVE VOTE REQUIREMENT TO PASS BUDGET AND BUDGETÎRELATED LEGISLATION FROM TWOÎTHIRDS TO A SIMPLE MAJORITY. RETAINS TWOÎTHIRDS VOTE REQUIREMENT FOR TAXES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Id. at 1450-51. The petitioners alleged that the ÐRetains Two-Thirds Vote RequirementÑ was misleading because it suggested that passage of the proposition was necessary to keep in place the two-thirds vote requirement to raise taxes. Id. at 1448. The court acknowledged that Ðreasonable minds may differÑ as to the sufficiency of the language but concluded that a difference of opinion did not constitute Ðclear and convincing proofÑ that the challenged language was misleading. Id. at 1454. Because preparing ballot materials is a difficult task, drafters are Ðafforded considerable latitude.Ñ Id. at 1452-53. As in Yes on 25, at most there may be a difference of opinion between Mr. Lacy and the Council as to whether the Measure is partial or biased. But a difference of opinion is not enough to set aside the CouncilÓs language. II. The ballot question does not need to be the most neutral or complete question and it may list the effects of the measure by way of example. Despite the deference afforded to the City Council and the plainly neutral language included in the measure, Mr. Lacy alleges in his lawsuit that the language is biased because it is 3 incomplete. He alleges Ðparents and taxpayersÑ describes only some of the noncitizens who would be able to vote were the proposed measure passed and points out that noncitizens who are Ðhomeless or criminalsÑ would also be granted the right to vote. The test for whether ballot language is sufficient, however, is not whether the drafters could have used the most complete or neutral language. See Martinez, 142 Cal. App. 4th at 1248. Indeed, courts routinely reject challenges to ballot language that simply explains the effect of a measure. See, e.g., Green v. Logan, 2014 WL 2446069 at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. June 2, 2014) (rejecting argument that revenue-raising measure was biased simply because it included examples, but not an exhaustive list, of services that it would fund); Santa Clara Cnty. Bd. of 2 Whether a drafter supports or opposes a measure does not lessen the deference courts give to their actions. Lungren v. Super. Ct., 48 Cal. App. 4th 435, 440 n.1 (1996) (in discussing the discretion drafters have over ballot language, noting that it is immaterial whether drafters support or oppose the challenged ballot language); Martinez, 142 Cal. App. 4th at 1249 (Ðit is the ballot titleÓs language that must be impartial, not the claimed motives of the councilÑ). 3 Lacy, et al. v. Santa Ana City Council, et al., Case No. 30-2024-01402208, Pet. for Writ of Mandate (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cnty. May 24, 2024). BNFSJDBO!DJWJM!MJCFSUJFT!VOJPO!GPVOEBUJPO!PG!TPVUIFSO!DBMJGPSOJB!