Controversies over growth initiatives such as Measure G in San
Benito County are not unique in California. Nor are some of the key
players involved.
In November 2000, a similar initiative in Alameda County called
Measure D that was designed to preserve agricultural lands, protect
open space and wildlife habitats, was passed by 57 percent of
Alameda County voters.
Controversies over growth initiatives such as Measure G in San Benito County are not unique in California. Nor are some of the key players involved.
In November 2000, a similar initiative in Alameda County called Measure D that was designed to preserve agricultural lands, protect open space and wildlife habitats, was passed by 57 percent of Alameda County voters.
Land developers Shea Homes Limited Partnership and Trafalgar, Inc. sued the county in early 2001, claiming the initiative violated state law.
The law firm that represented proponents of the initiative was Earthjustice. One of the attorneys was Trent Orr, who along with his legal partner Anne Harper, are now representing Rebecca McGovern in her attempt to have Measure G removed from the March 2004 ballot.
In March 2003, Earthjustice prevailed when the developers’ attempt to have Measure D overturned in Alameda County failed and the State Court of Appeal ruled their case lacked legal merit.
“Because (Measure D) is well-written, it gained strong support from political leaders, community groups and most importantly, county voters,” Orr said in an Earthjustice statement earlier this year.
In Alameda County, the initiative went straight to the voters, with the legal battle occurring after the election. Members of the No on Measure G Committee in San Benito County are wondering why Earthjustice championed the voters’ decision in Alameda County, but are working to enact the initiative without voter participation here, said spokesperson Dara Tobias.
“The people have said twice that they want to vote,” Tobias said, “and Earthjustice is trying to take that right away.”
In San Benito County the issue has yet to be decided by the voters, but Marguerite Leoni, attorney for the No on G Committee (which is opposing McGovern’s and Earthjustice’s attempt), doesn’t think it odd that Earthjustice is now trying to have a similar initiative enacted without voter participation.
“It’s not their issue,” Leoni said. “In their point of view if they could pass Measure G in San Benito without giving the voters a chance to have a voice, that’s what they want to do. The issue is the measure and not the voters.”
Voter rights are the reason why McGovern and Earthjustice are fighting to have the initiative enacted, Orr said.
Orr claims language used on the petitions circulated to have the initiative put on the March ballot was illegal, which violates elections laws and ultimately the rights of the voters.
“It’s important that election laws be rigorously enforced,” he said. “The notice themselves are very important to the rights of the voters and the whole process about voting.”
The missing language Earthjustice is bringing under scrutiny concerns statutes relating to whether or not the circulators of the petition for the referendum were volunteer or paid, and whether the names on the petition were only used for the purpose of qualifying it for the ballot.
“Everyone questioning it acts like it’s just a technicality,” Orr said. “It’s information to voters about the election. A lot of people don’t even know that people circulating something might be paid or volunteering, and you have the right to ask. The petition didn’t have that information at all.”
When Santa Cruz Superior Court Judge Robert Yonts denied Earthjustice’s attempt in late November, it proved that it truly is a technicality, Leoni said.
Everyone who signed the petition knew what they were signing and nobody was harmed, she said.
“There was not one paid petition circulator and not one allegation that even one signature was misused,” Leoni said. “There’s no question that it falls into a technicality – anything to keep it from the voters.”
An example of misusing signatures would be putting them on a mailing list, which could hinder some people from adding their name.
“None of that was done here,” she said.
Earthjustice’s motives aren’t to step on the rights of the voters, but to make sure the rules the legislature laid out for a good reason are followed, Orr said. Allegations stating otherwise are “nonsense,” he said.
“It doesn’t surprise me that when people are caught up in the heat of it they want to question the motives of the opposition,” he said. “I understand that the proponents for the referendum want it to go to the voters, but I take umbrage that Earthjustice is an anti-democratic organization.”
Earthjustice is a nonprofit organization that doesn’t charge for work on cases they deem important, Orr said. The election laws of this case fall into that category.
The similar case in Alameda County parallels Measure G in San Benito County in many ways, except for the most important one, Leoni said.
“The people in Alameda County got to vote – why not San Benito?” she said. “Why are we different? We’re not. This is an issue for the voters.”
