Following a 12-day stockpile of tension while a visiting judge
has mulled over court documents, county residents should find out
Wednesday if the Growth Control Initiative will remain on the March
ballot.
During the 2 p.m. hearing, Santa Cruz Superior Court Judge
Robert Yonts plans to issue a ruling on a lawsuit that is trying to
prevent the controversial initiative from going to a vote, he
previously announced. If the Growth Control Initiative remains on
the ballot, its official name will be Measure G.
Following a 12-day stockpile of tension while a visiting judge has mulled over court documents, county residents should find out Wednesday if the Growth Control Initiative will remain on the March ballot.
During the 2 p.m. hearing, Santa Cruz Superior Court Judge Robert Yonts plans to issue a ruling on a lawsuit that is trying to prevent the controversial initiative from going to a vote, he previously announced. If the Growth Control Initiative remains on the ballot, its official name will be Measure G.
The suit, meanwhile, filed by pro-initiative county resident Rebecca McGovern, has gone through 50 days of legal strife. McGovern and her lawyers from the environmental firm, Earthjustice, hope a win Wednesday will lead to reenactment of the Board of Supervisors’ April 1 passing of the ordinance.
An anonymous group called Los Valientes joined the dispute in mid-October with a barrage of allegations – most notably that county supervisors illegally helped draft the initiative. Their motion to intervene – an attempt to defeat the initiative – was rejected by Yonts.
“We are expecting a ruling,” said Alex Calvo, court executive officer of the San Benito County Superior Court.
McGovern’s lawyers presented her case during the two-hour hearing Nov. 6. She claims a signature referendum – which overturned the Board of Supervisors’ initial passing of the initiative as an ordinance – illegally omitted state-mandated language.
McGovern could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
The lawyer for the No on Measure G Committee, which organized the referendum, says the state Elections Code is ambiguous in how it addresses the claim.
Tom Tobias, the chairman of the committee, reiterated Monday that his side wants to leave the decision on Measure G up to the county’s residents.
“If this vote is taken away from us, the right to have our say is taken away,” Tobias said.
Both sides have expressed confidence in their cases; both have said an appeal, regardless of the ruling, is likely.
“I think we got a good hearing a couple weeks ago,” said Trent Orr, a lawyer with Earthjustice. “The judge didn’t really show his hand too much.”
He added, “We’re cautiously optimistic.”
