The public must wait another 12 days to find out whether the
Growth Control Initiative will remain on the March ballot.
A judge who heard arguments in the initiative case Thursday
dismissed one of two challenges involved and postponed his ruling
on whether the measure was illegally placed on the ballot.
At the outset of the 2 p.m. hearing, visiting Santa Cruz Judge
Robert Yonts ruled that allegations from the Los Valientes group
would be separated from the original lawsuit filed Oct. 1.
The public must wait another 12 days to find out whether the Growth Control Initiative will remain on the March ballot.
A judge who heard arguments in the initiative case Thursday dismissed one of two challenges involved and postponed his ruling on whether the measure was illegally placed on the ballot.
At the outset of the 2 p.m. hearing, visiting Santa Cruz Judge Robert Yonts ruled that allegations from the Los Valientes group would be separated from the original lawsuit filed Oct. 1.
He then heard two hours of testimony from lawyers for the suit’s matriarch, Rebecca McGovern, and the anti-initiative group fighting for the measure’s placement on the ballot. While the two sides presented their entire arguments, Yonts announced at the end he would take the case into submission until Nov. 19.
He was assigned the case one week ago after a local judge disqualified himself; Yonts received all related court records Monday. Thursday, he said he needed more time to examine the documents.
“I would hope to decide this matter, orally at least, on Nov. 19,” he said.
Lawyers for the two sides disputing McGovern’s lawsuit had not expected a final decision Thursday, they said, especially with a flood of materials from the Los Valientes lawyer Michael Pekin.
“This is a case he’s going to really want to understand before he makes a ruling,” said Trent Orr, a lawyer for the environmental firm, Earthjustice, representing McGovern.
McGovern said she was pleased with the arguments presented by her two lawyers. And she wasn’t upset, she said, about the two-week wait for a ruling.
“Well, to me it’s a pretty cut and dry thing,” McGovern said. “You either follow the rules or else you throw them all out. But there are a lot of people – he (Yonts) could feel sorry for them or something.”
Tom Tobias, chairman of the anti-initiative group and president of the Farm Bureau, called the delayed decision “frustrating.” Though he said it was understandable under the circumstances.
During the proceeding, Yonts acknowledged the public’s primary concern is the course of the Growth Control Initiative – not an argument over whether two omitted statements in a referendum violated elections law.
But those few sentences, which the McGovern’s side argued were illegally left off a signature referendum placing the measure on the ballot, are the crux of the highly divisive case. Earthjustice lawyers argued the two statements have been ingrained as requirements into the 82-year-old elections code.
The two statements relate to: The paid or volunteer status of signature gatherers and penalties for misuse of a referendum by a signature gatherer.
The anti-initiative group that organized the signature campaign, however, is defending the matter and has focused its case on purported ambiguity in the state elections code.
“We have a very defensible position and we’re going to do that,” Tobias said. “We can understand that all sides need to have their story put out.”
Meanwhile, the Board of Supervisors – originally sued for approving the referendum in July and thereby freezing the initiative’s initial passing in April – did not defend itself on the McGovern suit.
The Board got involved, however, when Los Valientes joined the case in mid-October. The county hired an outside Sacramento firm to defend the Board against allegations that supervisors violated the state open meetings law by conspiring to help draft the initiative.
Four of the five supervisors attended the hearing; Supervisor Richard Scagliotti was absent.
As the four sides’ assortment of lawyers bunched around the courtroom’s front table at the hearing’s outset, Yonts asked for a brief recess because a court reporter was not present; San Benito County does not require a court reporter in civil matters. The lawyers, all of them from much larger counties, agreed with his concern.
After the court attained someone for the duty, Yonts first listened to arguments from Pekin, the Los Valientes lawyer.
Pekin was asking for an official intervention into the case – it would prolong the proceedings into a multiple-day hearing during which evidence could be presented.
Pekin has most recently contended if McGovern wins her suit, the initiative would be abolished because the ordinance initially passed by the Board – called Ordinance 760 – could not be reenacted.
“All we’re saying is that Ordinance 760, to this community, is not in effect at this time,” Pekin said.
Orr, the lawyer for Earthjustice, argued that McGovern’s suit has a narrow focus, that Pekin’s involvement would unfairly enlarge its complexity. He said Pekin was trying to “hijack” McGovern’s case.
“Why has Mr. Pekin not brought his own lawsuit?” Orr said.
The judge, while acknowledging a high level of seriousness with the allegations brought forth by Pekin, agreed with Orr’s assertion. He denied Pekin’s motion to intervene, yet also denied penalties requested by the county for attorneys fees.
After the hearing, Pekin said he appreciated Yonts’ decision.
“I tried the best I could to maintain our position on the elections issue,” Pekin said.
Meanwhile, Pekin said Los Valientes will file some sort of related lawsuit in the near future. He did not elaborate beyond that.
And while McGovern said she was happy to see Pekin’s case dismissed, she reiterated a sentiment shared widely throughout San Benito County about the matter.
“I think the future of the county depends on this ruling,” she said.
