Superior Court Judge Steven Sanders on Wednesday disqualified
himself from presiding over a lawsuit challenging the Growth
Control Initiative’s placement on the March ballot.
Sanders announced his recusal from the case at Wednesday’s
scheduled 10 a.m. hearing. He attributed his decision to a
potential public perception of a conflict of interest; he was the
county counsel from 1988 to 2001.
Superior Court Judge Steven Sanders on Wednesday disqualified himself from presiding over a lawsuit challenging the Growth Control Initiative’s placement on the March ballot.
Sanders announced his recusal from the case at Wednesday’s scheduled 10 a.m. hearing. He attributed his decision to a potential public perception of a conflict of interest; he was the county counsel from 1988 to 2001.
With the county’s only other Superior Court judge, Harry Tobias, excusing himself from the controversial case immediately after the suit’s filing Oct. 1, an out-of-town judge will be commissioned for the duty.
The postponed hearing was rescheduled for Nov. 6, though that date is subject to change. The court’s executive officer started calling other jurisdictions Wednesday to find Sanders’ replacement, according to Sanders.
Sanders, who said he extensively researched the case, emphasized he would have maintained impartiality in hearing the case. His primary concern, however, was the public’s perception.
“I have absolutely no doubt that certain members of the public would reasonably entertain a doubt,” Sanders said.
He added: “The public must be assured that the justice system works and is as fair as possible.”
The lawsuit is challenging the legality of a signature referendum that placed the Growth Control Initiative on the ballot. After the Board of Supervisors approved it as an ordinance, a group of residents organized the referendum. The plaintiff, San Juan Bautista resident Rebecca McGovern, who is backed by the environmental law firm Earthjustice, claims the referendum lacked legally mandated language.
Another lawsuit from an anonymous group of residents called Los Valientes was recently added as an opposition. The group is claiming the initiative should be abolished because the Board of Supervisors helped draft it through illegal serial meetings – a violation of the state’s open meetings law, according to its lawyer Michael Pekin.
Pekin also claims if McGovern wins, the initiative will not be re-enacted as the ordinance approved by the Board. He believes the ordinance dissolved as a legal entity when the Board approved the referendum to send the initiative to the ballot.
The Growth Control Initiative is a proposal to amend the county’s General Plan.
(Complete Measure G is available on this Web site)
