Four plaintiffs claim their voting rights were violated,
alleging petitions for Santa Clara Land Initiative were not
bilingual
Four Santa Clara County residents filed suit against the Santa
Clara County Board of Supervisors and its registrar of voters for
allowing a slow growth initiative to get on the November ballot,
claiming petitions signed for the measure were not bilingual.
Four plaintiffs claim their voting rights were violated, alleging petitions for Santa Clara Land Initiative were not bilingual
Four Santa Clara County residents filed suit against the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and its registrar of voters for allowing a slow growth initiative to get on the November ballot, claiming petitions signed for the measure were not bilingual.
It’s a new tactic being used throughout the state by opponents of certain initiatives, but so far, it seems all the cases using the loophole hinge on one particular case in Orange County, which has yet to be ruled on.
The plaintiffs in the case against the Initiative for the Conservation and Preservation of Hillsides, Ranchlands and Agricultural Lands say the measure must not go on the November ballot because it violates their rights under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The plaintiffs are Elias Heredia, Virginia Burgueno, Randy Kirk and Clarence Stone, and they claim the signing petitions circulated by a coalition of environmental groups, including PLAN – People for Land And Nature – were not sufficiently translated into other languages.
Brian Schmidt, spokesman for the Committee for Green Foothills, which has joined forces with PLAN to back the initiative, said it’s true that the entire initiative wasn’t translated because it would have cost some $20,000 to convert the 30-page document into four more languages. However, he said the title and summary on the petitions were translated – in five languages, including Spanish, Mandarin, Tagalog, and Vietnamese. The translations can also be read on PLAN’s website at www.openspace2006.org.
“This is a cynical legal tactic to suppress minority voting rights,” Schmidt said. “It’s trying to confuse people, and when people are confused they tend to vote no. They think voters are chumps.”
The attorney representing the plaintiffs, Jay M. Ross of Hopkins and Carley in San Jose, did not respond to phone messages by press time.
The Land Conservation Initiative would increase new parcel sizes on hillsides, farms and ranchlands, ultimately decreasing the amount of new homes being built in rural areas by 20 less a year. Of the county’s 836,000 acres of privately owned rural properties, the initiative would affect 400,000 acres — mostly the sprawling hills and ranches to the south of San Jose, outside Morgan Hill and Gilroy city limits, up to the San Benito County line.
The translation objection is being used in a number of lawsuits in the state, including one raging in Monterey County over the large 1,147-home Butterfly Village and golf course development that would be built south of San Juan Bautista, near the north end of Salinas.
On Tuesday a federal judge denied a motion to allow voters to decide Butterfly Village’s fate in November, and said the issue was “unsettled” because a federal appeals court case is still reviewing a case based on the same problem in Orange County.
Peter Drekmeier, spokesman for PLAN, said what happens with the Orange County case could affect this new lawsuit against the Santa Clara County Land Initiative as well.
“They know they can’t beat us at the ballot box so they’re trying to derail us this way,” Drekmeier said. “We feel this is a real abuse of the Voting Rights Act.”
