My letter to the editor last month defended both John Sarsfield
and Harry Damkar for exercising their own discretion as DAs.
Dear Editor:
My letter to the editor last month defended both John Sarsfield and Harry Damkar for exercising their own discretion as DAs. It was based upon the assumption of fair play and consistency. John Sarsfield appears to have double standards.
The specifics of the potential indictments against Jaime De La Cruz are not known. Sarsfield did release the report of the investigation by Aaron Tripp. Tripp’s recommendations received considerable space in both the Free Lance and the Pinnacle on May 13, and are probably a good indication of the potential indictments.
Tripp recommended a charge be filed against De La Cruz for misuse of voter registration information. A good investigator should know such information is available in the public domain. How do you abuse information in the public domain? Am I to be charged because I looked up the address and precinct number for Supervisor Pat Loe? I hope not, even though I am guilty as sin.
Last summer, I discussed the improper gathering of signatures in favor of Measure G with John Sarsfield, Sheriff Curtis Hill and Detective Green. Yes, there were many irregularities, but mostly misdemeanors. They were limited to a few professional signature collectors. I had no problem when Sarsfield decided not to press charges. That is within his discretion. Now De La Cruz may be indicted for a similar transgression performed with the knowledge and consent of the Election Office. Where is the consistency?
There is no requirement that the Election Office keep a log of who brings an absentee ballot to the election office. Some California counties do not keep such a log. Maybe John Hodges should discontinue the practice of voters signing the logbook. For years, it has been a common practice, although illegal, for friends to deliver absentee ballots. Without the log, maybe the County Supervisors would not be trying to take control of the operation of the Election Office.
When is driving voters to the polls worthy of an indictment? Am I to be indicted because I urged people to vote for De La Cruz, even though they said they were going to vote for Cruz? Are poll watchers to be indicted when they assist a voter, who was refused a ballot, to obtain a provisional ballot? Where is the consistency? Shame on you, John Sarsfield.
There is a possible explanation for Sarsfield’s actions, not a justification, just an explanation. Sarsfield may not want to wind up like Marshal Scattini. Scattini opposed Measure G that was favored by the Supervisors. Now the Supervisors are planning to de-fund the Marshal’s Office. Sarsfield may not want the Supervisors to do the same to the DA’s Office.
If the Supervisor District 5 election is voided, maybe San Benito County is a Banana Republic controlled by a very few individuals. Maybe Sarsfield wants to be in that group.
Marvin L. Jones,
Hollister
