Several Santa Clara residents are suing the city in hopes of stopping what they consider a “biased and unlawful” ballot measure that’s set to go before voters in the March 2024 election.
On Dec. 5, the Santa Clara City Council approved two ballot measures for the upcoming election that will ask voters whether the city should change the police chief and city clerk positions from elected roles to appointed ones. Santa Clara has California’s last elected police chief.
In June, the council established a seven-member Charter Review Committee to examine the issue, but the process — which included a community survey that city officials believe was targeted by bots — was met with criticism that it lacked transparency.
Councilmember Kathy Watanabe last month called it “tainted.” Both she and Mayor Lisa Gillmor voted against placing the measures on the ballot, raising concerns about how the questions were worded.
Three Santa Clara residents seemed to agree. On Monday, Satish Chandra, Joyce Davis and Carolyn McAllister filed a lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court over Measure B, which asks voters whether the police chief should become an appointed position. Both Chandra and Joyce served on the Charter Review Committee.
“The Measure B ballot question fails to include a highly relevant and crucial reference to the status quo — that currently the Chief of Police is an elected position,” the lawsuit said.
The ballot measure submitted to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters asks: “Shall an amendment to the City Charter providing that the Chief of Police position be appointed by the City Manager be adopted?”
But Chandra, Davis and McAllister want the city to include in the measure that the police chief is currently elected by voters.
The residents’ lawyer, Bradley W. Hertz of the Sutton Law Firm, sent City Attorney Glen Googins a letter on Dec. 13, asking the city to change the language to make it clearer for voters.
In response, the council held a closed session meeting to discuss the matter.
City spokesperson Janine De la Vega said in an email that the “City Council directed legal staff to reject the petitioners demand to modify the City’s Measure B ballot question and authorized the City to defend the ballot question in court if necessary.”
Chandra, Davis and McAllister are hoping the court steps in before Dec. 29 — the Registrar of Voters printing deadline.
“If the court does not remedy the Measure B ballot question by December 29, 2023, the City’s voters will be irreparably harmed, the democratic process will be thwarted, and the City and City Council will get away with putting their ‘thumb on the scale’ in favor of a ballot measure that a majority of the City Council supports,” the lawsuit said.
Ballot measures are allowed to be up to 75 words, but Measure B is less than half of that. The residents argue that “there is sufficient space to add six words (‘instead of elected by the voters’).”
While Chandra, Davis and McAllister acknowledge that the ballot measure relating to changing the city clerk position from an elected role to an appointed one has the same “legal flaw,” they have not filed a lawsuit in that case.
In an email, Hertz said the case has been assigned for a hearing Friday morning on whether it can be expedited before the Dec. 29 deadline.
Source: www.mercurynews.com