Vanguard Analysis: Thomas Randall has thrown more dirt clogs into the air hoping somehow they will transform themselves into mud and stick to something, anything to give him traction.
A week ago he filed a complaint regarding Measure E with the State Political Fair Practices Commission that was shot down without even an investigation.
In a letter dated October 24, 2012, Gary Winuk, the Chief of the Enforcement Division, writes, “After review by staff, it was determined that the complaint does not contain evidence of a violation of the Political Reform Act since the flyer does not expressly advocate the passage of the measure.”
Now he is back for me, filing or planning to file a lawsuit with Davis Resident Janet Zwahlen which claims that Measure E is unconstitutional and that the wording is muddy.
He writes in a press release, “The Davis school board is levying taxes under Measure E in different amounts [and] not taxing certain groups at all, [which] violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.”
The problem is that under the current parcel tax law, as set forth by Proposition 13 the district is allowed to have senior exemptions and a differential rate for rental units – so unless they can get a Federal Court to strike down a portion of Proposition 13, they are not likely to prevail.
It does not appear that the suit has been filed as of yet. The Vanguard was unable to locate it in the Federal Court’s website and Davis Board of Education President Susan Lovenburg sent the Vanguard a release late on Thursday indicating that the district had not been served with the lawsuit – a requirement for filing a suit.
“The District has not been served notice of a lawsuit, so we cannot comment on its merits,” Ms. Lovenburg wrote. “However, earlier this week the FPPC found a similar complaint filed by the same party to have no merit.”
She also addressed the ballot language issue that was first brought forth by Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning.
“The ballot language for Measure E was set by the Board of Education in a public meeting on June 28, 2012, having been fully vetted by legal counsel,” Ms. Lovenburg told the Vanguard. “Mr. Randall could have challenged the wording during that meeting, or at any time since. His release of a statement announcing the filing of a lawsuit, just five days before Election Day, calls into question his motives.”
She added, “We believe the ballot language clearly states the choices for the electorate and there is no reasonable basis for confusion. In addition, Yolo County Counsel’s impartial analysis, distributed to every voter in the Voter Information Pamphlet, accurately interprets the measure’s intent.”
The Vanguard analyzed the ballot language issue this Wednesday and found little evidence of a problem.
Mr. Randall’s complaint is that the “wording (of Measure E) is incomprehensible and that a voter voting yes on Measure E does not know what he is voting on.”
He wrote, “We want to see the language of the Measure E and the constitutionality of the measure itself examined in a court of law whether it passes or not.”
At issue, from Bob Dunning’s original column, appears to be a comma where a semicolon should be.
The ballot measure reads: “To offset the continued loss of significant state funding, shall the Davis Joint Unified School District be authorized to continue a special tax for a period of 4 years not to exceed the base annual rate of $20.00 per dwelling unit for multi-dwelling parcels and $204.00 per parcel for all other parcels, and levy up to an additional $242 to cover State funding shortfalls ONLY if the November 2012 Temporary Taxes to Fund Education initiative does not pass?”
County Clerk Freddie Oakley gold the Vanguard that they have a ten-day period by which ballot language can be challenged prior to the written ballot going out to the public. No one did.
After that point, the burden goes up way up. Ms. Oakley told the Vanguard that someone would have to sue the county regarding the language, but at this point, the county would be highly unlikely to intervene.
The burden would be even higher after the fact. The standard would have be an intent to deceive – putting a comma where, technically speaking, a semicolon would go would not meet the threshold for a legal challenge, and one legal analyst told the Vanguard that the petitioner would more likely than not be laughed out of court.
“The litmus test according to our attorneys is can a reasonable person understand what is being asked,” Superintendent Winfred Roberson told the Vanguard. “Based upon that litmus test our attorneys and the Yolo County attorneys seem to agree that the language passes that test.”
The county’s impartial analysis written by Hope Welton, Deputy County Counsel, makes this clear.
She writes: “This proposal, if approved by the voters, would authorize the Davis Joint Unified School District (“District”) to continue a special tax to support the District’s schools. It also authorizes the District to levy an additional special tax should the November 2012 Temporary Taxes to Fund Education initiative not pass.”
The county counsel writes: “If the measure is successful, the District’s Board of Trustees would be authorized to levy a parcel tax for a period of four (4) years, from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2017, at an annual rate of up to $20.00 per dwelling unit for all multi-dwelling unit parcels within the District and $204.00 per parcel for all other parcels within the District.”
She adds, “Should the November 2012 Temporary Taxes to Fund Education initiative not pass statewide election, the annual rate shall be up to $20.00 per dwelling unit for all multi-dwelling unit parcels within the District and $446.00 per parcel for all other parcels.”
We do not believe there is any way that Mr. Randall can prevail on this matter – even if he had an attorney handling it. We do not see that the court is likely to strike down portions of Proposition 13 (and ironically enough Mr. Randall would probably not like it if they did). And the ballot language issue neither rises to the level of ballot confusion nor falls within the ten-day period for challenge.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
