VANGUARD Learns Both Randall and Zwahlen Take Senior Exemptions and Do Not Pay Parcel Tax – It was a longshot to begin with, a suit brought by Thomas Randall Jr and Janet Zwahlen claiming that Measure E was unconstitutional and arguing that the ballot wording of the measure was convoluted.
In a press release Thomas Randall writes, “They believe there are constitutional issues when the School Board has decided to apply the law in different ways to different groups. They see that the fact that home residents who practically will pay the bill of Measure E by themselves, on one hand, are treated entirely different than groups that do not pay the taxes at all or do not pay equally, such as apartment residents, senior citizens and people who do not live in Davis but send their kids to Davis Schools on the other.”
They argue, “This situation raises a constitutional question under the Equal Protection of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.”
A claim that not only seems dubious, but would affect a large number of other local jurisdictions.
In their complaint, however, Mr. Randall and Ms. Zwahlen claim that they “are individuals who live in Davis and while they are individually affected by this Measure, they are representative of a class [of] citizens whose civil rights under the Federal Plain Writing act of 2010, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and California government Code 6219 would suffer irreparable damage if all the clauses of Measure E were implemented.”
They argue in the complaint, in fact, “There are several classes of individuals who either do not pay equally or do not pay at all, but they get to vote to impose the measure on others.”
They add, “The application of taxation law to one group and not to others violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Leaving aside the fact that most of this law has long since been settled, there is an interesting ironic twist.
Both of the complainants as required by law list their addresses at the top of the form. Mr. Randall’s listed address on Layton Dr. appears on the tax rolls under the name of his father, Thomas Randall, Sr. Not only does Mr. Randall not own his home, but he is listed as taking the senior parcel tax exemption.
Meanwhile, while Janet Zwahlen is listed as the owner of her home on Monarch Lane in Davis, she too has filed for the senior exemption.
Mr. Randall did not immediately return an email from the Vanguard seeking comment on the apparent discrepancy.
However, this revelation raises legal questions as to whether they have standing to claim that they are individually affected by this measure. In Mr. Randall’s case, he neither owns his home nor does the home in which he resides pay the parcel tax.
Sources indicate that the government code precludes individuals bringing forth a complaint on behalf of others, therefore claims that “they are representative of a class [of] citizens” do not carry legal weight.
Moreover, there is the apparent contradiction between the complaint that there are classes of individuals who do not pay at all – when in fact they are among those who do not pay at all.
Mr. Randall issued a statement on Thursday, indicating, “We want the public to know that what we want is fair and equal treatment of all Davis residents. It is not fair or ethical that some groups get to vote on a tax they do not have to pay and impose it on homeowners.”
However, what he does not indicate at that time is that, in fact, he is one of those individuals who gets to vote on a tax that he does not have to pay.
He argues, “We want to see the language of the ballot Measure E and the constitutionally of the measure itself examined by a court of law, whether it passes or not and that is why we are filing this case before the election.”
The problem is that neither he nor Ms. Zhahlen appear to be attorneys. This is pretty settled case law and they would be asking the federal court not only to overturn state law, but state law that seemingly has long been settled.
They certainly do not seem to have the resources to do that.
The district did confirm on Friday that they were served with notice of this case on Friday morning. Sources told the Vanguard on Friday that most likely the federal court would refuse to even hear this case.
The issue of the ballot language is more likely a state issue, not a federal issue.
Despite complaints by Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning, most officials do not believe that will go far, either.
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?”
The press release argues, “The case is also brought under the Federal Plain Writing Act of 2010 under which the wording of Measure E on the ballot is in serious question. The wording of Measure E mixes several issues into one long winded sentence and ties the vote on the Measure to the outcome of Proposition 30.”
Mr. Randall adds, “They question that the current wording is incomprehensible and that a voter voting YES on Measure E really does not know what he is voting on. Either they vote YES to pay $204? $242? $446? Or is the voter accepting the full impact of paying $766? Including the taxes approved just four months ago under Measure C. Are the two amounts $204 and $242 together tied to Proposition 30? Or are they separate. If Proposition 30 fails, are apartment residents also obligated to pay $242 or they pay zero?”
Mr. Randall argues, “These questions arise because of the convoluted language in the ballot.”
County Clerk Freddie Oakley told 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 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 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.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Standing is fundamental to the right to having a court hear a claim on its merits. Not sure of the facts and law that plaintiffs face here, but seems they have work ahead
Unless they get an attorney, I don’t see how they can manage a case like this. They bit off way more than they can chew.
Hey David
I may not agree with their suit, but don’t see why their taking the exemption negates their right to disagree with it?
I see their argument is two fold, outside DJUSD students/not voters and seniors/exemption.
They have a right to disagree with it. But they may not have the standing to challenge it if they are not personally impacted by it. Moreover, claiming that it’s unfair that some people don’t have to pay the tax but can still vote (a legal notion that goes nowhere) is ironic given that they are one of them. I have no problem with them disagreeing with the tax, working against the tax, but the legal challenge is a higher hurdle in my view.
Another stunt for publicity on the part of Randall.
While their legal argument may indeed not be accepted by the courts, they have certainly received significant media coverage(certainly here on the Vanguard),They have raised questions that perhaps receive too little attention in Davis where most voters appear to have a knee-jerk approval response to educational parcel tax measures. I wonder how many Davis voters
who will vote Yes on E understood that they were not just extending a previously leveled parcel tax but would be having an additional $200+ added if Prop 30 fails(which political pundits suggest is likely).
davisite2: [i]…if Prop 30 fails(which political pundits suggest is likely).[/i]
I suppose you could say that if you want to present the most favorable case to your position.
[quote]source ([url]http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Prop-30-support-slips-Field-Poll-finds-3998923.php#ixzz2BBQBeXRf[/url])
With only five days to go before the general election, a Field Poll showed support of Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax measure had dropped to below 50 percent, but the poll director said he believes the measure has a good chance of passing.
….
The poll showed that 48 percent of likely voters continue to outnumber the 38 percent of voters who say they will vote no on Proposition 30. Fourteen percent are undecided. Prop. 30 had 51 percent support in September.
[/quote]
“….most favorable case to your position.”
I do not think that I presented a “position” but rather some historical observations/thoughts on how Davis voters deal with these parcel tax measures. The commonly accepted political “wisdom” is that if Prop 30 is below 50% approval at this time, it is likely to fail. Add to this the consideration that the polling “politically correct” answer would be to support Prop 30 while actually voting differently and you have a prescription for probable Prop 30 defeat.
A consideration of the probable failure of Prop 30 statewide)should not be dismissd just because Prop 30 will, no doubt, win a clear majority in Davis.
Davisite: anyone who read the paper certainly understood it.
also bad and mocking publicity isn’t going to change people’s minds. randall has become a joke. the sad thing is that granda clearly wrote this but was hiding behind randall.
“the sad thing is that granda clearly wrote this but was hiding behind randall.”
Really? Clearly? You know for a fact?
have you ever read randall’s writing? he’s part autistic and writes like a third grader. compare this to granda’s writing, and it’s clearly him.
davisite2: [i]The commonly accepted political “wisdom” is that if Prop 30 is below 50% approval at this time, it is likely to fail.[/i]
I was reading through analyses that suggested otherwise, and from sources that tilt somewhat conservatively.
[quote]Tony Quinn ([url]http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2012/11/what-to-make-of-the-prop-30-field-poll/[/url])
Generally a tax measure needs about a ten point margin in the final polls to survive on Election Day.
But there is a strange anomaly in this latest Field Poll. It shows that 344 of the 1566 likely voters sampled have already voted. And among these voters, Proposition 30 is winning with 54 percent. It also shows that the measure is doing better among mail ballot voters than Election Day voters.
This does not make any sense. The Field electoral universe is 44 percent Democratic, 34 percent Republican, 22 percent others. There is no reason to question this, it’s a logical breakdown. But the already reported Vote By Mail ballot break down as reported by the counties is 43 percent Democratic, 37 percent Republican. VBM ballots are from older and white voters, with younger and minority voters well below their state average in the already reported voter pool.[/quote]
[quote]Dan Walters ([url]http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/02/4956034/dan-walters-california-democrats.html[/url])
The state’s three major polls have pegged Proposition 30’s support at under 50 percent in the last couple of weeks, down markedly from surveys earlier in the fall. But they also indicate that Proposition 30’s biggest supporters are young voters, a subcategory that usually has a low propensity for actually casting ballots.
Therefore, Proposition 30’s supporters are hoping that the surge of new young registrants will translate into a surge of new young voters who will overcome the gap between what the polls say and what they need to win – 50 percent plus one.
They take heart from the Field Poll released Thursday, which not only confirmed the measure’s popularity among under-30 voters (61 percent) but found a higher level of support generally during the latter stage of its survey.
That, they hope, indicates that Field, which could not test sentiment among the newest batch of registrants, may have undercounted young, pro-Proposition 30 voters.[/quote]
These observations, taken together, point to a likelier positive outcome.
Davisite: You should read my other piece on voter registration.
There are several things to look at beside 50% threshold.
First, it has a large lead. That means that all of the undecideds would have to break against the measure.
Second, look at momentum. Last week it looked like support for 30 was dropping. This week’s polling show it has stabilized.
Third, look at local dynamics. Jeff Boone wrote a piece about why it has problems but he ends up saying he is going to support it. Why? Kid in college. So a lot of people who might be on the bubble are going to make these calculations, some will have kids in college, some will have K-12 kids, those people might not break against the tax measure.
Put that all together and what was looking bad earlier this week even looks much more solid today.
Growth Isuue:
“have you ever read randall’s writing? he’s part autistic and writes like a third grader. compare this to granda’s writing, and it’s clearly him.”
And you’re “clearly” a class act.
it was a blunt point, but an accurate one. And you’re dodging it, which i have noticed you usually do when called on something you can’t refute. i expect you now to disappear rather than addressing the point here.
Growth issue: I think we share similar views ion some things, but I don’t think you should attack Randall as autistic You haven’t read his medical file, if there is one.
[edit]… the complaint is more consistent with the writing style of granda than the writing style of randall.
Growth Issue, what’s your point? You’ve accused Granda of writing something that you really have no proof that he did and then demeaned Randall saying “he’s part autistic and writes like a third grader”. Accusations like you’re making are way out of line. Now go sit in the corner and take a timeout.
you’re still diverting the point. i asked you to compare the writing styles? did you? my point was that the writing style here matches granda’s not randall’s. you’ve said nothing to refute that other than to turn on me.
I’ve pulled a few comments that seemed a little out of line, while editing to retain the main point I think Growth Issue was making.
Good, it looks like the attacks on Mr. Randall have finally stopped.
i understand why you felt the need to remove my comments, but they were not attacks – i think the comments are accurate and what you left up does not reflect the reasoning behind my claim and allows rusty once again to tuck tail and run from having to address anything of substance.
G.I., once again, what have you said of any substance besides attacking me, Mr. Granda and Mr. Randall with your snipes?
He said that the writing style was consistent with Granda’s and not Randall’s. I agree with his interpretation if not his method of explaining it. He made the mistake probably of personalizing it and bringing up Mr. Randall’s autism, but I think his overall point is accurate. Most people I talked to feel it was Granda not Randall who wrote the complaints.
And, Growth Issue, it appears that you suffer from a RCI [sometimes called HUA syndrome] affliction. Your “diagnosis” of [u][b]who[/b][/u] “must have helped” an individual write a pleading when they were ‘medically incapable’ of parsing the language properly, presupposes that the individual had no other family, acquaintances or friends who would been able to assist him IF HE NEEDED IT, a point I am not ready to concede.
Look up the word “cretin” in the dictionary (all definitions), then consult a mirror.
Don… I hope you retain my 11:42 post. At least for as long as GI’s were allowed to remain. GI’s (actually my supposition of RCI fits with those intials) comments were out there way too long not to have a direct reply.
Another thing, who’s to say that Janet Zwahlen didn’t help write it? After all she also brought the suit along with Mr. Randall.