|
Prop R Battle Energizes LA’s Dissidents |
|
|
First Person Insight
By Michael Cohen
Last Tuesday I attended the Prop R Legal Challenge at the 2nd Court of Appeal, Ronald Regan State Building.
 Eric Grant, the attorney representing petitioners David Hernandez and
Ted Hayes in their valiant determination to overturn Proposition R, led
off in court with a simple question. He essentially asked the court:
should the City of Los Angeles be able to carve out an exception in its
elections to the approximately 100-year-old single subject rule
governing ballot measure California elections?
Grant maintained that the city should not be allowed to engage in “logrolling” … the deceptive practice of tying unrelated issues, “the bitter and the sweet” together on a single ballot measure.
Citing court cases restraining the state legislature and counties, Grant did concede that there is no single statute or Constitutional provision specifically requiring charter cities, as is L.A., to practice the single subject rule, but nor is there a stated exception either. Also Grant pointed out that there has been consistent history, with minor exceptions, implementing the one issue rule.
Valerie Flores, City of L.A. attorney, made an ingratiatory move reminding the court that they had upheld the original title for Prop R when that was challenged. The court was not impressed and asked Flores if the single subject rule applies. No, she said, there was nothing in the state constitution requiring it.
Oversight? Queried the Court.
No, she said again, the State had opportunity to extend the single subject rule but did not and the City of Los Angeles has a more open process.
The court asked Flores if the single rule was upheld did Prop R violate that standard.
No, she said.
Explaining that extending term limits and limiting lobbyist’s contributions were the same issue because the longer a city councilperson is in office the less the councilmember is dependent on lobbyists for help or money.
Let that one sink in.
Stephen Kaufman, attorney representing the League of Women Voters and the Greater L.A. Chamber of Commerce, was next defending the legitimacy of Prop R pointing out that 60% of the voters approved the measure and that some violations of the ordinance have already been uncovered by the Ethics Commission and further stating that Prop R was "'good government".
He failed to mention, naturally, several important things: that the changes to the city charter regarding ethics reform can be made without voter approval simply by a vote of the City Council; that only 9% of the registered voters voted in the election … meaning just over 5% of L.A. voters approving Prop. R.
He also failed to mention that Liza White of the League, said publicly in effect that their main objective was raise term limits (because it takes a long time to train them), not lobbyist reform because studies had shown that the voters would not approve an extension of term limits by itself.
Another omission was that the L.A. City Attorney, City Controller and Ethics Commission said that Prop. R was deceptive.
The City of Los Angeles, the League of Women Voters and the Chamber of Commerce are perpetrating a fraud on the people of L.A. And frankly, there is a good chance they will continue to get away with it.
Regardless of the fine points of the law or whether this or that precedent applies or even if Prop R was a good law, the disconsolate part is that theirs is a race to the bottom of government; to confuse and obfuscate issues denying the public's right to clear and plain choices.
If the court does uphold the right of the city to have multiple issues in one ballot measure, hold on to your hats because we ain’t seen nothin' yet. With lobbyist money they’ll be logrolling us to death.
That imbalance of power, low voter turnout and the general feeling of powerlessness in L.A. is the reason so many community activists including neighborhood council members have met to find an antidote for voter cynicism by forming and supporting Ron Kaye’s Save LA Project. The people have and will face challenges like the Prop R battle along the way but they will not be dissuaded.
(Michael Cohen is a longtime community activist and has participated in the growth of the neighborhood council movement including serving on the NC committee that negotiated the NC/DWP agreement. More info on the Saving LA Project at: www.savingla.com ) ◘
CityWatch
Vol 6 Issue 70
Pub: Aug 29, 2008
|
