|
Wednesday night meeting Bike riders: Watch for drilling rig on bike path! Canyons meeting under way... Bldrs Exchange drama... Recycling wackiness State's property values decline for first time since 1933... City seeking applicants for Board of Building Appeals Homebuilders v. city (and county): Latest buzz Council, Weds night: development "freeze?" Suing Bakersfield: Pork hits fan? And they're off! City Council seat beckons... November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 Get e-mail updates from this blog, and download to print on the go with the City Beat Printcast.
RSS 2.0![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Share! |
|
|
Woodward loses (updated with trial notes)
The judge ruled against Beau Woodward. Woodward says he's leaning against an appeal, and hasn't decided to run as a write-in. The judge names 2107b in her decision, but I think she meant 2102b. Woodward's attorney, Eric Bradshaw, pushed section 2100, arguing that the court has the ability to order registration. But the judge apparently agreed that the legislature intended that to mean to let people vote, not for nomination papers. Here's 2100: 2100. No person shall be registered except as provided in thischapter except upon the production and filing of a certified copy ofa judgment of the superior court directing registration to be made. This seems like kind of a weak argument — yes, the court can order registration, but that in itself is not reason to — and apparently the judge thought so too. Here's some more details of the arguments, culled from my notes: That jurisdictional issue was disposed of pretty quickly. Bradshaw said it was a leftover from something, and the city and county were willing to overlook it. The 8607 issue never was raised by either side. Harold Hanson had an attorney, Tom Falgatter. Bradshaw argued that Hanson had no standing, but said he didn't want to delay the case to argue it. Bradshaw argued that being a registered voter confers two equally important rights — the right to vote, and the right to sign nomination petitions. Fallgatter argued that signing a nomination petition is not a right — the person being nominated does not have to accept a signature, and can even cross signatures off a petition. (I don't know why that would be done, but it's provided for in state law.) Etienne said for Bradshaw to prevail, he would have to argue that the DMV is acting as an agent for the county registrar, so that submittal of the voter registration form to the DMV would constitute that it's been received. Jennifer Zehry, the lawyer for the county, cited a case called Barnes vs. Wong, in which a statement of opposition to a ballot measure came in at 5 when it was due at noon. The trial court ruled that the interests of the voters to have the complete statement prevailed, and ordered the statement out into the ballot. But the appeals court overruled that, saying the Legislature set deadlines and the trial court was substituting its own judgement. Fallgater followed up on this, arguing that the rest of the citizens have a right to have a process they can depend on. Bradshaw ended his argument by saying "this is a unique circumstance." "There's a woman in this courtroom who wants her signature to count," he said. "Recognizing this woman's signature is the right thing to do." The courtroom was pretty crowded — three TV squads, one radio station, and me, plus some people from SEIU, Woodward and his wife, Frenzel and her husband and child, and Woodward's brother Gabe.
21 comments from 14 users
1
posted by
montfred
on Aug 25, 2008 at 12:37 PM
posted by
OldBlue56
on Aug 25, 2008 at 01:03 PM
posted by
RedHeadedFred
on Aug 25, 2008 at 03:51 PM
wonder who is footing the legal bills for Woodward? duh ..... what a farce posted by
honestjohn
on Aug 25, 2008 at 06:13 PM
Hooray for the rule of law! Even the powerful, dominant Abernathy-Scrivner machine couldn't subvert the rules for this election. Justice has been done. Beau Woodward will just have to be held to the same set of rules that Harold Hanson, Jacquie Sullivan and Sue Benham had to -- and did -- comply with.
posted by
citybeat
on Aug 25, 2008 at 06:20 PM
posted by
veritas88
on Aug 25, 2008 at 08:21 PM
citybeat, does that mean that Beau Woodward is going to reimburse the City and County for staff time, materials and court fees? If he is really concerned about costs to the taxpayer, then his remuneration will bode well for his next effort to run. Or will Abernathy, etal, pick up the tab? You will monitor? posted by
gopherbro
on Aug 25, 2008 at 08:34 PM
The moral of this little farce is not to wait until the last minute to circulate a nominating petition. The smart way is to get the required papers early. Obtain what you think are sufficient signatures as soon as possible. Check them against the Registrar's database. If you don't have enough unquestioned signatures, go get some more. Repeat until you are positive that you meet the requirements of the law. posted by
citybeat
on Aug 25, 2008 at 08:51 PM
Veritas: No, it means that Woodward, not Abernathy, is paying for Bradshaw. The city and county attorneys were defending their staff. posted by
sagefever
on Aug 26, 2008 at 08:12 AM
None of this bodes well for the gentlemans understanding of the process.We need adults who can "go to work" on day one,not a "get a lawyer" at a drop of the hat child. posted by
RedHeadedFred
on Aug 26, 2008 at 08:29 AM
well I hope Woodward's 15 minutes of fame was worth whatever he shelled out for his legal services ... his case was a clear loser from the beginning and whoever convinced him he had a legal leg to stand on was blowing smoke posted by
wlwedd
on Aug 26, 2008 at 10:24 AM
I would just bet that the only reason Abernathy is allowing Woodward to concede is that it's become painfully obvious that even local Republicans are frowning at the apparent mockery of the process. Abernathy thinks that his machine can just mow over everyone, including the law. Poor Woodward is really just a victim of that power-mad machine, and now that his name is synonymous with subversion, he's done forever. I hope he didn't really wnat the politcal career that seems to have been forced upon him by the powermongers. He certainly will never live this travesty down. posted by
TomW
on Aug 26, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Actually, gopherbro, there are some pretty good guidelines for sig. counting. I think the rule of thumbe is 115% of the requirement means you aren't automatically challenged, but with such a low number, I'd think someone could easily get 200% and chase off any investigation. The key from a real politik point of view is to get enough signatures so that no one believes they can knock you out with a challenge. posted by
citybeat
on Aug 26, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Tom: That guide is only for large petitions, and it's used when a random sample is taken. With a nomination petition as small as this, you need 20 real signatures, period. Each signature will be verified. posted by
work4aliving
on Aug 26, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Since Beau comes from a VERY wealthy family, I doubt HE is paying for anything unless it's from his trust fund!!! posted by
Boone51
on Aug 26, 2008 at 03:30 PM
Mr Geluso- I do want to thank you for the excellent job you have done on this case/story. You have provided the cases from both sides and the rulings in a pdf format (which is what I think your readers should be primarily concerned with). It seems that the people will continue to speculate and that the readers will turn Beau's 15 minutes of fame into a whole lot more. I would like to say this James. If Frenzel had reason any reason to believe that she hadn't been properly registered to vote that day at the DMV, then when Woodward brought the nomination papers to our house, why wouldn't she register to vote at that point. She signed the nomination papers with full confidence that her signature would be valid. And everyone can say whatever they feel, Woodward's eligibility requirements were this: Get 20 signatures from ward 5 registered voters, he did this on that day. However, the city decided that Frenzel/ Woodward should be penalized for an unfortunate slip up in our system. The proof of Frenzel's claim can be verified through her CA DMV form DL44 which should be on file with the DMV. When Frenzel told the clerk that she would like to register to vote in her new county during her CA Driver's License renewal that day, the burden of registering to vote became the clerk's responsibility at that moment which should have invoked the following steps: Clerk gives her the appropriate paperwork, Stacie fills this out, Clerk receives paperwork, Stacie confirms that she has filled all necessary forms out to be registered to vote, Clerk agrees. From Stacie's end, she felt like this was sufficient enough, apparently not. Anyways, thanks for your effort again James, you have been very fair in reporting this story. What I have learned through this process is that you attract a very bitter crowd that loves to comment and it has been quite entertaining to laugh at some of the responses over a meal with the Woodward family.
posted by
citybeat
on Aug 26, 2008 at 03:34 PM
Boone: We asked the DMV for Stacie's paperwork from that day, but they told us because it was a renewal, they didn't keep it on file. Seeing the box checked would have been a powerful piece of evidence. posted by
Shwaine
on Aug 26, 2008 at 04:40 PM
You know, something has been eating at me regarding Frenzel. Doesn't the motor voter law specifically state that when you move between counties, you can NOT use the DMV to register to vote and must send in a registration card to your new county of residence? I know that was the case several years ago, but am not up on the current law. posted by
citybeat
on Aug 26, 2008 at 04:50 PM
I don't think so, Shwaine. The DMV is supposed to give you a standard form, the same form used by the county whether you pick it up at City Hall, fill it out at the county or get handed a form at Wal-Mart. The key is, it's not just a DMV form, and the DMV won't register you — they'll just send in the form. Given Stacie Frenzel's story — her disbelief that she had filled out enough paperwork, the fact that she didn't come away with a stub — it sounds like the DMV employee never handed her the actual voter registration form. But of course I don't really know. posted by
Shwaine
on Aug 26, 2008 at 06:10 PM
I guess it's new now that they will send in the form for you. When I moved up to Yolo County, I had to send in the form myself. I just did that automatically on moving back here since I had such bad luck with the DMV processing address changes in Yolo County even with the appropriate box on the address change form checked. Or maybe Yolo County just has a problem, heh. posted by
honestjohn
on Aug 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM
posted by
avantichamp
on Sep 10, 2008 at 09:53 PM
As seldom as I agree with Councilman Hanson if Woodward had gotten himself on the ballot Hanson would have gotten a cash donation from me just on principal alone. Harold may not suit everyone's ideological views, certainly not mine, but that he will take a stand on principal vs. the wishes of some power broker he deserves our support. Harold, stick to your principals and best wishes!
1
Advertisement |