City's response letter claims Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury proposals would impinge on city's constitutional rights
Defying recommendations
from the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury, Palo Alto will not submit its
ballot measure questions to the county for review before future elections,
according to a response letter that the City Council plans to approve next
week.
Palo Alto was among the
cities that the grand jury singled out for falling short earlier this year
after it conducted a survey of misleading language on ballot measures. The
report, titled "If you only read the ballot, you're being duped,"
analyzed what the grand jury called the "tricks of the trade" that
municipalities use to make their ballot measures seem more favorable to voters.
The grand jury
specifically took issue with the wording of Measure L, which affirmed the
city's historic policy of transferring revenues from the gas utility to the
general fund and which overwhelmingly passed last month. The grand jury felt
that the phrase in the ballot that states that the tax would be in place
"until ended by voters" is misleading because the measure itself does
not include a mechanism for ending the practice.
The language, which was
also found in other jurisdictions, is cited as an example of poorly worded
ballot questions that "may not be illegal, but if they withhold
information to shield what is really at issue, they are unethical," the
report stated.
"There are
insufficient workable checks and balances to prevent this ongoing issue from
being curtailed," the grand jury report states. "Not doing anything
about this only adds to the distrust of government."
But its proposed remedies
— submitting ballot language to a Santa Clara County counsel or to a
third-party panel for review — are unlikely to be adopted any time soon. In a
defiant response to the report, Palo Alto officials strongly disputed the grand
jury's finding that Measure L language was in any way misleading and argued
that the proposed remedies would trample on the local control over elections.
The response letter, which
the council is scheduled to approve on Dec. 12, maintains that the Measure L
language is accurate despite the fact that the measure does not specify a
process for voter repeal. That's because the state's Election Code already
gives voters that power through the process of circulating a petition.
"It is therefore a
true statement that if a tax ordinance is approved by the voters and does not
have a fixed end date, then it will be in effect until it is ended or repealed
by the voters," the letter states.
City officials are also
pushing back against the grand jury's recommendations and argue that ballot
language is already well scrutinized by professional staff, approved by the
council and subject to legal challenges if it falls short. The formal response,
which the city is required to submit, reflects that arguments that City
Attorney Molly Stump and Mayor Pat Burt made in the days after the grand jury
report issued the report. Burt told this news organization at the time that he
believes the grand jury misunderstood local election law and called Measure L
language "common and appropriate."
While Palo Alto's response
letter concurs with the grand jury's finding that "local governmental
entities that sponsor ballot measures have a responsibility to ensure that
ballot measure language is clear, accurate, and useful to voters," it
disagreed with all three of the recommendations that it was asked to respond
to: voluntarily submitting ballot questions to the county counsel; approving a
local ordinance or resolution requiring counsel review of ballot questions; and
submitting them to a specially created Good Governance in Ballots Commission.
The city argues that these recommendations are not warranted and makes clear
that they will not be implemented.
The county counsel, the
letter notes, is "appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the County
Board of Supervisors." The grand jury's proposal to empower the county
counsel to potentially modify ballot questions is "not appropriate for
cities like Palo Alto, which are separate government entities with independent
constitutional authority to control our own elections," according to the
letter.
"Giving authority to
the County Counsel to review and edit ballot questions for the City of Palo
Alto would impinge on Palo Alto's constitutional authority over its
elections," the letter states. The effect would be to reduce local control
by shifting authority to a government entity that is not accountable to Palo
Alto residents."
Palo Alto Weekly
by Gennady Sheyner
December 5, 2022
No comments:
Post a Comment