HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Admin Elections Cd Case
~
e
e
..
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEXENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 24, 1994
SUBJECT:
Authorization for city of Dublin to be included as
an amicus curiae in pittsburg case related to
Administration of Elections Code
(Report by Elizabeth silver, city Attorney)
EXHIBITS ATTACBED:~Memorandum to California City Attorneys dated
December 20, 1993
~
RECOMMENDATION: ~ Support Amicus Brief
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None
DESCRIPTION: The City Attorney has received a request that the
City join as an "amicus" in a case pending before the Court of Appeal
(No More Garbage in pittsburq Committee vs. Lillian Pride). The case
involves a challenge to the Pittsburg city Clerk's determination that
two referendum petitions did not qualify for the ballot. The
referendum petitions sought to referend a general plan amendment and
zoning ordinance amendment for a solid waste recycling center and
transfer station.
The city Clerk found the petitions insufficient for three reasons: 1)
some circulators failed to complete dates in their own handwriting, as
required by Elections Code Section 44; 2) some circulators were not
registered voters in Pittsburg, despite their sworn declarations to
the contrary (Elections Code Section 4052(c); and 3) the petition did
not include the entire resolution approving the general plan amendment
(Elections Code Section 4052).
It is important for City Clerks to have clear direction in
administering the provisions of the Elections Code. Because Dublin
has had two referenda in the last year, the City Clerk and City
Attorney believe it is appropriate for the City of Dublin to join as
an "amicus" in this case.
There is no cost to the city to join.
staff recommends that the city council authorize support for the
"amicus" brief.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. ..9.1
COPIES TO:
CITY CLERK
FILE ~
MICHAEL R. WOO OS
SAMUEL T. CRUMP
LAURA J. ANOER50N
LAW OFFICES
HIGHAEL R. "rOODS
." ,.. . ,~ .- r)
arc 2 8 1993
I;ny ()r: DUBLIN
FACSIMILE:
,707' 935-0523
e
Po PJ;lOF't.5510N~'- COFlPOR.A.TION
18100 CARRIGER ROAP
!:>ONOMA. CALIFORNIA Q:-;470-407:;!
17071 996-1776
December 20, 1993
.' :: (J t.
,..... ,&
~ ,-
MEMORANDUM
To:
city Attorneys
From:
Michael R. Woods
City Attorney, city of Pittsburg
Re:
Request for Amicus support in No More Garbaqe in
Pittsburq committee v. Lillian Pride. et
(A063237 and A063238)
al.
The League has urged that cities Jo~n in the amicus brief being
prepared in this case. (See Legal Advocacy committee Report of
November, 1993.) The purpose of this letter is to request that
. your city authorize its support (if it has not already done so) by
completing and mailing the enclosed authorization form.
These cases involve a challenge to the Pittsburg city Clerk's
determination that two referendum petitions did not qualify for the
November, 1993 general election ballot. city Clerk Lillian Pride
rejected two sets of referendum petitions which sought to referend
a general plan amendment and zoning ordinance amendment for a solid
waste recycling center and transfer station. The bases for her
action included:
1) some circulators failed to complete dates of
circulation in their own handwriting, as required
by Elections Code section 44;
2) some circulators were not registered to vote in the
city of pittsburg, despite their sworn declarations
to the contrary (Elections Code section 4052(c));
and
3) the general plan referendum petition did not
include the entirety of the resolution being
challenged, but only one paragraph (the actual
"approval" language) and an exhibit (see Elections
Code section 4052; Billiq v. Voqes (1990) 223 CA3d
962, 273 CR 91; Nelson v. Carlson (1993) 17 CA4th
732, 21 CR2d 485).
e
e
Memorandum to city Attorneys
December 17, 1993
page 2
The committee that circulated the petitions was controlled by the
owners of a shopping center in the vicinity of the proposed
transfer station. One of the owners coincidentally owns an
interest in a competing solid waste facility. The committee
challenged the city Clerk'S actions in superior court and
prevailed. The City Clerk, Council and city appealed.
->L
In response to the Superior court's decision, the city Clerk
certified both measures for the ballot. Both the general plan
amendment and rezoning amendment passed by wide margins, thus
allowing the transfer station to proceed. The court of Appeal
could decide that the outcome of the vote moots the appeal. We
intend to urge the court to decide the issues, since they will
undoubtedly be repeated elsewhere in the state. city clerks should
have clear direction in these circumstances.
The California city clerks Association the Northern Division of the
California city Clerks Association (two separate . entities) are
supporting the amicus brief, in addition to the many cities who
have already responded. If your city has not yet authorized
support and wishes to participate, we ask that you notify the
amicus brief writer no later than January 31, 1994. The brief is
due in early February, and is being prepared by:
Fredric D. Woocher
strumwasser and Woocher
100 wilshire Blvd., suite 1900
santa Monica, CA 90401
We have enclosed an authorization form for your convenience.
Thank you for your assistance.
MRW:k~
Enclosure
cc: Fredric D. Woocher
JoAnne Speers
e
e
AUTHORIZATION OF REPRESENTATION
I/We hereby authorize Frederic D. Woocher of strumwasser & Woocher
to include the city of as an amicus curiae in
No More Garbaae in pittsbura committee v. Lillian Pride. et al.
l/We understand that there is no financial contribution requirement
for our participation.
Name
Title
Address
City/State/Zip
Please return this form to Fredric o. Woocher, Strumwasser &
Woocher, 100 wilshire Blvd., suite 1900, Santa Monica, CA 90401.
pi ttsbur\smrt. ref\mcatyfor.ami
; I ,"
,4 '< (I.
"'! ;."" \ ~ . :
,I."
I . ~ "
. '-
. ;':":.,:,:"',1 '; .~....:<.t':~~;'>'~;'~~.~,:<.'
.,. " ,.:.:..:::'~\.:,:",:,:.::',,>.;"" ;?: ~;;,:.: .
\. ' " \, ~' :. . ,
~".' . .
~ :
,to
i..
I
~ " '., , .
.. ,,' .'t'l;",'
",
.'. ".".