Breaking News - The end of the line for STOP?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nikefutbolero
  • Start date Start date
N

Nikefutbolero

Guest
Breaking - Sac arena petition counting to restart as petitions to be segregated by at least eight different petition types.

— Aaron Bruski (@aaronbruski) January 9, 2014

STOP initially claimed only 2 versions. However, upon close review, as many as 8 or more different versions have been identified.

— Aaron Bruski (@aaronbruski) January 9, 2014

Sources thrown off by inconsistencies between STOP claims and actual petitions.

— Aaron Bruski (@aaronbruski) January 9, 2014

Sources add that there is increasing concern/skepticism about the materials that have been submitted.

— Aaron Bruski (@aaronbruski) January 9, 2014

This many unique and different versions of a petition is very unusual according to sources and is raising red flags.

— Aaron Bruski (@aaronbruski) January 9, 2014

If any one petition type is found to be invalid it could turn a very close signature race into a loss for anti-arena groups.

— Aaron Bruski (@aaronbruski) January 9, 2014

This is a key element of arena supporters’ requests that petitions be segregated due to alleged elections law violations.

— Aaron Bruski (@aaronbruski) January 9, 2014

Sources increasingly sense that this is headed for court. Too many red flags and inconsistencies creating doubt and concern.

— Aaron Bruski (@aaronbruski) January 9, 2014

The timing of the news is unique since 1 yr ago today SAC was threatened w/ the loss of their Kings: http://t.co/4N2TWEqnch

— Aaron Bruski (@aaronbruski) January 9, 2014
 
I like Bruski but this really depends on who the source is. For all we know, the source is a Crown Downtown spokesman.

I'll believe the "tossing of the piles" when I see it. I'm praying for it because unless they toss some piles or invalidate the petition altogether - it is headed for the ballot based on early counting returns.
 
I think this is the same info that was submitted by crowndowntown.org.

EDIT, yah just reread the info Mike posted and that's what it is. I assume that there are MANY variations of the actual petition and I think a lot of the wording was left out of quite a few.

Even if the sigs are thrown out I think they never had enough "city of sac" sigs anyway.
 
John Galt said:
I like Bruski but this really depends on who the source is. For all we know, the source is a Crown Downtown spokesman.
Click to expand...

1. Bruski is a career reporter. What makes you think he can't get any closer to the signature counting process than a "Crown Downtown spokesman"?

2. As far as "Crown Downtown spokesmen" goes, there's really only Mike. Not only that, but Bruski is in personal contact with Mike - if he were going to CDT for info, that's the only person he'd go to. And Mike has a ton of good contacts and has yet to be wrong.

We've seen this from Bruski, I've heard this myself from Mike, it's happening.

John Galt said:
I'll believe the "tossing of the piles" when I see it. I'm praying for it because unless they toss some piles or invalidate the petition altogether - it is headed for the ballot based on early counting returns.
Click to expand...

At least one of the petitions is materially different - I believe (without checking) that it was the "Version 3" in the letter sent from The4000 to the City Clerk. This petition specifically intends to stop a "Railyards Arena", which is not the current project. Any Version 3 petitions will certainly not be counted along with the others, though we don't know how many of those there are at this point.

My guess is that several of the separated versions will end up being counted together. In the end, I doubt the City will want to take to court over the question of whether very-nearly-identical petitions with different dating on one of the official pages are considered separate petitions. However, there are other versions which apparently omit legally-required text. Those will likely be invalidated, because rules are rules.

We just don't know how many of these (at least 8) piles will be tossed - I'm confident at least two will be - and we don't know how many signatures come from those piles. But yes, the early counting returns are bad.

Still, even if STOP does get enough signatures, it won't go to the ballot. STOP is attempting to change the City Charter by referendum, and the City Charter can't be changed by referendum: http://graswich.com/info/2014/01/08/why-arena-initiative-is-illegal/

It's just a lot messier to clean it up that way than it is for the thing to fail on the numbers. So hopefully it fails on the numbers. But if not, then it fails because it's not a legal petition.
 
Cap'n I forgot for a little while that you're always lurking with a ruler poised to rap my knuckles with. Wish I knew why - always feels like you've got some old score to settle.

The similarity between Bruski's tweets and Mikes info is striking that's all

I'm on record many times over as a fan of Bruski. I'm not dissing him.
 
John Galt said:
Cap'n I forgot for a little while that you're always lurking with a ruler poised to rap my knuckles with. Wish I knew why - always feels like you've got some old score to settle.
Click to expand...

Nope, I've got no beef with you. If I've specifically targeted your posts, it's only because I've taken exception to the posts themselves. If I've given you the Catholic Nun treatment more than your fair share, I didn't realize it.

The similarity between Bruski's tweets and Mikes info is striking that's all

I'm on record many times over as a fan of Bruski. I'm not dissing him.
Click to expand...

OK, it's cool. It did sound to me like you were casting a lot of doubt on information that is pretty much known to be good (and maybe taking a little swipe at CDT in the process), is all. Glad to know that's not it.
 
John Galt said:
I like Bruski but this really depends on who the source is. For all we know, the source is a Crown Downtown spokesman.

I'll believe the "tossing of the piles" when I see it. I'm praying for it because unless they toss some piles or invalidate the petition altogether - it is headed for the ballot based on early counting returns.
Click to expand...

There are several sources for this info. It's good...

Not sure what you mean by "the source is a Crown Downtown spokesman," but they have been 100% correct all the way down the line. While the differing petitions may just now be coming to light, it's been known for quite a while.

You need to read what R.E. Graswich has been saying about the petition situation, too. Even if they had the required number of signatures, there's a very good chance the entire petition is invalid because it is in conflict with the City Charter.

EDIT: Sorry if I sound like I'm piling on. I replied to John Galt's post before I saw Capt. Factorial's reply. :oops:
 
John Galt said:
I like Bruski but this really depends on who the source is. For all we know, the source is a Crown Downtown spokesman.

I'll believe the "tossing of the piles" when I see it. I'm praying for it because unless they toss some piles or invalidate the petition altogether - it is headed for the ballot based on early counting returns.
Click to expand...
Maybe I read different in the editorial piece. Yes the returns are bad with 5767 out of 8518 for an expected 23900, but that is before counting withdrawals which I would think would take it below 22000?
 
Kingsfan23 said:
Maybe I read different in the editorial piece. Yes the returns are bad with 5767 out of 8518 for an expected 23900, but that is before counting withdrawals which I would think would take it below 22000?
Click to expand...

No, they are checking the withdrawal forms as they check validity. That is why they checked the withdrawals first and entered them into their computer system. Now, as they type in the petitions, the withdrawal matches come up automatically.

Each day, election office staffers sit with petitions in front of them, typing each name on the petition into their voter-registration database to see if there is a matching name and address. If there is a match, the signature is counted. If not, it is marked invalid. In some cases, the computer will signal that this person has requested his or her name be withdrawn. In that case, the worker will walk the name over to a row of tables to double-check the name with workers who have sorted the withdrawal requests.
Click to expand...


Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/01/08/6057565/petitions-at-the-epicenter-of.html#storylink=cpy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top