Still some hurdles before it gets to the ballot.
With all we invested over the last year with this off the court stuff it would be a shame if we had to undergo another stretch of this.
Getting an arena built shouldn't take as big of a process as it has here. Virtually all top 30 markets have went through this, many multiple times
With all we invested over the last year with this off the court stuff it would be a shame if we had to undergo another stretch of this.
Getting an arena built shouldn't take as big of a process as it has here. Virtually all top 30 markets have went through this, many multiple times
Some good points there.
I think they will wait until all the signatures are counted, just to make sure it doesn't fall flat on it's face in the last day or so on it's own. They have laid the groundwork for protesting the forms already, so I think if they get enough signatures that will be the next "bullet" fired, so to speak. I don't see how that won't work given the shoddy work STOP did with the petitions.
If for some reason it doesn't, they can argue that it isn't valid anyways due to the changes it will illegally make to the City charter. And they can get the City Council vote on the bonds done quick enough that it happens before the election would take place anyways.
I see plenty of optimism here, but it would be nice to get this swept away ASAP. Makes me nervous that it lingers on......
I think they will wait until all the signatures are counted, just to make sure it doesn't fall flat on it's face in the last day or so on it's own. They have laid the groundwork for protesting the forms already, so I think if they get enough signatures that will be the next "bullet" fired, so to speak. I don't see how that won't work given the shoddy work STOP did with the petitions.
If for some reason it doesn't, they can argue that it isn't valid anyways due to the changes it will illegally make to the City charter. And they can get the City Council vote on the bonds done quick enough that it happens before the election would take place anyways.
I see plenty of optimism here, but it would be nice to get this swept away ASAP. Makes me nervous that it lingers on......
This is really the killer here. This will never get on the ballot. If it is not DQed on the multiple technicalities we already know about, it will be DQed because the City Charter can't be changed by referendum.
The problem is that at this point, no matter which way it fails, the STOP whiners will throw a temper tantrum to every TV camera they can find, and misrepresent the facts to make themselves look good and the City look like a giant dictatorial thug who won't listen to the clarion democratic voice of the people. It will be a black eye, but it will be a black eye that we got via sucker punch after the referee already declared us the victor via TKO.
The problem is that at this point, no matter which way it fails, the STOP whiners will throw a temper tantrum to every TV camera they can find, and misrepresent the facts to make themselves look good and the City look like a giant dictatorial thug who won't listen to the clarion democratic voice of the people. It will be a black eye, but it will be a black eye that we got via sucker punch after the referee already declared us the victor via TKO.
Anyone watch that channel 3 report last night? The woman from McGregor School of Law said that even if there were discrepancies that the measure would still probably get on the ballot because from what she said it's "the people trying to speak out on something they are passionate about" or something to that effect. She said in cases like the one we are dealing with they almost always get the benefit of the doubt.
I don't know what would give her the impression that the law is all about warm fuzzies. This really brings to mind Walter Sobchek's great piece of wisdom about bowling: "This is not 'Nam, Smokey, there are RULES!" If the rules in bowling are important, how much more important are the rules for elections? All you have to do is look back to the numerous instances of case law that were cited in the letters to the City Clerk by The4000 and it seems evident that in previous cases with similar circumstances, judges insisted that the rules had to be followed.
Oh, but sure, let's just rather imagine that a judge is going to look at a group that has made several errors involving the regulations for petitions, and on top of that spent a good deal of their time lying about or at best obfuscating the true intent of their petition ("Sign this petition to help build a downtown arena", they said), get them into a group hug, and start singing Kum-Bay-Yah and put their illegal (can't change the City Charter by referendum) measure on the ballot so that they can have their passionate voices heard about how badly a new basketball arena will oppress them. Right.
Oh, but sure, let's just rather imagine that a judge is going to look at a group that has made several errors involving the regulations for petitions, and on top of that spent a good deal of their time lying about or at best obfuscating the true intent of their petition ("Sign this petition to help build a downtown arena", they said), get them into a group hug, and start singing Kum-Bay-Yah and put their illegal (can't change the City Charter by referendum) measure on the ballot so that they can have their passionate voices heard about how badly a new basketball arena will oppress them. Right.
Encouraging tweets from the guys I follow (Kasler and Bizjak) quoting the City Clerk along the lines of "having 22K signatures does not put this on the ballot" and noting that she has sole authority to accept or reject petitions. Seems that if the clerk rejects the petition on city charter grounds or for multiple versions, there is no way the STOPPERS could legally twist her arm in time for the June ballot. I'm feeling very encouraged because we certainly have more and better lawyers on our side than they do.
huge: http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/City-Manager/Media-Releases/CityClerkPetition
MEDIA RELEASE
City Clerk Statement Regarding Ongoing Petition Signature Verification Process
Sacramento, Calif - “It is anticipated that the Sacramento County Registrar of Voters will reach the 22,000 signature verification threshold today. In my role as the City’s Elections Official, I feel compelled to remind the community that simply reaching this threshold does not conclude the petition validation process.” – Shirley Concolino, City Clerk
As the Elections Official of the City of Sacramento, the City Clerk has the responsibility and sole authority to accept or reject petitions per the CA Election Code and the Sacramento City Charter. The City has contracted with Sacramento County to validate the petition signatures. The County is the City’s agent only for the purposes of signature validation. A valid petition signature is the signature of a registered voter living within the Sacramento City limits. In light of complexity of the petitions, a full count of the signatures was requested.
The County has until January 28th to complete the full count. No later than this date, the County will present the clerk with the signature verification findings. From that point, the City Clerk as the City’s Elections Official is required to confirm that all election code and city charter requirements have been met, and only then can the petition be deemed sufficient or insufficient. The final certification of the election lies with the City’s Elections Official, the City Clerk.
MEDIA RELEASE
City Clerk Statement Regarding Ongoing Petition Signature Verification Process
Sacramento, Calif - “It is anticipated that the Sacramento County Registrar of Voters will reach the 22,000 signature verification threshold today. In my role as the City’s Elections Official, I feel compelled to remind the community that simply reaching this threshold does not conclude the petition validation process.” – Shirley Concolino, City Clerk
As the Elections Official of the City of Sacramento, the City Clerk has the responsibility and sole authority to accept or reject petitions per the CA Election Code and the Sacramento City Charter. The City has contracted with Sacramento County to validate the petition signatures. The County is the City’s agent only for the purposes of signature validation. A valid petition signature is the signature of a registered voter living within the Sacramento City limits. In light of complexity of the petitions, a full count of the signatures was requested.
The County has until January 28th to complete the full count. No later than this date, the County will present the clerk with the signature verification findings. From that point, the City Clerk as the City’s Elections Official is required to confirm that all election code and city charter requirements have been met, and only then can the petition be deemed sufficient or insufficient. The final certification of the election lies with the City’s Elections Official, the City Clerk.
Agreed. I think they have to verify signatures first, and then check all the different forms for compliance. I don't see how this goes past that verification step based on what we know and the media release John Galt posted. Very optimistic, but still cautiously so until we get definitive word from the City Clerk.
KJ on Facebook a bit ago..
Kevin Johnson
about an hour ago
As the City Clerk has made clear, this is merely a procedural step in part of a longer process. Based on everything we have learned: from the way the initiative was purposefully written to delay the entire project as opposed to a straight up or down vote; to the failure to disclose the chief financial contributor behind the effort; to the fact that the vast majority of the money for this initiative comes from sources opposed to Sacramento; to the issues raised about the nature of the petitions; I have serious concerns about the integrity of the process. Plain and simple - this initiative is a Trojan Horse. For Sacramento, there is a great deal at stake: 4000 jobs, transforming downtown, and keeping the Kings in Sacramento. And given what is at stake, coupled with the troubling questions related to integrity of these ballot petitions, the nature in which they were collected, and the true intent of those who are behind the effort, I believe we should take a hard look at the petitions and consider all of the available options to protect the public.
Kevin Johnson
about an hour ago
As the City Clerk has made clear, this is merely a procedural step in part of a longer process. Based on everything we have learned: from the way the initiative was purposefully written to delay the entire project as opposed to a straight up or down vote; to the failure to disclose the chief financial contributor behind the effort; to the fact that the vast majority of the money for this initiative comes from sources opposed to Sacramento; to the issues raised about the nature of the petitions; I have serious concerns about the integrity of the process. Plain and simple - this initiative is a Trojan Horse. For Sacramento, there is a great deal at stake: 4000 jobs, transforming downtown, and keeping the Kings in Sacramento. And given what is at stake, coupled with the troubling questions related to integrity of these ballot petitions, the nature in which they were collected, and the true intent of those who are behind the effort, I believe we should take a hard look at the petitions and consider all of the available options to protect the public.
Gary, I think that the grassroots (and the Mayor) are planning to take the high road here. There are multiple potential legal problems with the petition process that will allow us to win the day in court if it need go that far. We don't need to, or even want to, do anything illegal or shady. Leave that illegal and shady crap to the STOP folks, don't dare try to tempt us with it.
Most important statement issued to date. Election Code is VERY SPECIFIC. The City Clerk is not going to ignore or violate it just because STOP has been vocal about being the "voice of the people." The law is the law. STOP could have done things right. The fact they didn't is not on the City or anyone else. It's on them.
