|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| COLAB: The Colition of Labor Agriculture and Labor |
| The Judge won't budge. May 8, 2002 - After three hearings before Judge Anderle, that is all that we know about the fate of the recall effort against Gail Marshall. At the very first hearing Judge Anderle determined that he wasn't going to make a determination on the case until May 22, and despite numerous attempts to move the judge off the dime, we still won't hear any decision by him on the merits of the case for another two weeks. As I have mentioned previously, there are numerous legal opinions, including that of the Secretary of State, that indicate Marshall's attempt to invalidate the recall petitions that were signed by over 13,000 registered voters will ultimately fail. State law clearly indicates that her objection to the registration status of the petition circulators is to have no bearing on the validity of the petition process itself. So why is the Judge taking his sweet time to determine the obvious? There are three theories out there as to what is going on. Theory number one has it that the Judge is going to slam dunk Marshall on May 22 but because Marshall has already indicated she will appeal the Judge's decision, he is giving her attorneys every opportunity to gather what evidence they can so as to make it harder for them on appeal. Theory number two has it that the Judge personally doesn't support the recall but he knows he has no legal grounds to support Marshall's effort to throw out the recall petitions based upon a superfluous legal technicality. Because he is a moral man, he won't legislate from the bench, but because he is willing to exercise the discretion afforded him to stretch the case out long enough to allow UCSB to weigh in for the election. Theory number three has the Judge in over his head. Due to the fact that he doesn't know this area of the law (he is a former family law attorney) and that he personally is so methodical almost to the point of procrastination, he decided to take his sweet time even though the State statute guarantees the right of the electorate to have a quick resolution in the matter of a recall. In addition to the intrigue of why the Judge is taking so long to determine the merits of this case, there are two interesting aspects of this case I should bring to your attention. The most intriguing issue has to do with the stay the Judge ordered within minutes of walking into the courtroom at the very first hearing. If you recall, Elections Officer Ken Pettit had unilaterally refused to count the petitions in order to give Marshall's camp an opportunity to appeal to Anderle for a judicial determination. After having admitted to not having read any of the materials submitted by the recall proponents, Anderle nonetheless determined that a stay of the recall count was in order. He then went on to decide he wouldn't rule on the merits of the case until May 22. What is interesting about this decision in support of the request of Marshall's attorneys is that they have in effect locked away the evidence they need to determine the merits of their case. Let me explain. Marshall wants Anderle to throw out the signatures that were collected by paid professionals and she wants all signatures from Vandenberg Village thrown out as well. Yet because there has been no count of the signatures, she doesn't know if throwing out these signatures alone will defeat the recall or not, because she doesn't know how many signatures came from the pros and how many came from Vandenberg Village! The second issue has to do with County Counsel. Because we have in our possession the legal opinion from County Counsel that the petitions should be counted but County Counsel is refusing to defend the rights of the petitioners, there is a chance there is going to be a follow-up lawsuit against County Counsel for dereliction of duty with regards to their sworn duty to uphold the laws of the State of California. |