And litigation ensues
Wayne Lusvardi says Colantuono and Levin, the law firm responsible for Pasadena's Measure D, has notified him they are suing to remove certain items in the Rebuttal to the Argument FOR Measure D that Wayne submitted last week.
UPDATED: See, it all comes together. All the disparate narrative threads and one-liners, like good sketch comedy, converge into something discernible. Ragnarök? Or just a lot of talk?
I've been waiting for things to gel beyond speculation for a print story about the lawsuit but yes, Rene Amy's first case? Defending Wayne Lusvardi's Citizens for Responsible Government (which he insists on pronouncing as "CRAG") in court.
Here's the city press release from Spokeslegend Ann Erdman:
LAWSUIT FILED TO CORRECT FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS
IN REBUTTAL BALLOT ARGUMENT ON LOCAL MEASURE “D”
On Dec. 7, a lawsuit will be filed on behalf of the Elections Official for the City of Pasadena to correct a misleading ballot argument that was submitted for the voter pamphlet against local Measure “D.”Measure “D” will be considered by the voters of the City of Pasadena at a Feb. 5, 2008, election; the Measure itself is titled “Pasadena Utility Users Tax Continuation Measure.” The Measure is intended to clarify the application of the City’s Utility Users Tax on telephone services, first imposed in 1969, to new telephone technologies like wireless and voice over the internet protocol.
(More below)
Under state law, the Elections Official may ask a court to correct false or misleading statements in ballot arguments. The public policy of the law is to be fair to the voters and ensure that an election is decided by the voters based upon facts that are as accurate as possible. A court has the authority to require that ballot materials be amended or deleted to remove any false or misleading statements of fact.
The lawsuit is not a partisan action seeking court approval of whether one side is right and another is wrong. The court will not examine whether a ballot measure should win or lose, or whether argument is well-stated or not. The court will only examine whether statements in ballot materials are objectively false or misleading to a voter. If there are false or misleading statements, the court may order them amended or stricken from the ballot materials.
At issue here are statements made in the Rebuttal to the Argument in Favor of Measure D, which appear to be false, misleading or both. The rebuttal states that the Measure would “force” a tax on Internet access; however, Measure D would not compel the City to do anything, but authorizes the City to continue the Utility Users Tax on telephone services. The rebuttal further claims that Measure D would allow government officials to review telephone and Internet bills and invade the privacy of telephone and Internet users. However, Measure D does not do this and makes no change in the privacy rights of utility customers. Further, the rebuttal suggests that the Measure would tax junk e-mail received by Internet customers. However, such a claim is false or misleading since the tax applies to bills for phone service, not Internet service.
The lawsuit asserts that each of those statements is demonstrably false and asks that all of those statements be amended or removed from the election materials in furtherance of the public interest.
Because the matter must be decided before the ballot material is submitted for printing, there will be a request for an expedited hearing to be held on Dec. 14, 2007.
UNDER THE DOME
|
| Pasadena -- news, politics and gossip. Send tips, rumors, rants to Dan Abendschein dan.abendschein@sgvn.com. |
9 Comments
Leave a comment