Santa Ana Rejects New Ballot Petitions on Charter Changes

Petitions by a group of Santa Ana residents calling for changes in city government were rejected by the city clerk Wednesday, in part because the documents didn’t state what they were.

It was the second time that members of the group--Santa Ana Merged Society of Neighbors (SAMSON)--have tripped over a bureaucratic hurdle in their effort to submit petitions in time for the June ballot. On Jan. 23, crucial time was lost when they missed the deadline to submit their notice of intent to gather signatures.

The latest mix-up means the group cannot meet the deadline for the June ballot. New petitions would have to be circulated, the county would have to verify that they contain the minium 6,372 signatures of registered voters and the council would have to vote to place the measure on the ballot--all by March 7.

City Clerk Janice C. Guy said she and City Atty. Edward C. Cooper studied “a few” of the petitions containing more than 7,000 signatures submitted by the group Wednesday morning. Acting on Cooper’s recommendation, she rejected the petitions because they didn’t contain the correct wording.

The state election code requires that petitions seeking charter amendments contain the heading: “Petition for Submission to Voters of Proposed Amendment to the Charter of (in this case) the City of Santa Ana.” In addition, a 108-word description of the proposition process must be included.

“They didn’t have any of that in their petitions,” Cooper said.

“It’s a cookbook and they forgot to fill in the recipe,” Guy said. “I would be much happier if they had just complied with state law.”

The petitions, which call for a directly elected mayor and election of council members by wards, contain only a title, “Mayor and Council Member Charter Amendment Summary,” and a description of the amendments.

Group spokesman Jim Lowman said the city should have overlooked the error and found that the petitions were in “substantial compliance” with the law. “I’m beginning to understand what people mean when they say you can’t fight City Hall,” he said.

Members of Lowman’s group, which consists of several citizen panels opposed to various actions of the City Council, said they probably will seek a court order forcing the city to accept the petitions.

They also said they would “take the matter directly to Mayor Dan Griset and all members of the City Council” Monday night.

Lowman group member George Hanna said Guy and Cooper were asked to check the petitions before they were circulated, but they refused. “It’s a shame when you go to the city and they won’t give you information,” he said.

Hiring of Lawyer Advised

Cooper, who couldn’t recall ever being asked to check the petitions, said he would not have provided assistance on “a private matter” anyway. “In fact, I told them that they ought to hire their own attorney,” he said.

Hanna admitted that the grass-roots group has made some errors, largely, he said, because of their lack of political experience. “We’re on their turf, they know the ropes and they’re teaching us a lesson,” he said.

Lowman said Anaheim attorney Milo F. DeArmey had looked over the documents and that the form had been patterned after petitions recently circulated in San Clemente on growth issues. San Clemente City Clerk Myrna Erway said the petitions used in that city’s election differ from Santa Ana’s because San Clemente is a general law city and subject to different election laws.

DeArmey, who represented the Lowman group in its earlier dispute over the missed deadline, said Wednesday that he is not working with it currently. “I have no idea what petitions he’s talking about,” he said.

After the petitions were rejected, Lowman said, he took them to the county registrar of voters for an opinion on their validity.

County Has No Jurisdiction

Rosalyn Lever, who works in the elections division of the county organization, said she has been helping Lowman and his group because they said they had been unable to get information from the city. “But I told him this morning,” she said, “that we don’t have any jurisdiction over this election.”

Lowman said he would ask the council at Monday’s meeting to put the proposition on the June ballot regardless of Wednesday’s rejection.

In response to the group’s demands for changes, the City Council has appointed a commission to examine the city’s charter and make recommendations for possible ballot propositions in November. Group members had wanted a vote in June so the changes could go into effect in November.

Vice Mayor P. Lee Johnson said that the changes are unnecessary but that he wants to “get on with the process. I’m sorry to see they made a mistake.”

The group’s proposition also calls for a new election within 90 days. Therefore, if it appeared on the November ballot, council members elected then would face another vote 90 days later. Reelection is being sought in November by Johnson, Dan Young and Robert W. Luxembourger.

Group members have also mulled over the possibility of a special election in July. A June election would cost the city about $15,000, Guy said, while a July vote would cost about $75,000.