Gann’s Name Will Remain on Ballot Argument

Anti-tax crusader Paul Gann Wednesday suffered a double-barreled setback in his effort to get his name stricken from rewritten ballot arguments in favor of his initiative to slash government salaries.

Secretary of State March Fong Eu sent the disputed pamphlet argument to the printer, even as Gann was rebuffed by Superior Court Judge John M. Sapunor, who ruled in Sacramento on Monday that Gann’s arguments were misleading and declared that the ballot summary should say that the Gann measure could cost taxpayers $7 billion.

Gann said he wants his name removed from the rewritten arguments, but Sapunor on Wednesday declined to act on the request.

Unless appeals courts rule to the contrary, it appears likely that about 9 million voter pamphlets will contain an argument signed by the veteran government gadfly even though he has renounced authorship.

“It has gone to the printer,” said Melissa Warren, spokeswoman for Secretary of State March Fong Eu. “We are going ahead with the ballot the way we were ordered to do by the Sacramento Superior Court.”

Gann is the chief sponsor of Proposition 61 on the Nov. 4 ballot. It would set the salary of the governor at $80,000 a year and limit the maximum salaries of other state and local officials and workers to 80% of that sum, or $64,000. Salaries of other statewide elected officers would be limited to $52,500 and government employees would be prohibited from rolling over unused vacation and sick leave from one year to the next.

Gann was particularly upset by Judge Sapunor’s ruling that the ballot summary of the measure contain a statement that its passage could cost taxpayers $7 billion.

The figure was based on an estimate by acting Legislative Counsel John Vickerman. He reasoned that because vacation and sick leave could not be rolled over, it would cost state and local governments $7 billion to buy out the unused time of employees. Gann vigorously denied that.

On Tuesday, he sent Sapunor a letter containing his request that his name be struck from the ballot argument and a rebuttal to an opposition argument. Gann said that as it has been changed, it no longer reflects his views. Sapunor refused to consider the letter.

Meantime, a wrangle raged over whether Eu acted legally when she sent the disputed election materials to the printer. Gann’s attorney, David Shell, filed a notice of appeal of Sapunor’s rulings with the 3rd District Court of Appeal, an action that he maintained automatically stayed the Superior Court orders.

Eu’s legal advisers disagreed. Shell said he intends to file another document with the appeal court on Friday to get the issue resolved.

Shell charged that Sapunor “carved up the arguments of Paul Gann and left Paul Gann’s name on it. Paul did not write it, yet his name is on it. That needs to be expunged. We find in this case that due process has no meaning.”