Thorny Legal Problem Puts Brakes on Ballot Suit

A Superior Court judge postponed action Monday on San Diego City Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer’s lawsuit against her council colleagues over how their endorsements of ballot propositions should be signed. The delay is designed to give the city attorney’s office more time to ponder this thorny legal dilemma:

When one of the city attorney’s clients (Wolfsheimer) sues another group of his clients (the mayor and the rest of the council), which side does he represent? Both? Neither?

“It’s a very sensitive situation,” said Chief Deputy City Atty. Ted Bromfield. “I wouldn’t speculate what’s going to happen.”

After a brief hearing in his chambers, Judge Jack Levitt agreed with Bromfield that the issue was sufficiently murky to justify a one-week postponement pending City Atty. John Witt’s return from a vacation to confer with his staff over how to handle the ticklish legal situation.

Legal Quandary

Wolfsheimer precipitated the legal “Who’s-on-first?” quandary by filing a lawsuit last Friday against Mayor Maureen O’Connor and her council colleagues over how the council’s position on five propositions appearing on the November ballot should be listed in sample ballots to be mailed to about 525,000 registered voters before Election Day.

The sample ballots will include pro and con arguments on each of the five propositions: a choice between a $73-million bond issue or a $93-million bond issue to renovate Balboa and Mission Bay parks; a measure to limit development at Mission Bay Park; whether to allow development of the 5,100-acre La Jolla Valley project, and the emotional question of whether to repeal the council’s decision to rename Market Street as Martin Luther King Way.

Following a traditional practice, the council voted to sign its endorsement under the appropriate arguments as simply “The Mayor and City Council.”

But Wolfsheimer, an outspoken critic of many of the council’s actions, argues that the phrase could mislead voters into believing that the council acted unanimously--which it did not on two of the propositions.

Specify Vote?

In the lawsuit, Wolfsheimer asks that City Clerk Charles Abdelnour be directed to specify in the sample ballots how many council members supported or opposed each proposition.

Wolfsheimer was among the three dissenting votes when the council voted 5-3 to oppose the ballot measure aimed at repealing the renaming of Market Street to honor slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. When the council refused earlier this month to alter the ballot signatures to reflect her position, Wolfsheimer hired a private attorney, Lewis Silverberg, and filed the suit that led to Monday’s hearing.

Among the other ballot issues, the council voted 7-1, with Councilman Bill Cleator dissenting, to urge voters to deny approval of the La Jolla Valley project, and unanimously endorsed, with one member absent, the three other measures--the Balboa Park and Mission Bay bond issues, and the proposal to limit development of Mission Bay.

Improper Request Alleged

A ruling in Wolfsheimer’s favor, Silverberg told Levitt during Monday’s hearing, will “compel the city to publish the truth about what happened” on each of the propositions.

In response, Bromfield argued that Wolfsheimer request is improperly “asking a clerk to go against the very legislative direction” that he received from the council.

But Bromfield noted that the city attorney’s position is complicated by the fact that Wolfsheimer “is both a council member and the petitioner” in the case.