Inglewood Election Case to Be Taken to Supreme Court

Attorneys for Garland Hardeman plan to take their quest to have Hardeman declared councilman of Inglewood’s 4th District to the state Supreme Court.

That decision was made after a four-judge panel of the state Court of Appeal on Tuesday denied Hardeman’s petition for an emergency ruling that would have placed him in the seat now occupied by Councilman Ervin (Tony) Thomas.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Leon Savitch in October annulled Thomas’ election and ruled that 31 votes for Thomas were illegal, wiping out his 16-point margin over Hardeman.

Witnesses testifying during the five-day trial implicated Mayor Edward Vincent and other Thomas supporters in various Election Code violations including: intimidating voters, invading the secrecy of the ballot and illegal delivery of absentee ballots by a person other than the voter. The district attorney’s office is conducting a criminal investigation into the matter. No charges have been filed.

But Savitch refused to declare Hardeman the winner, calling for a new election instead. Lawyers for Thomas and the city have appealed the ruling, allowing Thomas to remain in the seat during an appellate process that could postpone an election or final verdict for more than a year. Thomas and Hardeman were competing in a June runoff election for the seat of retiring Councilman Virgle Benson.

Hardeman’s attorneys argued in a petition for a writ of mandate this week that the appellate court should place Hardeman in office immediately because Savitch’s ruling left him with more votes.

Inglewood attorneys argued that Savitch had the discretion not to declare Hardeman the winner and that an immediate emergency ruling was unnecessary.

The court denied Hardeman’s request for a writ, saying that the election law providing an “expedited” appeal process for cases involving challenged elections is adequate.

However, even if the Inglewood case gets priority, attorneys for Hardeman, the city and Thomas said it is unlikely that oral arguments will take place before the middle of the year, about a year into the four-year council term.

The Superior Court is still preparing transcripts of the trial, which court personnel said may not be ready for several months, Hardeman’s attorneys said. Both sides then get a month to present briefs, and a delay of several more months is probable before oral arguments can be scheduled, attorneys said. And if Thomas’ seat is finally vacated, an election would be scheduled within 120 days, unless it can be consolidated with a state election 60 days later, Assistant City Atty. Jack Ballas said.

Intensify Presence

“Why should an individual who obtained that seat illegally be allowed to sit there and make votes for the constituents of the 4th District?” said Hardeman, a Los Angeles police officer, who added that he plans to intensify his presence at council meeting as “de facto” councilman in coming weeks. “The judge ruled that his (Thomas’) election certificate was worthless,” Hardeman said. “Mayor Vincent and Thomas are hoping the public will forget that.”

Hardeman has spoken at many council meetings since the June election, giving updates on the trial and making other statements that have sparked angry retorts from Vincent and other Thomas allies. On Wednesday, Hardeman said he will be speaking at each meeting, giving his opinion on issues, and announcing his vote as if he were councilman.

“If Thomas can act as councilman, I can act as councilman,” Hardeman said. “I’m more than equally entitled to that seat. Why should I sit idly by just because he’s using the delaying tactic of an appeal? I’m not trying to poke fun at anyone. I just want to play a more significant role until I’m seated.”

“The people of Inglewood are being deprived of their rightful representative,” said Mark Borenstein, one of Hardeman’s attorneys. “Even if Garland were declared the winner tomorrow, you can’t ever compensate for that.”

Though election cases are supposed to get priority in the courts, Borenstein and Hardeman attorney Fred Woocher said they often drag on. Woocher cited a case involving a contested Hermosa Beach election in June, 1985, on which the state Court of Appeal ruled last month. An appeal is pending before the state Supreme Court.

Borenstein said the appeal for an immediate ruling, which will be filed before the state Supreme Court next week, will focus on the inadequacy of the normal appeals process that allows Thomas to remain in office. He will also argue that Savitch should have declared Hardeman the winner under Election Code Section 20087, which reads: “If in any election contest it appears that another person than the defendant has the highest number of legal votes, the court shall declare that person elected.”

In his written decision, Savitch said election law also gave him the option to set a new election, which he chose to do because of the ambiguity of some absentee voter laws under which he threw out a number of ballots.

City officials have argued that by throwing out some ballots, Savitch did not make Hardeman the winner. Ballas said last week that Savitch “never said Hardeman got more votes,” but called for “a new election without problems caused by the ambiguity of the absentee voting laws.”

Hardeman’s attorneys have said there was nothing ambiguous about the violations involving the absentee ballots, which included: votes cast by Thomas’ adult stepchildren despite their not being Inglewood residents, votes cast using the addresses of Thomas’ campaign headquarters and a boarded-up house, and ballots that were not signed by the actual voters.

Acknowledging that the chance of being granted a writ of mandate by the Supreme Court is remote, Borenstein said the high court should hear the case to settle the “policy issue” of whether someone who wins an election challenge in court can be kept out of office by lengthy appeals.