Judge Rejects Protest of Language on Police Board in Sample Ballot

Ruling that the filing was made too late, a Superior Court judge Monday rejected a lawsuit aimed at deleting allegedly misleading language from the sample ballot arguments for Proposition F, which would establish a new civilian review board to investigate claims of police misconduct.

The suit, filed Thursday by former San Diego Police Chief Ray Hoobler, requested the removal of five paragraphs from the pro-Proposition F argument in the sample ballot that will be sent to city voters’ homes, and also sought a change in the ballot argument against Proposition G, a competing measure that would give less authority to the new board. Hoobler heads the campaign committee that is seeking passage of Proposition G and the defeat of Proposition F.

Judge Robert May, however, ruled that the lawsuit was filed two days after the expiration of the 10-day period during which the proponents and opponents of a proposition may challenge each other’s ballot arguments.

Couldn’t Beat Deadline

With the sample ballots scheduled to be sent to the printer today, Hoobler’s attorney, Robert Rice, opted not to appeal May’s decision.

“Basically, we decided we couldn’t beat the deadline,” Rice said.

At Monday’s hearing, Rice told the judge that an official at the county registrar of voters office had stated that the 10-day review period began Sept. 1 and would end Sept. 10, two days after the suit was filed.

But attorney John Wertz, who represented Mayor Maureen O’Connor and Charter Review Commission Chairman Edward Butler, two of the five defendants in the suit, pointed out that the review period actually began Aug. 26 and expired Sept. 6. (The Labor Day holiday extended the period beyond 10 days.) Moreover, Wertz emphasized that the city clerk’s office, not the registrar, has responsibility for monitoring the 10-day period, adding that the clerk had posted a public notice at City Hall on Aug. 26 stating that the ballot review period was under way.

The 10-day period, established by state law, is designed to prevent “people opposing ballot arguments (from taking) unfair advantage of supporters” by seeking 11th-hour ballot word changes, Wertz argued.

“The reason is clear: to prevent situations like we have today,” Wertz said.

In response, Rice contended that the major purpose behind the timing of the 10-day period is to ensure that it does not jeopardize the printing of ballots. And, although Monday afternoon’s hearing occurred only several hours before the registrar’s 5 p.m. deadline for ballot wording changes, Rice argued that there still was time for the requested changes to be made without delaying the sample ballots’ printing.

May, however, ruled that, because the suit had not been filed by Sept. 6, the merits of Hoobler’s case could not be considered.

“I’m glad we won but sorry it got knocked out on a technicality,” said political consultant Jim Johnston, who, in his capacity as a member of the Charter Review Commission, wrote the text of the ballot arguments at dispute in the lawsuit. “We felt their arguments were the real misleading ones.”

Proposition F would establish a police oversight panel empowered to subpoena witnesses and conduct hearings at which the witnesses would testify under the threat of perjury. The panel’s members would be appointed by the mayor and the council and would have their own staff.

In contrast, under Proposition G, the review board would not have subpoena powers and its members would be appointed by the city manager, who oversees the Police Department.

Struiksma Claim Ridiculed

Last week, City Councilman Ed Struiksma, who wrote Proposition G, contended that some points in the pro-Proposition F argument are misleading or inaccurate. Specifically, Struiksma objected to a passage in the ballot argument claiming that “the police union doesn’t want anyone except police to review cops, so they put an alternative measure on the ballot,” and a second passage calling Proposition G “the (police) union measure.”

Struiksma has claimed that he was the sole author of Proposition G and that the local Police Officers Assn. did not influence the drafting of the measure, which was placed on the ballot by the City Council. Other council members, however, have ridiculed Struiksma’s claim, noting that the head of the police union lobbied them to place Proposition G on the ballot.

Hoobler’s lawsuit also sought deletion of language stating that almost every other U. S. city has a “serious” police review board, a claim Rice said is untrue.

Monday’s action, however, means the dispute over those arguments will be settled at the polls, not in court.