Insults Fly as Inglewood Appeals Voiding of Election

Inglewood voters are not “uninformed” and do not need to be “protected from themselves,” lawyers for the city argue in court papers aimed at upholding a City Council election that a judge annulled last year.

The city’s lawyers, appealing a court ruling that overturned the election of Ervin (Tony) Thomas, accused attorneys for challenger Garland Hardeman of being “limousine liberals” with a patronizing attitude toward black voters.

Hardeman and his attorneys angrily rejected the criticism this week and demanded that it be stricken from the record.

The exchange is the latest crossfire stemming from the election of Thomas in June, 1987. Hardeman challenged the outcome, claiming widespread vote fraud involving absentee ballots. Last October, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Leon Savitch annulled the election and threw out 31 Thomas votes after voters implicated Thomas supporters in Election Code violations. Among other things, the witnesses said Thomas supporters punched their ballots or pressured them into voting for Thomas.

Remains on Council

Savitch declared a new election, but Thomas remains on the council pending appeals by his lawyer and lawyers for the city to the state Court of Appeal. Hardeman also has appealed, saying the judge should have named Hardeman the new councilman because the decision left him with the most votes. Attorneys for Hardeman this week filed written arguments with the appellate court responding to arguments filed by lawyers for the city and Thomas.

In stinging language, the city’s written argument--prepared by the firm of Lascher & Lascher with the help of City Atty. Howard Rosten--depicts Hardeman’s lawyers as “limousine liberals” who “subtly infused a background theme” into the trial: that minority voters are “naive” and “uninformed” and “must be protected from themselves.”

This idea is patronizing and “has no place in a California courtroom, even subliminally,” the argument states.

Both Hardeman and Thomas are black; the lawyers for Hardeman and the city are white.

Of the 58 votes thrown out by Judge Savitch, 10 were eliminated because the judge found that the voters’ right to ballot secrecy had been violated; 6 were thrown out after Savitch determined that voters had been intimidated. Four of those 16 involved Mayor Edward Vincent’s solicitation of absentee votes at people’s homes on Thomas’ behalf, according to trial testimony.

The mayor has angrily denied any wrongdoing.

‘Condescending Attitude’

Attorney Ed Lasher, an appellate specialist hired by the city, said the record in the intimidation cases and other instances showed that Hardeman’s lawyers had a “condescending attitude” toward the voters.

“Their basic orientation was, ‘These are people you need to protect,’ as opposed to voters on the Westside,” Lasher said. “They were saying that when the mayor comes around, these people were basically going to roll over.”

City Atty. Rosten also said Hardeman’s lawyers had an insulting attitude toward the city’s voters.

“I don’t think they sat down and designed the message,” he said in an interview. “But based on what they said and did, it seems that’s what they think intuitively.”

The city’s argument cites the relatively high income and educational levels of blacks in Inglewood and says “the position that these citizens need limousine-liberal help to exercise their franchise is not only insulting, but foolish.”

‘Personally Offended’

In an interview, Hardeman attorney Mark Borenstein responded: “I am personally offended by that. My view is that Inglewood voters showed they were extraordinarily bright and full of integrity. When they realized what had gone on during the election, they came forward. They wanted to clean up the mayor’s and Thomas’s act.”

In his written response, Borenstein also asks that the city’s “patently offensive” argument be stricken from the record.

Hardeman called the raising of a racial issue a political ploy.

“It’s not an accurate characterization of me or my attorneys,” he said in an interview. “You always see that done in politics. If there are no clear issues to deal with, people interject race.”

Borenstein works for the large corporate firm of Tuttle & Taylor, which handles a substantial amount of public-interest work. The firm continues to defend Hardeman free of charge, citing the case’s potentially wide-reaching impact on election law.

A three-judge appellate panel will confront a complicated set of issues in the case when all briefs have been filed next month. A hearing could be held as soon as January.

The issues involve the desire to increase voter participation by making absentee voting easier, the need to guard against fraud and the desire to maintain public confidence in the finality of election results.

The city warns that if the trial judge’s decision stands, elections could become little more than “preseason warm-ups” to extensive and expensive litigation.

“It’s certainly something that the city fears, and other governmental agencies around the state,” Lasher said. “If we start applying magnifying glasses to every election, it favors the guy with the biggest purse.”

Potential Abuse

On the other hand, Hardeman’s attorneys say the city wants to “sacrifice the integrity of the voting process on the altar of electoral finality.” They say that potential abuse in absentee voting has been recognized by the Legislature, and they cite a new law signed by Gov. George Deukmejian this year that makes it a crime for a campaign worker to solicit a vote in the presence of someone casting an absentee ballot.

In ordering a new election, Savitch said 31 votes for Thomas were illegal, wiping out Thomas’ 16-vote margin of victory. In throwing out a total of 58 votes, Savitch ruled that it could not be determined for whom the other 27 votes were cast.

Attorneys for the city concede that 6 Thomas votes were illegal but argue that the evidence against the other 25 did not meet the “clear and convincing” standard required for the “drastic” step of annulling an election.

Hardeman’s attorneys are attempting to expand his margin of victory by reasserting their contention, rejected by Savitch, that absentee ballots mailed by someone other than the voter also should have been ruled illegal. That decision would have given Hardeman a far greater vote margin.

The appellate panel will also have to decide whether Savitch allowed Thomas and the city due process to respond to Hardeman’s case in the hectic trial, where many many normal rules of civil procedure were suspended. Such shortcuts are permitted under the law to resolve election disputes quickly.

Although records are incomplete, the decision appears to be the first annulment of a city council election in Los Angeles County for at least 40 years. The district attorney’s office is still investigating potential criminal violations, a spokesman said this week.