Election Fight Retains Its Heat : Tempers are still flaring as the dispute over a 1987 Inglewood contest marked by charges of voting intimidation reaches the Court of Appeal

During an hourlong hearing before a state appellate panel this week, opposing lawyers painted vastly different pictures of the 1987 election of Inglewood Councilman Ervin (Tony) Thomas and its subsequent annulment by a Superior Court judge.

Attorneys for Thomas and the city depicted Judge Leon Savitch’s decision to throw out 31 votes for Thomas and hold a new election as a travesty that denied the city due process and will lead to a wave of frivolous, expensive election lawsuits.

“We don’t care who is the councilman,” said Edward Lascher, an appellate specialist representing the city. “We do care, to the ultimate extent possible, that the electing goes on in the ballot box, including the absentee ballot box, and not the courtroom. The voters of Inglewood are being punished for irregularities, blunders and human shortcomings in some of their voting.”

Mark Borenstein, who is representing Thomas’ opponent Garland Hardeman, tore into the notion that Judge Savitch’s decision in October, 1987, was based on technicalities.

‘Essence of the Process’

He said: “Is it a mere technicality when the court believes that five people did not live in the district? Is it a mere technicality when the court finds that numerous voters did not cast their own votes or sign their own absentee ballot applications? These cases go to the essence of the electoral process.”

The hearing had more heat than substance, since the three-judge panel of the state Court of Appeal will decide largely on the basis of filed written arguments. And the justices asked only two questions, making it hard to gauge their reaction to the complex case that has left a cloud over the Inglewood City Council for 20 months.

But the questions that the panel did ask addressed one of the most explosive issues of the case: Savitch’s ruling that Inglewood Mayor Edward Vincent was involved in intimidation of voters and other Election Code violations during an aggressive absentee ballot drive by the Thomas campaign.

Vincent energetically backed Thomas, a merchandising analyst for 7-Up, against Hardeman, a Los Angeles police officer.

Judge Savitch threw out a total of 58 votes, most of them absentee ballots, because of testimony that relatives or campaign workers punched ballots for voters, some of whom were not present; that voters--including Thomas’ three adult stepchildren and two voters who gave their address as Thomas campaign headquarters--did not live in the district, and that some absentee ballots were not delivered by the voter.

Savitch found that 31 of the votes had been for Thomas, and that the beneficiary of other 27 invalid ballots was inconclusive.

Thomas remains on the council pending appeal. Hardeman also appealed the decision, saying that instead of holding a new election, he should be declared the winner because the ruling left him with 16 more votes than Thomas.

Some of the most dramatic testimony during the trial concerned four votes that Savitch declared illegal on the grounds of intimidation and invasion of voter’s ballot secrecy. Witnesses testified that Mayor Vincent solicited those votes at voters’ homes. He has denied any wrongdoing.

That testimony came to the forefront at Tuesday’s appellate hearing when Justice Ronald George interrupted Lascher to question his description of various irregularities as essentially “harmless.” George cited witnesses who said they had been rushed or pressured into voting by campaign workers, including the case of Nancy Armstrong, whose vote was thrown out along with the vote of her daughter Pamela.

The Armstrongs testified that Mayor Vincent came to their home and punched their absentee ballots. Savitch later threw out those votes on the grounds that the voters were intimidated and their ballot secrecy violated.

“There are a number of things that are somewhat bothersome,” Justice George said. “(Nancy Armstrong) said he abridged her rights because she didn’t have time to study the literature. Doesn’t that go beyond hurrying the voter?”

Evidence Disputed

Lascher responded that evidence in this and other cases was not conclusive and that Savitch based his ruling on “assumption after assumption” by Hardeman’s lawyers.

In an interview afterward, Lascher said of the Armstrong case: “That wasn’t a great vote. But are we after perfection?”

Lascher also told the court that evidence did not show voters would have voted differently if their absentee ballots had not been solicited by the Thomas campaign.

In his response, Borenstein argued that the voter’s intent is irrelevant if the vote is cast illegally. He cited cases in which relatives cast ballots for absent voters.

“You can’t walk into a polling place and say, ‘Hey, I want to vote for my wife, she said it was OK,’ ” Borenstein said.

The lawyers also clashed over whether Savitch allowed the city enough time and information to prepare its case during the hectic trial. In such proceedings many normal rules governing the hearing of civil lawsuits are suspended because of the need to resolve the case quickly.

Thomas’ attorney Robert Stroud alleged that Hardeman’s attorneys, with Savitch’s approval, did not specify which votes they were challenging until the trial.

Borenstein said the other side received the information required by law.

Borenstein and Lascher also differ on the 27 ballots that Savitch said were illegal but could not be subtracted from either candidate’s total because it was unclear who they were for.

Borenstein said precedents indicate the court should subtract those illegal ballots in proportion to the number of absentee ballots received by each candidate. That method would give Hardeman the victory, since he received only 65 absentee votes to Thomas 395.

Lascher disputes the existence of such precedents.

New Election at Issue

Another issue the justices will consider is Savitch’s decision to order an election rather than declare Hardeman the winner.

Hardeman’s attorneys cite Election Code Section 20087, which states: “If in any election contest it appears that another person than the defendant has the higher number of legal votes, the court shall declare that person elected.” They say that language does not allow the discretion that Savitch claimed when he ordered a new election.

Lascher dismissed that argument, saying that Hardeman’s attorneys recognized in their written arguments that Savitch had that option. “The very least that should be done is that the judgment (calling for a new election) should be affirmed in its entirety,” Lascher told the court. “But I hope we don’t even get to that point.”

But Borenstein said his arguments specifically requested that Savitch declare Hardeman the winner, and only presented a new election as an option if the ruling did not leave Hardeman with more votes.

The three-judge panel has 90 days to issue a written ruling, but lawyers and court personnel say they expect a ruling sooner because an election is involved.

“I’m confident about the outcome,” Hardeman said after the hearing.

Thomas said he hopes the court will rule in his favor.

‘Frivolous Things’

Of Hardeman’s case, he said: “A lot of frivolous things were brought into court. This has cost me a lot of money. It has put me and my family to a disadvantage. Mr. Hardeman hasn’t paid a dime.”

The law firm of Tuttle & Taylor is representing Hardeman at no charge because of the public interest questions involved.

Tension was evident between lawyers at the hearing.

During the appellate process, Borenstein has complained about Lascher’s characterization of Hardeman’s attorneys as “limousine liberals” with a patronizing attitude toward Inglewood’s predominantly black voters. Recently, there have been angry words over Lascher’s request to delay Tuesday’s oral arguments until April because Lascher had surgery for stomach cancer in early January. That request was opposed by Borenstein and denied by the appellate court.

On Wednesday, City Atty. Howard Rosten criticized Borenstein’s opposition to a delay. “That lawyers would treat anybody like that, much less another lawyer, is incredible,” he said. “It reaches new lows in the legal profession.”

Borenstein repeated his contention that someone other than Lascher could have presented the oral arguments if necessary since written arguments, the primary basis for the court’s decision, were already on file.

“I’m very sorry he’s ill,” Borenstein said. “I wish it weren’t so, but it shouldn’t interfere. The fact is there is a person sitting in a seat where an election was annulled. This must be resolved.”

The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office and the state Fair Political Practices Commission opened investigations into the election in 1987. Both agencies say they are still investigating.