Court Annuls Inglewood Election : Thomas May Face Hardeman in ’87 Council Race Replay

An appellate court’s ruling this week that upheld the annulment of a 1987 Inglewood City Council election could result in a new election as early as June, officials said Wednesday.

Or it could mean many more months of legal combat if the ruling is appealed by the city or by either of the candidates: Councilman Ervin (Tony) Thomas, who has held his seat for nearly two years, or Garland Hardeman, whose lawsuit resulted in the election annulment.

Election Violations

In a ruling issued Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the state Court of Appeal affirmed the decision by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Leon Savitch to annul the election. Savitch had ruled that Thomas’ supporters had committed Election Code violations, and he threw out 31 votes for Thomas.

That left Hardeman with more votes than Thomas. But instead of putting Hardeman on the council, Savitch said a new election should be held.

The appellate court rejected appeals by lawyers for the city and for Thomas, who argued that the election should be upheld, and an appeal by Hardeman, who said he should be declared the winner.

Hardeman, a Los Angeles police officer, said he would forgo further appeals so a new election could take place as soon as possible. He said he hoped the city and Thomas would do the same.

“I hope they don’t delay by pursuing it at a higher court,” he said. “I’m ready to get on with another campaign. Let the people decide.”

Lawyers for Thomas and the city have 15 days to ask the appellate court to reconsider its ruling. If they do appeal, the court would have until March 30 to decide.

After that date, the only recourse is to the state Supreme Court, which is unlikely to review the case, lawyers on all sides have acknowledged. But if it did accept the case, it could be months before a hearing is scheduled, the lawyers said.

If no appeals are filed, the appellate court ruling will take effect May 1. The seat would become vacant, and city law requires a special election to be held within 120 days from the date of a vacancy.

City Clerk Anita Harris said that if any of Inglewood’s six April 4 municipal races require runoffs, a new council election could be held with runoff elections in June.

Council Vote

Thomas’ attorney Robert Stroud said Wednesday that he and Thomas would make a decision on their next move within 10 days. Thomas called Hardeman’s case “frivolous,” but he reserved further comment until he could review the appellate ruling.

City Atty. Howard Rosten said further appeal by the city would require council approval. He said he would make a recommendation after reviewing the appellate court’s 36-page written opinion.

In 1987, Mayor Edward Vincent and three other council members voted--with Thomas abstaining--to appeal the Superior Court decision. Vincent, Thomas’ major supporter, and the other council members said an appeal was essential to protect the city’s right to conduct its elections.

The city has spent more than $40,000 in legal fees to take the case to the state Court of Appeal.

Three council members will vote on the appeal since Thomas is expected again to abstain from the vote, and a vacancy exists due to the death last year of Councilwoman Ann Wilk. (That seat will be filled in the April 4 election.)

Councilman Daniel Tabor said Wednesday he would oppose a new appeal because it is time “to get it over with.” He said voters would disapprove of further legal action because of the expense and the alleged illegal conduct during the 1987 election.

Councilman Anthony Scardenzan, who like Tabor is up for reelection April 4, said Tuesday that he is leaning toward voting for an appeal. Over the past months, Scardenzan’s political relationship with Vincent has improved and his one-time support for Hardeman has dissolved. But Scardenzan said the falling-out with Hardeman would not affect his vote.

Vincent’s longstanding support for Thomas and rivalry with Hardeman suggests he might favor an appeal, but the mayor said Tuesday he had not decided because he did not know “what the alternatives are.”

Vincent called Thomas “an outstanding councilman” who has worked well with the council.

“I guess the court has spoken,” Vincent said. “The will of the people will come out in the end.”

Other than the decision not to declare him the election winner, the appellate court decision was an overwhelming victory for Hardeman and a defeat for the city and for Thomas.

Stinging Language

The judges praised Savitch’s handling of the complex case, affirming his rulings on illegal votes and using occasionally stinging language in rejecting arguments by Thomas and the city.

For example, the written opinion by Judge Jack Goertzen chastised city lawyers for describing Hardeman’s attorneys as “limousine liberals” with a patronizing attitude toward the mostly black voters of Inglewood. He called those arguments “irrelevant and offensive.”

In addition, Goertzen wrote, “the city’s briefs are liberally strewn with philosophical asides, editorializing about the sanctity of the finality of the electoral process. . . . The record indicates that the trial court acted scrupulously to protect this most fundamental of our democratic rights.”

The appellate panel found that Savitch ruled on sufficient evidence when he eliminated votes because of Election Code violations, such as intimidation and invasions of ballot secrecy. The written opinion cited specific cases in which votes were thrown out because Vincent and other campaign workers punched voters’ absentee ballots for them, told them who to vote for and collected absentee ballots that had not been sealed.

“We are satisfied that evidence in the record amply supports the court’s finding that several of those voters were intimidated by the mayor and/or other Thomas campaign workers,” Goertzen wrote.

Goertzen also cited testimony about Vincent’s involvement in the campaign and trial to emphasize that the appellate court must defer to Savitch’s judgment. He referred to absentee ballots that Savitch ruled were illegally hand-delivered to the city clerk, despite the mayor’s testimony that he had mailed them, which is legal.

“The court must have disbelieved Mayor Vincent’s testimony,” Goertzen wrote. “The weight to be given to his testimony and the credibility of witnesses is up to the (judge).”

Vincent has denied any wrongdoing.

Impact on Elections

Hardeman’s attorney, Mark Borenstein, said the decision would have an impact on abuses of the absentee ballot process.

“It goes a long way to cleaning up elections,” he said. “It sends a strong message that absentee voters are to be accorded the same privileges as regular voters. Just because someone is voting in their home doesn’t mean that campaign workers or public officials can barge in and impose their will.”

Rosten and Stroud, on the other hand, said the appellate court should have made an effort to examine the evidence rather than deferring to Savitch.

“It was shaky evidence, and we objected to it,” Stroud said.

Rosten said the appellate court has merely followed Savitch’s lead in letting the voters resolve the dispute, rather than protecting the integrity of the initial election.

Rosten criticized “this idea that in a democratic society if something isn’t right, you just do it over again and make it right.”

The theme of respect for the trial court’s judgment reappeared in the appellate court’s rationale for calling a new election rather than declaring Hardeman the winner. The appellate court agreed with Savitch’s view that even though his ruling left Hardeman with more votes than Thomas, the judge did not have to declare Hardeman the winner.

It is an interpretation that attorneys on all sides question. The statute at issue says:

“If in any election (challenge) it appears that another person than the defendant has the higher number of legal votes, the court shall declare that person elected.”

The appellate court declined to second-guess Savitch. “While we are aware of the language . . . we cannot conclude that the trial court acted incorrectly,” the ruling states.

Citing the fact that several people whose votes were thrown out said they wanted to vote for Thomas, Goertzen wrote: “ . . . We conclude that the court’s Herculean efforts to assure fundamental fairness to the voters of the 4th District came to an appropriate fruition when the court ordered a new election.”

Although his attorneys took issue with that, Hardeman said he could live with a new election. He reserved his criticism for the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office and the state Fair Political Practices Commission. Both agencies have said they are investigating the election, but as the months pass, the likelihood of action, particularly by the district attorney, appears increasingly remote.

“All of the taxpayers should be upset,” Hardeman said. “Violations of the Election Code have been proven in two courts now. No one is pursuing it.”