Vote on Bernhardt Recall Qualifies for S.D. Ballot : Politics: Only 49 signatures made the difference. A call for a recount and legal challenges are expected.

Drawing the battle lines for San Diego’s first recall campaign, city election officials announced Thursday that a group seeking to oust Councilwoman Linda Bernhardt has narrowly qualified the issue for the ballot early next year.

By an unexpectedly slim margin of 49 signatures, the Recall Bernhardt Committee surpassed the 11,240 valid names of registered voters needed to force a recall election. Bernhardt will battle to retain her 5th District seat while would-be successors compete in a tandem race to possibly replace her.

A possible recount and likely legal challenge from Bernhardt, however, loom as potential hurdles to what would be the first recall campaign since the City Charter was approved early this century. If the recall attempt survives those obstacles, the election probably would be held in March or April.

“Whether it’s 49 names or 4,900--who cares?” said an exuberant Bob Trettin, one of the recall committee’s consultants. “All that matters is that we made it. To paraphrase Joe Kennedy, we certainly didn’t pay for a landslide. Let her go to court. This election’s going to happen.”

A visibly discouraged Bernhardt, who was at a late-afternoon council committee meeting when City Clerk Charles Abdelnour revealed that the recall committee had succeeded, described herself as “saddened, frustrated but determined to survive” the challenge to hold on to the seat to which she was elected only 13 months ago.

“For the people who opposed me in the first place to use the recall procedure to attempt to oust me is politics at its worst,” Bernhardt said. “It’s going to be very expensive for the taxpayers and disruptive for the city. I’m a little disappointed, but still confident.”

Verification of the 18,097 signatures on the recall petitions showed that 11,289 names were valid, barely exceeding the 11,240-signature requirement, which represents 15% of the registered voters in Bernhardt’s district.

Those signatures were gathered by the anti-Bernhardt group in a two-part process that began last summer and ended in late November. In October, 8,265 of the 11,240 names that the group solicited over a 39-day period were found to be valid by the county registrar of voters’ office. An additional 6,274 names were collected on so-called “supplemental petitions” after the first batch proved insufficient. On Thursday, 3,024 of those were certified.

“It was much closer than we anticipated, but I guess that just meant we should have worked a little harder,” said Kathy Gaustad, the recall committee’s chairwoman. “But we knew it was going to be tough when we started. Maybe we got a little cocky and slacked off at the end. That’s not going to happen in the election.”

The quirk in local law that gave the recall group more than six additional weeks to circulate its supplemental petitions could figure prominently in Bernhardt’s likely legal attempt to block the City Council from scheduling a recall election, as it is legally bound to do when the issue comes before it next month.

“I’d say there’s enormous potential for a lawsuit and many legal questions,” Bernhardt said, adding that she expects a citizens’ group supporting her to mount the challenge. “It’s also close enough that we might go for a recount first.”

The question of whether the recall election would be held in Bernhardt’s former district or the new one created under a redistricting plan approved by a federal judge last month also could face a legal challenge.

Earlier, City Atty. John Witt ruled that the recall petitions should be circulated in Bernhardt’s now-former district, prompting principals on both sides of the issue to speculate that the election itself also will be confined to the old 5th District boundaries.

That upcoming legal decision is a crucial one, because it not only will determine which voters will cast ballots, but also will establish residency requirements for possible successors.

Recall leaders, however, dismissed Bernhardt’s talk of a possible recount or lawsuit as, in Trettin’s words, “the last straws blowing in the wind that she can grasp for.”

“All she’s doing is trying to delay the inevitable,” Gaustad added. “I find it ironic that she complains about the cost of a special election at the same time that she’s talking about running to court, which would cost the city even more. What it comes down to is, this woman will do anything, at any cost, to hold onto her office.”

Under procedures governing recall campaigns, once a qualified recall petition is presented to the City Council, the council must schedule an election within 60 to 90 days. According to Abdelnour, Jan. 7 is the next available regular council docket on which the item could appear, a timetable that would produce an election in either March or April, assuming that legal challenges or other events do not delay the schedule.

When the recall issue comes before it, the council’s only discretion would be over the timing of the election, not whether there should be one, according to City Election Officer Mike Haas.

The council “doesn’t appear to have the discretion not to call a recall” in cases where sufficient signatures are collected, Haas said. At the same time, the council also must schedule a tandem race to determine Bernhardt’s possible successor, which would appear on the same ballot as the recall.

Some recall leaders, however, have expressed concern that the council’s so-called “Gang of Five”--the majority, which includes Bernhardt, that dominates the body on most major policy issues--might seek to delay action or otherwise resist scheduling the election. But city lawyers and election officials view the potential for any such council recalcitrance to be, at best, an exceedingly remote possibility.

A simple majority vote would determine Bernhardt’s political fate. If she received more than 50% of the vote, Bernhardt would retain her post, rendering the outcome of the companion election on possible successors moot.

However, if Bernhardt were ousted, the candidate drawing the most votes in the other race--in which Bernhardt cannot compete--would serve the rest of her four-year term that expires in December, 1993.

The potential candidates mentioned include two former councilmen: Ed Struiksma, the two-term incumbent whom Bernhardt upset in November, 1989, and lawyer Floyd Morrow, who previously held the same seat. Other possible contenders include lawyer Mike Eckmann, who lost in last year’s 5th District primary; lawyer Tom Behr; Mira Mesa activist Lucy Gonzalez and employment agency owner Mel Katz.

Recall leaders have cited a number of factors as the impetus behind their effort. Prominent among the reasons is their dissatisfaction with Bernhardt’s approval of a controversial redistricting plan that would shift several high-growth neighborhoods from her district into another council district, and that would divide Pacific Beach among four districts.

Her opponents also have complained that, since her election,

Bernhardt has accepted campaign contributions from developers after pledging not to do so in last year’s campaign, and they fault her for hiring her roommate as her City Hall chief of staff.

Calling the recall effort “a second swing at me after they missed the first time,” Bernhardt argues that the campaign is being largely orchestrated by individuals who opposed her during last year’s election.

“They didn’t want me last November (1989) so it’s no surprise they don’t want me now,” Bernhardt said. “My key message to voters is going to be that I am what I said I was. I’m probably the staunchest advocate for environmental protection on the council, a strong supporter of neighborhood empowerment, and someone who’s pushed for strong growth-management policies. When I get a chance to give my side, voters will be fair.”

Pro-recall consultant Trettin, however, contends that Bernhardt will confront daunting financial and strategic obstacles in the recall election. Still facing a $100,000 debt from her last campaign, Bernhardt probably would see that deficit--which includes a $50,000 personal loan--grow in any recall campaign.

Moreover, by law, Bernhardt cannot gain access to the names on the recall petitions--a provision designed to prevent elected officials from trying to intimidate or punish those who sign. That information, however, is in the hands of the recall committee--an asset of inestimable value in a low-turnout election, as the recall most likely would be, given that it would be the only issue on the ballot.

“We’re starting out with the names and addresses of more than 11,000 people who say they want Linda Bernhardt out of office,” Trettin said, noting that she received only about 14,000 votes when she was elected in November, 1989. “Linda doesn’t know who those people are, so it’s going to be a lot more expensive for her to reach them. Anything can happen in a campaign, but I’d rather be starting where we are than where Linda’s at.”

REPLY TO PROBE: Bernhardt offers to open files to district attorney. B1