U.S. Judges Restore Suit Accusing State GOP of Poll Guard Conspiracy : Appeal: Ruling revives charge that Republican Party tried to intimidate Latinos by posting uniformed monitors in Santa Ana in 1988.

A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit accusing the California Republican Party of conspiring to intimidate Latino voters by posting uniformed security guards at Santa Ana polling places in 1988.

In a unanimous decision released Thursday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that a trial must be held to determine whether the state GOP conspired with Orange County Republican officials to scare minority voters away from the polls.

The ruling revives a long-simmering feud between local Democrats and Republicans about the outcome of the November, 1988, race that led to Republican Curt Pringle’s narrow victory over Democrat Christian (Rick) Thierbach in the 72nd Assembly District, which has a slight Democratic edge in registration.

County GOP officials later said they were worried that Democrats might tip the election by busing in illegal voters, so the Republicans hired uniformed guards to pace outside 20 polling places carrying signs in Spanish and English that read, “Non-citizens can’t vote.”

The incident sparked a barrage of criticism, and a group of Latino voters filed suit, contending that the county and state Republican parties, Pringle and others had conspired to deprive them of their voting rights.

County and federal prosecutors investigated the case for two years but declined to file criminal charges.

Pringle was unseated in 1990 by Democrat Tom Umberg, who used the guards dispute as an issue.

The appellate ruling applies only to the state GOP, the only defendant that had been held blameless and dismissed from the lawsuit by a lower-court judge.

Without admitting any wrongdoing, all of the other defendants agreed to pay a total of about $480,000 to settle their parts of the lawsuit.

In dropping the state Republican Party from the lawsuit in December, 1989, U.S. District Judge J. Spencer Letts ruled that it would require “piling inference upon inference” to conclude that the party participated in a conspiracy to intimidate minority voters.

The appellate court decided, however, that Letts acted improperly in deciding that matter.

There is sufficient dispute on the question of a conspiracy to warrant a trial, the judges said.

Lowell Finley, attorney for the voters, said he is “quite pleased” with the ruling and will now “get the case back on track” so a jury can decide whether the state GOP did anything wrong.

Robert C. Carlson Jr., attorney for the state Republican Party, predicted that a trial will produce the same vindicating outcome as Letts’ 1989 decision.

And Jim Dignan, chairman of the Republican Party of California, said state party officials had nothing to do with the decision to use guards.

“We weren’t involved at all,” he said. “We had no knowledge of what was going on. We heard about it when everyone else did.”

In reinstating the lawsuit, the judges focused on the actions of William Godfrey, an attorney who had volunteered to help the state GOP by giving advice, if needed, on Election Day.

The panel said there is evidence that Godfrey spoke with other defendants about “ballot security” measures to be used and was present at a meeting when such measures were discussed.

The court also said that on Election Day, the Orange County registrar of voters and other members of the state GOP called Godfrey to request that the poll guards be removed, and that Godfrey then allegedly instructed the guards to doff their uniforms, change into street clothes and return to the polls.