O.C. Wants a Judge to Snuff Out Measure H

Orange County has filed suit to block a November ballot initiative that would require the county to spend 80% of its $30-million-a-year share of a national tobacco settlement on health care and anti-smoking programs.

It’s the same initiative the Orange County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved last week for the November ballot. But that vote was a formality required by law after proponents filed enough valid signatures on petitions to bring the issue before voters.

The suit, which will be heard Aug. 30 in Orange County Superior Court, was authorized on a 3-2 vote of supervisors in closed session June 20. The suit, filed Friday, contends Measure H violates both state law and the state constitution by limiting how the board, the county’s elected body, spends county funds.

The county expects to receive about $30 million annually for 25 years under the national tobacco litigation settlement, with annual allotments after 2025 to be determined later. A majority of board members had indicated they wanted to use the money to build jails and reduce the county’s debt.

Measure H is backed by a coalition of doctor, hospital and community groups, community clinics, and a majority of the county’s elected representatives in Sacramento and Washington.

Supervisor Todd Spitzer on Tuesday criticized his colleagues for trying to abort the initiative process, charging they were doing so because they know the measure will pass.

“It is a last-ditch, 11th-hour attempt to thwart the will of the people,” Spitzer said. “From Day One, the majority has spent more time on how to thwart the health care community than in good-faith attempts to solve the health care crisis.”

Spitzer and Supervisor Tom Wilson have endorsed Measure H. Chairman Chuck Smith and Supervisors Cynthia P. Coad and Jim Silva have criticized the measure.

None of the opponents could be reached for comment, but board members have long said the measure should not go before the county’s voters because it violates the state constitution by limiting the board’s authority.

Assistant County Counsel Tom Agin said the measure cannot be compared to similar statewide initiatives such as Proposition 13, which changed the state constitution, or other measures that alter state law, because those were approved by all California voters.

“You might be able to do this on a statewide” level, Agin said. “But what you have here is an attempt at the county level to adopt measures that are contrary to the state constitution and state law.”

The suit contends that the measure would violate state laws and provisions of the state constitution that give the Board of Supervisors in each county the sole authority to decide how funds are spent and exercise administrative control over county affairs.

Tom Hiltachk, attorney for the health care coalition, said Tuesday that the state gives voters the right to direct county supervisors to spend funds.

“In this initiative, we haven’t eliminated the county from the process,” he said. “We have simply set forth a road map for expenditure of a limited amount of funds derived from the national tobacco litigation. They would be in charge of spending it. It would be up to the county Board of Supervisors to determine which programs within the [designated] categories from year to year are funded.”

If approved, the initiative would require the county to spend the bulk of its settlement funds using this formula:

* 19% for services for seniors and the disabled, including transportation, long-term care and in-home support;

* 23% for indigent care by emergency and on-call physicians;

* 12% for tobacco prevention, anti-addiction and mental health programs;

* 20% for community, mobile and hospital clinics;

* 6% for hospitals to fund uncompensated emergency and trauma care;

* 20% for law enforcement.

The Aug. 30 hearing is a day before the deadline for the county to submit the final copy of the November ballot for printing.

“We intend to adhere to that deadline,” Agin said. “We will inform the court we need a decision on the 30th.”

Dr. Brennan Cassidy, president of the Orange County Medical Assn., which is backing the measure, said the group last week selected two political consulting firms to work on the campaign. They are Waters & Faubel of Newport Beach and Ross Communications, based in Sacramento.

Former Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle, who has a government affairs firm in Irvine, has discussed organizing opposition with several supervisors as well as the Assn. of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs.