Secessionists Decide Not to Sue Over Vote

Secession leaders said Wednesday that they have decided against filing a lawsuit to challenge the Nov. 5 election in which San Fernando Valley cityhood was supported by a majority of Valley voters but was overwhelmingly defeated citywide.

The secession group Valley VOTE had considered challenging the state law that required approval both by a majority of San Fernando Valley voters and a majority of the total city electorate. But Valley VOTE President Jeff Brain and Chairman Richard Close said that after consulting with a number of attorneys, they decided that the chances of winning in court would not outweigh the “disruption and uncertainty that would exist within the city for a considerable period of time.”

Instead, the secession leaders said they plan to seek state legislation or an initiative to change the law to allow Valley cityhood to be approved with a vote of just Valley residents.

“We intend to work with the state Legislature to change this unfair law,” said Close. “We will also consider an initiative for that purpose.”

Close said it appeared that the chances of success if his group challenged the election were less than 50-50 and that it could have dragged through the courts for one to three years, potentially affecting the city’s ability to issue bonds. The decision not to file a lawsuit was made by Valley VOTE’s five-member legal committee, which agreed unanimously not to pursue a legal challenge.

Attorney John Isen, chairman of the legal committee, explained that although there is legal precedent to challenge the existing law, “the courts give a high degree of deference to the California state Legislature in matters of this nature.”

Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at USC, said he saw no viable grounds for challenging the citywide vote requirement.

“I don’t think they would have had any likelihood of prevailing,” Chemerinsky said. “The reality is that state law is clear about the procedures to be used in these kinds of elections.”

Added Valley political consultant Arnold Steinberg: “Courts almost never set aside elections.”

The decision by secessionists not to go to court was welcomed by Mayor James K. Hahn, who led the fight against secession. Still, Hahn said he would work hard to defeat any attempt in Sacramento to change state law in a way that would “take away the right of citizens to vote on an important issue such as secession.” Hahn has argued that secession would affect all Los Angeles residents, so all should have a vote.

In order to change the law, secession advocates either would need the support of the Legislature or would have to circumvent it by taking an initiative directly to voters.

Even though it might save time and money to get legislative approval of a law change, Brain said it does not look as if the current Legislature would be supportive of such a change.

He noted that former Assemblyman Robert Hertzberg, who was helpful in getting the secession vote on the ballot, has been replaced by Lloyd Levine, the son of anti-secession leader Larry Levine.

Brain also noted that current Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson campaigned against secession.

“We have to realistically recognize that the current makeup of the Legislature is not conducive to that,” Brain said of a law change.

The alternative is to collect 380,000 signatures of registered voters in California to qualify a statewide initiative to change the law, Brain said. He has talked to initiative qualifying companies and been told such a petition effort would cost nearly $1 million, but that it is realistic.