Charter Needs More Study

Suddenly, the Board of Supervisors is worried about the will of the people. A judge has warned the supervisors that a March ballot measure to adopt an Orange County charter might be unconstitutional. But the board is going ahead with plans to spend at least $200,000 preparing for a Jan. 28 election that might never happen.

“Obviously, the voters want it to happen,” outgoing Supervisor Cynthia P. Coad said of the election, “so we don’t really have a choice.”

Funny. The supervisors sure thought they had a choice when Orange County voters passed Measure H, the health-care initiative, and Measure F, an initiative to stop the El Toro airport. In both those cases, the board sued to overturn the public will.

The board feels differently about Measure V, which changed Orange County from a municipality that follows the state’s general law to one with its own set of operating guidelines. The strange charter that came before voters said, in essence, that Orange County will follow the state’s general law in all aspects but one. The sole deviation: When a supervisor’s job opens midterm, the voters rather than the governor will choose a replacement.

Former Supervisor Todd Spitzer, a Republican, admits he pushed for the measure to keep Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, from filling the seat being vacated by Spitzer, who has moved on to the state Assembly. But that had nothing to do with Davis’ party, Spitzer said. It’s just good government.

How strange that no one worried about good government in 1987, when a position opened on the board. The reason: Then-Gov. George Deukmejian was a Republican, and so was his appointee, Gaddi Vasquez.

Empowering voters to hold a special election to choose their own local representatives is a fine idea, except perhaps for the cost, which critics contend was never revealed to voters. But charters are serious business, a sort of mini-constitution for counties. These government-defining documents should result from careful consideration, lively public debate and judicious refinement. None of that happened with Measure V.

Superior Court Judge Andrew P. Banks’ concerns about the charter extend beyond the election cost and the lack of finesse that went into its design. Voters passed the measure believing that future charter changes could be made only by them, the judge said, because a county attorney made that assurance in the supposedly impartial ballot analysis of the measure.

In truth, because the charter picks up state law in almost every regard, the Legislature can change that law -- and thus the charter -- at any point.

Measure V needs a serious examination. The county should have done that before the March vote. Instead, the court will do it Jan. 21 -- a week before the scheduled election of a new supervisor.

Supervisors should have asked the judge to delay the election but decided instead to go ahead. That decision helps no one. Postponing the election wouldn’t have allowed Davis to appoint a Spitzer replacement. It would have frozen the process until the matter is resolved -- the prudent move.

Instead, the county will spend $200,000 and the five candidates will launch expensive, time-consuming campaigns to attract voters to what could prove a phantom election.