Court Hears Appeal in Compton Dispute

The legal battle over Compton’s recent election moved to an appeals court Monday, where lawyers traded barbs over the “primacy effect” theory that swayed a judge to oust Mayor Eric Perrodin from office.

In an unprecedented decision earlier this month, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Judith Chirlin replaced Perrodin with his opponent, Omar Bradley, after ruling that Perrodin had unfairly benefited from being listed first on the ballot in last year’s election.

Perrodin’s attorney, Frederic Woocher, said at the hearing that Chirlin’s decision relied on the flawed testimony of a political scientist who misapplied the primacy effect theory and did little research to support his findings.

Perrodin wants the appeals court to suspend Chirlin’s ruling and reinstate him as mayor until a decision is reached on the appeal. Chirlin had ruled that the candidates’ names were not listed lawfully on the June 5 ballot.

“It’s not science. It’s not even political science,” said Woocher, referring to the theory. “The Superior Court had no warrant for taking 306 votes and giving them to [Bradley] at the stroke of a pen.”

Bradley’s attorney, Bradley W. Hertz, defended the testimony of the expert witness, Ohio State University professor Jon Krosnick, saying that Krosnick’s research was exhaustive, detailed and accurate.

“It is not junk science. It is not fuzzy math,” Hertz said. “Everyone should get a fair shake with every new election.”

Perrodin’s name did not appear first on last year’s primary ballot, but it did appear before Bradley’s. It also appeared before Bradley’s on the ballot for the June runoff.

Chirlin ruled that the city clerk improperly lifted the name order off the primary ballot, instead of using a method to randomly select the order. Perrodin’s position on the second ballot, the judge said, gave him an improper statistical advantage that won him at least 306 votes, enough to prevail in the close race.

The hearing at the 2nd District Court of Appeal in downtown Los Angeles was held in a courtroom crowded with about 90 supporters of both Perrodin and Bradley.

Perrodin argues that Compton will suffer irreparable harm if Bradley remains in office while his appeal is pending. He fears that Bradley will use taxpayers’ money to pay as much as $1 million of his attorney fees and back wages.

The Compton City Council is scheduled to discuss several claims by Bradley and his attorney at today’s council meeting. Bradley has said that he will recuse himself from discussions or votes on those matters.

Though the three appellate justices did not reach a decision Monday--a ruling is expected sometime this week--they did question Hertz several times, asking for clarification and posing hypothetical situations.

At one point, Associate Justice Reuben Ortega asked Hertz if he thought that all elections are now suspect because of the primacy effect, which holds that people tend to favor choices at the top of a list.

Hertz said that not all races were flawed, but that some with narrow margins of victory could be open to challenge.

Presiding Justice Vaino Spencer questioned why the primacy effect didn’t make a difference in Compton’s primary election, where the first candidate on the ballot, Basil Kimbrew, trailed far behind Perrodin and Bradley.

She also wanted to know how much research the expert witness had done, and questioned if Krosnick’s analysis, based on an Ohio study, was relevant to Compton.

Hertz did not say exactly how much time Krosnick spent on his analysis, but said it was thorough. He said that the primacy effect theory always holds, but that it varies from place to place.

Woocher scoffed at his explanations.

“It just points out the absurdity of relying on that information to overturn the will of the people,” he said.

Times staff writer Nancy Wride contributed to this report.