Candidate Alleges Unjust Desserts

On election day last March, Julie Raber, then a candidate for the Carson City Council, was so grateful to poll workers that she donned her Sunday best and passed out cinnamon cookies at voting stations throughout the city.

Raber won her seat by 181 votes, out of nearly 17,000 cast. But now her opponent in that race, bail bondswoman and former City Councilwoman Vera DeWitt, is alleging in a civil lawsuit that the snickerdoodle giveaway amounted to a crime in a city with a history of municipal scandals.

“In our opinion, handing out cookies at polling places on election day is equivalent to holding a big sign that says, ‘Vote for Julie Raber -- She’s a Nice Woman Who Hands Out Cookies to Poll Workers,’ ” said Frederic Woocher, DeWitt’s attorney. He said Raber passed out cookies at 24 of 30 polling stations March 4.

According to California election law, candidates for public office are prohibited from campaigning within 100 feet of a polling place.

Raber contends that passing out cookies to poll workers is not electioneering.

“I was not trying to get votes,” said the public school administrative assistant.

In a motion filed in court on her behalf, attorney Douglas Otto said: “Whether Ms. Raber’s course of conduct was wise is unclear; what is clear is that it does not provide a basis for invalidating the election.”

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge is expected to make a ruling next week that will either confirm or invalidate Raber’s election.

If her victory is thrown out, she will lose her council seat and Carson will appoint a new member or hold a special election to fill the vacancy.

In addition to the cookie giveaway, DeWitt’s lawsuit alleges that the campaign of another successful City Council candidate, Elito Santarina, submitted fraudulent absentee ballot applications.

More than 600 applications were rejected because they were duplicates, contained errors or included unregistered residents or people who did not have Carson residency, said City Clerk Helen Kawagoe.

Although exact numbers were not available, Kawagoe said, many of those rejected applications were submitted by the Santarina campaign.

Santarina did not return calls to his City Council office and his home seeking comment.

But attorney Jose Lauchengco denied that his client had done anything wrong, referring to DeWitt as “a disgruntled loser.”

Lauchengco said that if the absentee ballot applications contained irregularities, it was the fault of Santarina’s campaign workers and not the candidate himself.

Judge Alexander Williams III is expected to hear evidence against Santarina after deciding on the Raber case.

The trial, which began a month ago, has again called into question the reputation of municipal government in Carson, which has been rocked by a series of scandals in recent years.

In 2002 three of five sitting City Council members -- including then-Mayor Mayor Daryl Sweeney -- and former Mayor Pete Fajardo were indicted.

They pleaded guilty to a variety of federal charges, including accepting bribes, extorting tens of thousands of dollars and offering kickbacks to city contractors.

Raber and Santarina were elected last year on a wave of public outrage and pledges to clean up city government.

“Leadership is nothing without integrity,” Santarina declared a day after his election.

But some Carson residents have been dismayed, not only by the allegations contained in DeWitt’s lawsuit but by the City Council’s decision to pay for Raber’s and Santarina’s defense of actions they took before they became city employees.

Otto estimates that Raber’s defense will cost $100,000, a figure that other observers say is far too low.

Santarina’s attorney declined to discuss his legal fees.

The minutes of a May council meeting show that the vote was 4 to 0, with Raber abstaining, to provide funds for her defense against the DeWitt lawsuit.

That action was followed by a separate 4-0 vote, with Santarina abstaining, to provide defense counsel for him.

“I know this sounds crazy,” Kawagoe said, “but Raber says, ‘I won’t vote on my legal fees, but I can vote on Santarina’s.’ And Santarina says, ‘I won’t vote on mine, but I can vote on Raber’s.’ ”

Raber said it was in the city’s interest to pay her legal costs.