VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY, Alleges Measure O ‘Authors’ Ballot Argument is False and/or Misleading’

ABSTRACT: The VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, dated March 22, 2014, by Petitioner, RICHARDS J. HEUER, III, an individual, alleges that the “Authors’ Ballot Argument is False and/or Misleading.” “Authors’ Ballot Argument is replete with false and/or misleading statements, all of which should be stricken from the Ballot Argument…More specifically, the following statements violate the Elections Code and should be stricken:”

“Vote YES on Measure O for lower rates and local ownership.”
“YES means keeping the investments on the Peninsula and owning, not renting, the assets of our water system.”
“Local public ownership means lower rates for water.”
“By eliminating profit, and qualifying for lower cost municipal bonds, studies show that public ownership delivers water 25% cheaper.”
“Measure O would bring additional jobs to the Peninsula.”
“Cal-Am, a private New Jersey company takes more than half of its revenues out of our community.”
“Over 20% of the money you pay goes to profit.”
“YES means an immediate savings as public agencies operate without profit.”
“The savings will boost our local economy.”
“Cal-Am admits its rates will TRIPLE over six years with no accountability to you.”
“Under Measure O, rates would be set locally.”
“Investor-owned utilities (IOU’s) like Cal-Am are beholden to their remote shareholders, not to local ratepayers.”
“That’s why Cal-Am was able to waste over $35 million in failed efforts to find new water and pass those increases off to you.”
“Under the current system, we take all the risk while distant shareholders reap all the reward.”
“Public ownership assures long term supply reliability and controlled costs.”
“In fact, the only success to date in developing new water sources has come from the local Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.”
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays as follows:
1. For issuance of alternative and peremptory writs of mandate directed to Respondent Valenzuela to forbid the printing as written of the Ballot Argument on the ballot for the June 3, 2014 primary election because it contains false and/or misleading statements, as alleged in this Petition, and to prohibit Mr. Valenzuela from printing any alternative ballot argument in favor of Measure O because the deadline for submitting ballot arguments has passed.
2. For costs;
3. For statutory attorneys’ fees, if applicable; and
4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
The VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE document, except Exhibit A: Argument in Favor of Measure O (“Ballot Argument”), is embedded.

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (Measure o) 3-22-14

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY
MONTEREY COURTHOUSE
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
[CAL. ELEC. CODE §§ 9380, 13314]
ELECTION MATTER IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:

Cal Am-backed suit challenges Measure O ballot argument

Argument 'stretching the truth,' plaintiff says
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 03/26/2014 

HIGHLIGHT EXCERPTS:

A committee sponsored by California American Water is backing a lawsuit challenging the Public Water Now ballot argument in support of the June initiative aimed at forcing a public acquisition of the Monterey Peninsula water system.
The lawsuit, naming Peninsula businessman and anti-tax activist Rick Heuer as plaintiff, alleges the argument in favor of Measure O is "replete with false and/or misleading statements" and seeks to bar Monterey County Registrar of Voters Claudio Valenzuela from printing the argument unless 16 sentences are stricken.
Both sides submitted rebuttal statements and the water management district provided an impartial analysis of the proposed initiative by the Monday deadline, which was also the deadline for filing campaign finance reports with the county, though neither side apparently did so.