• Commenting on the Monterey County Democrats decision not to file a lawsuit against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea for a language error on the April 2008 ballot, Mayor Sue McCloud stated that “the ballot’s incorrect wording was provided by the County Department of Elections,” according to an article in The Monterey County Herald on May 9, 2008. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea was in charge of the election, whereas the County was not in charge. Therefore, responsibility for the language error on the ballot is the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s alone. Moreover, isn’t it the responsibility of the City Attorney to review the City’s ballot for accuracy and completeness prior to the printing of ballots?
• The Pine Inn’s plan for a subterranean parking garage for approximately 100 vehicles along Sixth Avenue between Monte Verde St. and Lincoln St., presented at the City Council Meeting on May 6, 2008, should remind Carmelites of the original plans for the renovation of Sunset Center, which including a parking garage located at the site of the existing north parking lot along Eighth Av. between San Carlos St. and Mission St. If the City Council at that time had approved and funded the parking structure, it would have ameliorated Carmel’s parking situation then and now.
• According to SCC Executive Director Peter Lesnik, the Annual Meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 18 “at a time to be determined.” He further stated it should be “lot of fun as well as informative.”
• In the last 4 years, the City Council has budgeted approximately $1.6 million annually for the maintenance and management of the Sunset Center and comparatively nothing on the City’s other historic, cultural and environments assets, namely the Scout House, the Forest Theatre, Flanders Mansion, Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden and Mission Trail Nature Preserve. With annual budgets of $11 million - $13 million and nearly $10 million in reserve funds, it is unconscionable for the City Council to lavish financial resources on one entertainment venue and fail to annually budget for maintenance and improvements to all the other historic, cultural and environmental public assets.
• FOREST THEATER severed and damaged beam: No attempt has been made by the City to repair the damaged and bisected FOREST THEATER wooden carved beam, which was once across the Forest Theatre Guadalupe St. gate. It lies abandoned in the now dried grass next to the gate.
• Carmel Beach Access: A Goal of the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan is to “provide for maximum public assess to, and recreational use of, the shoreline…” Yet, the southernmost stairway access to Carmel Beach adjacent to Martin Way still remains closed since the Winter Storms of January 2008. Like State Laws and the Municipal Code, it appears that the City only complies with provisions of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan that the City wants to comply with and ignores provisions the City does not want to comply with.
• On the Carmel Fire Department Consolidation with Monterey and Pacific Grove Fire Departments and Staffing Issues: Five City Council Members and the City Administrator, all non-professionals and non-experts on fire issues, have not only failed to place the issues on an open hearing agenda, but they have seen fit to reject the professional judgments of the Carmel Professional Firefighters. The next time City Council Members and the City Administrator give specious reasons as justification for their rejection of the judgments of our Carmel Professional Firefighters, Carmelites should ask ourselves who will respond at 2 A.M. to extinguish a structural fire and rescue fire victims, City Council Members/City Administrator or the Carmel Professional Firefighters? And whose background, experience and judgment on fire safety issues do Carmelites have reason to trust?
Showing posts with label 2008 Municipal Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 Municipal Election. Show all posts
Monday, May 12, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
City Council Members’ Rhetoric Inconsistent with Records
ABSTRACT: On Tuesday, April 15, 2008, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea held a Swearing in Ceremony for City Council Members Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage and Mayor Sue McCloud. The oath of office is reproduced and COMMENTS are made with regard to their oath and their rhetoric being inconsistent with their acts and records.
On Tuesday, April 15, 2008, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea held a Swearing in Ceremony for City Council Members Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage and Mayor Sue McCloud. Each of the three City Council Members took their oaths of office, as follows:
“I, _________________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.”
COMMENTS
• Yet under the mayorship of Sue McCloud, the City has violated the laws of the State of California and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea including, but not limited to, as follows:
CEQA
On the Feasibility/infeasibility of leasing the Flanders Mansion property compared to selling the Flanders Mansion property; Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O’Farrell ruled that the City failed to provide an economic analysis to support its contention that the lease option is infeasible. (M76728 Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al.)
California Government Code Sections 38440-38462
On the City’s proposed selling of the Flanders Mansion property, specifically its being discontinued and abandoned as a public park; the city failed to follow the proper procedure, including the adoption of a resolution “declaring that public interest or convenience requires the discontinuance of the use of such land as a public park, and that the legislative body intends to call a special election to submit the question of discontinuance to the city electors,” et cetera. (M76728 Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al.)
California Government Code Section 54222
On the City’s proposed selling of the Flanders Mansion property: specifically, the City failed to follow the proper procedures for the disposing of “surplus land,” including the sending of a written offer to sell or lease the property to any park or recreation department of the county prior to disposing of that property, et cetera. (M76728 Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al.)
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character Element
On the City’s Historic Resources Board’s removal of 29 historic resources on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a group; the California Coastal Commission informed the City of its violation of the Land Use Plan, specifically P1-91.
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Coastal Resource Management Element
City failures to implement goals and objectives, including, but not limited to, as follows:
G5-4 Preserve and enhance the City's legacy of an urbanized forest of predominantly Monterey pine, coast live oak and Monterey Cypress. (LUP)
O5-11 Maintain, restore and enhance the upper and lower tree canopy of Carmel's urbanized forest. (LUP)
O5-14 Maintain a healthy forest.
G5-6 Preserve and acquire open space and parks. (LUP)
O5-35 Implement the Mission Trail Nature Preserve Master Plan maintenance provisions. (LUP)
O5-36 Monitor, study and develop effective management programs for the City’s parks and ESHAs. Endeavor to reduce conflicts between environmental protection and use of public and private property within ESHAs. (LUP)
O5-37 Reduce the introduction and spread of invasive horticultural species into and within identified ESHAs. Encourage a volunteer program of citizens and property owners to participate in maintenance and enhancement of sensitive habitats Develop a Stewardship Program based on the premise that resource management is a cooperative effort between the City and its citizens. (LUP)
Municipal Code Section 17.32.210
On the National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion; Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O’Farrell ruled that the City violated its Municipal Code, specifically with regard to the “minimum maintenance” required for inventory properties which “shall be preserved against decay and deterioration, kept in a state of good repair and free from structural defects.” (M76728 Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al.)
Municipal Code Section 17.32.070
The City’s Historic Resources Board violated 17.32.070 D. Removal of Resources from the Inventory, when the Board removed 29 historic resources from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a group without following the proper procedures, including evaluations by qualified professionals who determined that “substantial evidence” demonstrated that each resource was not an historic resource.
Municipal Code Section 15.36.070
On the City’s installation of 80 lights in the Ocean Av. medians; per 12.36.070 Lighting Requirements, Commercial Buildings/Zones, the City violated the Municipal Code which states that “All light fixtures shall not be directed toward the public right-of-way.”
California Elections Code Section 13210. (e)
On the City’s ballot for the April 8 Municipal Election; the City’s ballot instructions were correct in Spanish, but incorrect in English. That is, the English language instructions stated “vote for two,” when the correct language should have been “vote for no more than two.”
• Beware of politicians whose rhetoric is inconsistent with their acts and records. After each of the City Council Members’ swearing in, each Council Member spoke a few words.
“I want to thank...I think your active participation is so important to all of us to get a diversity of views and to really feel as if we are representing all of you as we try our best to enact policies for the City.”
Mayor Sue McCloud, Swearing in Ceremony
In reality, in 8 years as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Sue McCloud has a well deserved reputation for being intolerant of a diversity of opinions, particularly opinions which differ from her opinions. To wit, her record of voting to terminate a Commissioner who voiced an opinion about her micromanagement of the city, dissolving Commissions when members had opinions which led them to pursue items not to her liking, causing the mass resignations of Board Members who had opinions that Sue McCloud did not respect their advice, et cetera.
“While they (Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage) ran independently...”
Mayor Sue McCloud, Swearing in Ceremony
During the campaign, Mayor Sue McCloud supported incumbents Ken Talmage and Karen Sharp. Ergo, Karen Sharp, Ken Talmage and Sue McCloud really campaigned as a slate or “team,” not independently. (Note: Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage had wine tasting events during the campaign together.) Moreover, if Michael LePage had won a seat on the City Council, Mayor McCloud would not have been perceived as welcoming LePage to the City Council or ready to treat him fairly based on her performance during the campaign.
“I’m sure you share my enthusiasm that we have a team which has proven that is can work effectively together to address such issues.”
Mayor Sue McCloud, Swearing in Ceremony
The City Council is charged with upholding the laws of the federal, state and local governments, including conducting the people’s business openly; the City Council is not charged with working as a “team.” Mayor McCloud’s overemphasis of her “team” concept communicates to citizens that operating as a team is paramount, as opposed to serving constituents as independent-minded public servants.
“I want you to keep the tough questions coming; it makes us all better at accomplishing what’s best for our lives, our village and for the future of both.”
City Council Member Karen Sharp, Swearing in Ceremony
While Karen Sharp may imply she encourages “tough questions,” during the campaign she did not substantively answer questions in a forthcoming manner. And neither did Ken Talmage answer questions in a substantive, consistent or credible manner during the campaign, particularly questions involving the Carmel Fire Department consolidation with the Monterey and Pacific Grove Fire Departments.
On Tuesday, April 15, 2008, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea held a Swearing in Ceremony for City Council Members Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage and Mayor Sue McCloud. Each of the three City Council Members took their oaths of office, as follows:
“I, _________________, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.”
COMMENTS
• Yet under the mayorship of Sue McCloud, the City has violated the laws of the State of California and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea including, but not limited to, as follows:
CEQA
On the Feasibility/infeasibility of leasing the Flanders Mansion property compared to selling the Flanders Mansion property; Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O’Farrell ruled that the City failed to provide an economic analysis to support its contention that the lease option is infeasible. (M76728 Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al.)
California Government Code Sections 38440-38462
On the City’s proposed selling of the Flanders Mansion property, specifically its being discontinued and abandoned as a public park; the city failed to follow the proper procedure, including the adoption of a resolution “declaring that public interest or convenience requires the discontinuance of the use of such land as a public park, and that the legislative body intends to call a special election to submit the question of discontinuance to the city electors,” et cetera. (M76728 Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al.)
California Government Code Section 54222
On the City’s proposed selling of the Flanders Mansion property: specifically, the City failed to follow the proper procedures for the disposing of “surplus land,” including the sending of a written offer to sell or lease the property to any park or recreation department of the county prior to disposing of that property, et cetera. (M76728 Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al.)
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character Element
On the City’s Historic Resources Board’s removal of 29 historic resources on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a group; the California Coastal Commission informed the City of its violation of the Land Use Plan, specifically P1-91.
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Coastal Resource Management Element
City failures to implement goals and objectives, including, but not limited to, as follows:
G5-4 Preserve and enhance the City's legacy of an urbanized forest of predominantly Monterey pine, coast live oak and Monterey Cypress. (LUP)
O5-11 Maintain, restore and enhance the upper and lower tree canopy of Carmel's urbanized forest. (LUP)
O5-14 Maintain a healthy forest.
G5-6 Preserve and acquire open space and parks. (LUP)
O5-35 Implement the Mission Trail Nature Preserve Master Plan maintenance provisions. (LUP)
O5-36 Monitor, study and develop effective management programs for the City’s parks and ESHAs. Endeavor to reduce conflicts between environmental protection and use of public and private property within ESHAs. (LUP)
O5-37 Reduce the introduction and spread of invasive horticultural species into and within identified ESHAs. Encourage a volunteer program of citizens and property owners to participate in maintenance and enhancement of sensitive habitats Develop a Stewardship Program based on the premise that resource management is a cooperative effort between the City and its citizens. (LUP)
Municipal Code Section 17.32.210
On the National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion; Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O’Farrell ruled that the City violated its Municipal Code, specifically with regard to the “minimum maintenance” required for inventory properties which “shall be preserved against decay and deterioration, kept in a state of good repair and free from structural defects.” (M76728 Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al.)
Municipal Code Section 17.32.070
The City’s Historic Resources Board violated 17.32.070 D. Removal of Resources from the Inventory, when the Board removed 29 historic resources from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a group without following the proper procedures, including evaluations by qualified professionals who determined that “substantial evidence” demonstrated that each resource was not an historic resource.
Municipal Code Section 15.36.070
On the City’s installation of 80 lights in the Ocean Av. medians; per 12.36.070 Lighting Requirements, Commercial Buildings/Zones, the City violated the Municipal Code which states that “All light fixtures shall not be directed toward the public right-of-way.”
California Elections Code Section 13210. (e)
On the City’s ballot for the April 8 Municipal Election; the City’s ballot instructions were correct in Spanish, but incorrect in English. That is, the English language instructions stated “vote for two,” when the correct language should have been “vote for no more than two.”
• Beware of politicians whose rhetoric is inconsistent with their acts and records. After each of the City Council Members’ swearing in, each Council Member spoke a few words.
“I want to thank...I think your active participation is so important to all of us to get a diversity of views and to really feel as if we are representing all of you as we try our best to enact policies for the City.”
Mayor Sue McCloud, Swearing in Ceremony
In reality, in 8 years as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Sue McCloud has a well deserved reputation for being intolerant of a diversity of opinions, particularly opinions which differ from her opinions. To wit, her record of voting to terminate a Commissioner who voiced an opinion about her micromanagement of the city, dissolving Commissions when members had opinions which led them to pursue items not to her liking, causing the mass resignations of Board Members who had opinions that Sue McCloud did not respect their advice, et cetera.
“While they (Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage) ran independently...”
Mayor Sue McCloud, Swearing in Ceremony
During the campaign, Mayor Sue McCloud supported incumbents Ken Talmage and Karen Sharp. Ergo, Karen Sharp, Ken Talmage and Sue McCloud really campaigned as a slate or “team,” not independently. (Note: Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage had wine tasting events during the campaign together.) Moreover, if Michael LePage had won a seat on the City Council, Mayor McCloud would not have been perceived as welcoming LePage to the City Council or ready to treat him fairly based on her performance during the campaign.
“I’m sure you share my enthusiasm that we have a team which has proven that is can work effectively together to address such issues.”
Mayor Sue McCloud, Swearing in Ceremony
The City Council is charged with upholding the laws of the federal, state and local governments, including conducting the people’s business openly; the City Council is not charged with working as a “team.” Mayor McCloud’s overemphasis of her “team” concept communicates to citizens that operating as a team is paramount, as opposed to serving constituents as independent-minded public servants.
“I want you to keep the tough questions coming; it makes us all better at accomplishing what’s best for our lives, our village and for the future of both.”
City Council Member Karen Sharp, Swearing in Ceremony
While Karen Sharp may imply she encourages “tough questions,” during the campaign she did not substantively answer questions in a forthcoming manner. And neither did Ken Talmage answer questions in a substantive, consistent or credible manner during the campaign, particularly questions involving the Carmel Fire Department consolidation with the Monterey and Pacific Grove Fire Departments.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Election Analysis, Ballot Controversy & California Elections Code
ABSTRACT: Selected Official Final Election Results for 2008 are presented. ANALYSIS, information about the Carmel-by-the-Sea ballot controversy, including a synopsis and link to the letter from the Chair of the Monterey County Democratic Central Committee to the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Clerk, California Elections Code Section 13210. (e) and COMMENTS are also presented.
Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Election
April 8, 2008
Official Final Election Results
Registration and Turnout:
Registered Voters: 2781
Total Ballots Cast: 1373
Precinct Ballots Cast: 329
Vote by Mail Ballots Cast: 1044
Turnout: 49%
Mayor (one seat):
Sue McCloud: 926
Dogman McBill: 312
Total Votes Cast: 1238
Member, City Council (two seats):
Karen I. Sharp: 784
Kenneth K. Talmage: 769
Michael LePage: 747
Total Votes Cast: 2300
ANALYSIS:
• Turnout for the 2008 election was 49%, compared to 48% in 2006.
• Nearly one half of the “Vote by Mail Ballots Cast” (1044) were cast prior to the City’s issuance of a correction to the ballot language.
• Of the total ballots cast in 2008 (1373), 1238 votes were cast for Mayor; 135 voters did not vote for Mayor.
• The number of votes for Dogman McBill (312) and the number of people who did not vote for mayor (135) equals 447; 447 represents about one half of the votes cast for Sue McCloud.
• In 2008, Sue McCloud received 926 votes of 1238 total votes cast, compared to 995 votes of 1344 ballots cast in 2006.
• For City Council, 2300 votes were cast in 2008, compared to 2447 total votes cast in 2006. Since there were 1373 ballots cast in 2008 and voters could vote for two for City Council, the total ballots cast for City Council could have been 2746 votes if every voter voted for two candidates; 446 votes were not cast for a candidate (approximately 1 in 3 voters voted for only one candidate).
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA BALLOT & CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE:
Letter from Vinz Koller, Chair of the Monterey County Democratic Central Committee, to Heidi Burch, Carmel-by-the-Sea City Clerk
Synopsis: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s ballot for the 2008 Municipal Election for City Council had Spanish instructions, “Vote for no more than 2,” which is correct, and English instructions, "Vote for 2," which is incorrect. In a letter dated March 25, 2008, Vinz Koller wrote that the ballot for Carmel’s April 8, 2008 City Council election is “confusing and misleads voters. It is having a direct and material impact on a current election and violates the State Election Code Section 13120 (e)." Koller requested that the City “inform voters immediately of the error by mailing a correction notice to all registered voters in Carmel and by immediately placing a full page ad in a prominent location in the 3 newspapers” and conduct an investigation into the matter. The election results were certified by Monterey County on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 and Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage were sworn in on Tuesday, April 15. Representatives from the Monterey County Democratic Party said they will "reserve our right to challenge the results" of Tuesday's municipal election in Carmel; they or any voter or Michael LePage, the losing candidate, has 30 days, until May 9, to contest the results of the election. Last Monday, the Monterey County Democratic Central Committee advised the City it would “undertake preliminary steps to contest the election” in Monterey County Superior Court, according to The Carmel Pine Cone.
CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE
DIVISION 13. BALLOTS, SAMPLE BALLOTS, AND VOTER PAMPHLETS
CHAPTER 3. BALLOT PRINTING SPECIFICATIONS
Article 1. General Provisions ................................13200-13220
13210.(e) In the case of all other candidates, each group of candidates to be voted on shall be preceded by the designation of the office for which they are running, and the words "vote for one" or "vote for no more than two," or more, according to the number to be nominated or elected. The designation of the office shall be printed flush with the left-hand margin in boldfaced gothic type not smaller than 8-point. The words, "vote for ____" shall extend to the extreme right-hand margin of the column and over the voting square. The designation of the office and the directions for voting shall be separated from the candidates by a light line. There shall be no line between the headings for federal or legislative offices and the designation of the office and the directions for voting.
COMMENTS:
• An argument for contesting the election results is that one group of voters received one set of ballot instructions and another group of voters received another set of ballot instructions; that is, nearly one half of the 1044 “Vote by Mail” voters voted prior to the City’s issuance of a correction.
• If previous City ballots have been similarly written, in violation of the California Elections Code, then that is not justification for the City's violation of the California Elections Code in 2008.
Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Election
April 8, 2008
Official Final Election Results
Registration and Turnout:
Registered Voters: 2781
Total Ballots Cast: 1373
Precinct Ballots Cast: 329
Vote by Mail Ballots Cast: 1044
Turnout: 49%
Mayor (one seat):
Sue McCloud: 926
Dogman McBill: 312
Total Votes Cast: 1238
Member, City Council (two seats):
Karen I. Sharp: 784
Kenneth K. Talmage: 769
Michael LePage: 747
Total Votes Cast: 2300
ANALYSIS:
• Turnout for the 2008 election was 49%, compared to 48% in 2006.
• Nearly one half of the “Vote by Mail Ballots Cast” (1044) were cast prior to the City’s issuance of a correction to the ballot language.
• Of the total ballots cast in 2008 (1373), 1238 votes were cast for Mayor; 135 voters did not vote for Mayor.
• The number of votes for Dogman McBill (312) and the number of people who did not vote for mayor (135) equals 447; 447 represents about one half of the votes cast for Sue McCloud.
• In 2008, Sue McCloud received 926 votes of 1238 total votes cast, compared to 995 votes of 1344 ballots cast in 2006.
• For City Council, 2300 votes were cast in 2008, compared to 2447 total votes cast in 2006. Since there were 1373 ballots cast in 2008 and voters could vote for two for City Council, the total ballots cast for City Council could have been 2746 votes if every voter voted for two candidates; 446 votes were not cast for a candidate (approximately 1 in 3 voters voted for only one candidate).
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA BALLOT & CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE:
Letter from Vinz Koller, Chair of the Monterey County Democratic Central Committee, to Heidi Burch, Carmel-by-the-Sea City Clerk
Synopsis: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s ballot for the 2008 Municipal Election for City Council had Spanish instructions, “Vote for no more than 2,” which is correct, and English instructions, "Vote for 2," which is incorrect. In a letter dated March 25, 2008, Vinz Koller wrote that the ballot for Carmel’s April 8, 2008 City Council election is “confusing and misleads voters. It is having a direct and material impact on a current election and violates the State Election Code Section 13120 (e)." Koller requested that the City “inform voters immediately of the error by mailing a correction notice to all registered voters in Carmel and by immediately placing a full page ad in a prominent location in the 3 newspapers” and conduct an investigation into the matter. The election results were certified by Monterey County on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 and Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage were sworn in on Tuesday, April 15. Representatives from the Monterey County Democratic Party said they will "reserve our right to challenge the results" of Tuesday's municipal election in Carmel; they or any voter or Michael LePage, the losing candidate, has 30 days, until May 9, to contest the results of the election. Last Monday, the Monterey County Democratic Central Committee advised the City it would “undertake preliminary steps to contest the election” in Monterey County Superior Court, according to The Carmel Pine Cone.
CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE
DIVISION 13. BALLOTS, SAMPLE BALLOTS, AND VOTER PAMPHLETS
CHAPTER 3. BALLOT PRINTING SPECIFICATIONS
Article 1. General Provisions ................................13200-13220
13210.(e) In the case of all other candidates, each group of candidates to be voted on shall be preceded by the designation of the office for which they are running, and the words "vote for one" or "vote for no more than two," or more, according to the number to be nominated or elected. The designation of the office shall be printed flush with the left-hand margin in boldfaced gothic type not smaller than 8-point. The words, "vote for ____" shall extend to the extreme right-hand margin of the column and over the voting square. The designation of the office and the directions for voting shall be separated from the candidates by a light line. There shall be no line between the headings for federal or legislative offices and the designation of the office and the directions for voting.
COMMENTS:
• An argument for contesting the election results is that one group of voters received one set of ballot instructions and another group of voters received another set of ballot instructions; that is, nearly one half of the 1044 “Vote by Mail” voters voted prior to the City’s issuance of a correction.
• If previous City ballots have been similarly written, in violation of the California Elections Code, then that is not justification for the City's violation of the California Elections Code in 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)