Court denies plea to block voter-bound civil rights initiative

Monday, April 15, 1996

Petition’s failure based on legal technicalities and 100-word
limitationBy John Digrado

Daily Bruin Staff

Denying a last-ditch effort to keep the California Civil Rights
Initiative from going to voters, state Supreme Court officials
denied a citizen’s petition to have the measure thrown off the
November ballot last Wednesday.

Roland Holmes of Orange County filed his grievance with the
court late last month, stating that the initiative (CCRI) violated
California’s Election Code. Holmes contended that the title and
summary portion of the initiative is longer than the 100 words that
the law allows.

"In reviewing the election laws, (it) said that the title and
summary should be 100 words or less," Holmes said. "CCRI’s is 200
words long."

According to Holmes, the 100-word figure reflects the
combination of both the title and summary statement and an optional
fiscal impact statement drafted by the Attorney General’s
office.

The initiative’s text includes this fiscal impact statement, and
was nearly double the statutory limit.

Section 9002 of the Election Code states that "A draft of the
proposed measure shall be submitted to the attorney general with a
written request that a title and summary of the chief purpose and
points of the proposed measure be prepared. The title and summary
shall not exceed a total of 100 words."

"The petition violates this proscription. It should therefore be
kept off the ballot," wrote Holmes, who works at King-Drew Medical
Center which is affiliated with UCLA’s medical school.

But state officials were quick to point out that the law can be
interpreted in different ways, saying that the fiscal impact
statement is not included in the 100-word count.

"Our interpretation of the election code is that we (draft) the
financial summary and attach it to the title and summary
statement," said Andi Thomson of Attorney General Dan Lungren’s
office. "But our interpretation is that it is not subject to the
100-word count."

Lungren’s office cited other sections of the Election Code to
uphold their interpretation of the law, and contradict Holmes’
legal theory.

"Notwithstanding (previous sections regarding the title and
summary), the Attorney General, in preparing a title or summary for
an initiative measure, shall determine whether the substance (of
the initiative) would affect the revenues or expenditures of the
state or local government," the elections code states in a section
referred to by the Attorney General’s office.

It is up to the Attorney General to decide whether such a
financial summary is necessary to attach to the initiative, state
officials added.

Nonetheless, CCRI opponents said that the financial statement is
one and the same with the title and summary, and should be counted
as such since there is no clear break between the two portions of
the proposed initiative.

"There’s no place in the code that says that thing is separate.
(Attorney General Lungren) requested it, he had to put it in
there," Holmes said.

The brief is not Holmes’ first attempt to thwart the initiative.
Before filing the grievance with the court, Holmes wrote to
Secretary of State Bill Jones informing him of the initiative’s
alleged error.

Jones wrote back, saying that his office had reviewed the
Election Code regarding the initiative, and that it did not violate
the law.

"It is clear that the 100-word limitation applies to the chief
purpose and points of the measure," Jones wrote in response. "We
have reviewed the title and summary prepared by the Attorney
General for this measure and have determined that it does not
exceed the 100-word limit."

After being denied by Jones’ office, Holmes then filed his
grievance with the state Supreme Court, who later denied his
petition for a writ of mandate to throw the initiative off the
ballot, the Supreme Court clerk reported Thursday.

Holmes was not aware that his request had been denied by the
court, but anticipated that the court would not hear the case.

For now, Holmes said he plans to take a wait-and-see approach,
maintaining his stance on the matter.

"(The issue) is for the court to define. (Attorney General and
Secretary of State) are constitutional offices and they have no
right to interpret the law," he said.