Russo rejects Oak to Ninth referendum petition
Opponets say 'petitions are in conformance with state law'
Christopher Hooton
Issue date: 9/21/06 Last update: 9/21/06 at 7:33 PM PST
Section: News
- Page 1 of 2 next >
An attempt to put before voters the massive and protracted Oak to Ninth development project has been rejected by Oakland City Attorney John Russo.
Russo rejected the petition after lawyers for developers Oakland Harbor Partners LLC, sent a letter to his office making five separate challenges to the petition. The Oakland City Council approved the project in July.
The petition for a referendum was submitted to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters by the Oak to Ninth Referendum Committee, a coalition of local activist groups in opposition to the project.
The committee turned in the petition on Aug. 17 with over 25,000 signatures, thousands more than the 18,700 total signatures required. The County Registrar's office was in the process of verifying the signatures when Russo made his decision to reject the petition which effectively stopped the counting process.
Russo agreed with three of the challenges arguing that the petition used an incorrect and outdated version of the ordinance passed by the City Council and had not included necessary maps.
In his Sept. 6 legal opinion, he stated that "the failure to present the actual text of the ordinance challenged or to attach the exhibits to the ordinance, is fatal to a referendum petition" and cited 75 instances of inconsistencies between the ordinance and the version printed on the petition. He said that some voters may "have had great difficulty in making a fully informed decision on whether to sign the petition."
The California Election Code requires the use of the exact text of the ordinance subject to a referendum.
The Oak to Ninth Committee said in a press release that they "are confident the petitions are in conformance with state laws governing referendums. This included collecting and filing the petitions within the 30-day submission period. Even though the city did not make a copy of the legislation until several days after the council hearing.
Although we continue to research the issue, our attorney advises us that the petition will stand up to the developer's challenge."
Russo rejected the petition after lawyers for developers Oakland Harbor Partners LLC, sent a letter to his office making five separate challenges to the petition. The Oakland City Council approved the project in July.
The petition for a referendum was submitted to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters by the Oak to Ninth Referendum Committee, a coalition of local activist groups in opposition to the project.
The committee turned in the petition on Aug. 17 with over 25,000 signatures, thousands more than the 18,700 total signatures required. The County Registrar's office was in the process of verifying the signatures when Russo made his decision to reject the petition which effectively stopped the counting process.
Russo agreed with three of the challenges arguing that the petition used an incorrect and outdated version of the ordinance passed by the City Council and had not included necessary maps.
In his Sept. 6 legal opinion, he stated that "the failure to present the actual text of the ordinance challenged or to attach the exhibits to the ordinance, is fatal to a referendum petition" and cited 75 instances of inconsistencies between the ordinance and the version printed on the petition. He said that some voters may "have had great difficulty in making a fully informed decision on whether to sign the petition."
The California Election Code requires the use of the exact text of the ordinance subject to a referendum.
The Oak to Ninth Committee said in a press release that they "are confident the petitions are in conformance with state laws governing referendums. This included collecting and filing the petitions within the 30-day submission period. Even though the city did not make a copy of the legislation until several days after the council hearing.
Although we continue to research the issue, our attorney advises us that the petition will stand up to the developer's challenge."
Be the first to comment on this story