http://www.sbsun.com/ci_3987152

Opinions split on effect of ruling on SB initiative
Kelly Rayburn, Staff Writer



SAN BERNARDINO - Call it a strike against voters' rights to petition their government, or a bit of relief to help a struggling city focus on more pressing challenges.
Superior Court Judge A. Rex Victor's ruling Monday against a sweeping anti-illegal immigration ballot measure put to rest the question of whether its proponents had collected enough signatures to force an election. They had not, the judge determined.

The debate continues over whether the ruling was good news for the city or bad.

City leaders over the past two days shared varied opinions.

"It's a blow to democracy, frankly," said 4th Ward Councilman Neil Derry.

Second Ward Councilman Dennis Baxter had a different take. "It allows us to put our focus on where it really belongs," he said, "and that, of course, is solving, or at least working on solving, our crime problem for our city."

San Bernardino resident Joseph Turner's initiative would have banned city-funded day-labor centers, punished those who did business with or rented to illegal immigrants and required that city communications be done in English only.

At issue in the legal challenge, brought by attorneys for San Bernardino resident Florentino Garza, was a question of whether Turner used the proper election as a benchmark in calculating how many signatures he needed to force a vote.

The City Charter provides the opportunity for an initiative to qualify for a vote if signatures collected equal 30 percent of the votes cast in the last election in which a mayor was elected.

The February 2006 runoff election between then-Superior Court Judge Pat Morris and City Attorney James F. Penman was held between the time Turner began collecting signatures and when he turned them in.

Judge Victor's ruling that the 2006 election, in which Morris was elected, not the November 2001 mayoral election, should have been used as a benchmark, meant that Turner needed more than double the 2,217 signatures ultimately verified.

More than 3,000 were turned in. Some were thrown out. Others weren't counted at all when the measure appeared to qualify. The uncounted votes still would have left the measure well short of the needed total.

Under the City Charter, Turner would be given a 10-day period to collect the signatures he would need to force a vote, but he repeated Tuesday that he would not pursue that avenue.

Turner said he was "investigating the possibility" of a legal appeal, though that may prove difficult since he was not listed as an interested party in a case
that was technically between Garza and the city of San Bernardino.

The city appears unlikely to appeal.

Derry said it seemed unfair to "change the rules" in the middle of the signature process and require a higher number.

"We've got other things to concentrate on in the city and it was probably a distraction," he said of the initiative, "but 3,000 people signed that petition."

Meanwhile, Redlands-based economist John Husing, who studies the Inland Empire, had criticized the proposal as a bad priority right when the city had an opportunity to improve itself.

Husing advised Morris on his economic proposals during his campaign.

He noted that the region's economic situation is ripe for San Bernardino to develop more owner-occupied housing, adding that Morris' administration appears ready to help the city build on what it has going for it.

"You have an administration with a lot of energy coming in," he said. "This (ruling) means that the energy won't be diverted into something incredibly stupid compared to issues like crime."

Attorneys with such organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union had pledged to sink the proposal in court had voters approved it, and Penman was among those who agreed that it would not have met constitutional muster.

Still, some were hoping for a vote.

Fifth Ward Councilman Chas Kelley, perhaps Turner's closest ally in city government, said he is not happy with the ruling, but added it is time to move forward. At the same time, he said the ruling could have a damaging effect.

"At a time when voter turnout is so low and voter apathy is so high," he said, "this thing, this decision . . . is going to increase voter apathy and ensure that voter turnout is even lower because the 3,000-plus residents who signed that petition are going to throw up their hands and say, `Gee whiz, those politicians do whatever they want after we elect them, and when we say we want something done a judge legislates from the bench and throws it out.' "