Judge blocks open space annexation; hearing set Judge blocks open space annexation; hearing set (July 21, 2004)

** Judge calls it "shocking" that a third of the petitions were found invalid.

By Marion Softky
Almanac Staff Writer

Can a judge override the letter of the law, and order an election when the numbers don't add up?

This could be the question when a judge reviews the count of petitions protesting annexation of 220 square miles of the San Mateo County coast to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD).

Superior Court Judge Mark Forcum on July 13 issued a temporary restraining order blocking the annexation until a court hearing on Thursday, July 22, could hear more complete testimony. He was responding to a lawsuit seeking to block the annexation by Coastside activist Oscar Braun and the Half Moon Bay Coastside Foundation.

Judge Forcum was disturbed when a third of the petitions protesting the annexation, and seeking an election, were declared invalid. "I find it rather shocking that 34 percent would be invalid. That calls into question the integrity of the process," he said at last week's hearing.

A count of protest petitions by the county elections department showed that of 5,340 petitions, 3,583 were "sufficient," and 1,757 were "insufficient." Of 253 petitions withdrawing a signature, only 140 were "sufficient." The resulting 3,443 valid protests were 628 shy of the 4,071 needed to trigger an election.

Among the reasons petitions were deemed insufficient, were: 542 duplicate protests; 376 protests that had been altered after they were signed; 167 protests from people living outside the annexation area; and 341 protests from people who were not registered to vote.

This week's hearing, before a different judge, will determine whether the annexation, which has been lumbering through government processes for seven years, will take place, be subject to an election, or be stopped entirely by a permanent restraining order.

The annexation, which would allow MROSD to buy and manage Coastside land for open space, agriculture and limited recreation, was approved April 7 by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), after four public hearings when almost 200 people spoke.

Following the LAFCo decision, opponents waged a fierce campaign all over the Coastside to collect written protests. Their goal was 25 percent of the 16,284 registered voters in the annexation area needed to trigger an election. They needed 4,071 valid protests; according to the elections office and LAFCo, they got 3,443, or 21 percent.

Meanwhile, the official order declaring the annexation complete, issued July 12 by LAFCo Executive Officer Martha Poyatos, is on hold, until the next judge decides what to do.

Focus on numbers

Judge Forcum's court hearing focused for almost four hours on the process of counting petitions, and why so many were disqualified. No one challenged elimination of voters who did not live in the area, who were not registered, or who submitted duplicate protests. Those numbers added up to 1,040 -- 19 percent of the petitions.

Attention primarily concentrated on the 376 petitions where information had been changed or added. In many of these, street addresses were added to petitions that showed only post office box numbers. The box numbers are widely used in rural areas, but are not allowed in election registration.

Terry Gossett of Moss Beach, a leading opponent, described how he helped gather protest petitions, handled them, and wrote on 300 or 400 of them to "clarify" the information. "I never touched dates or signatures. I only added addresses," he said. "It was a grass-roots effort."

Elections Chief David Tom insisted his staff had closely followed the legal code, although laws governing LAFCo processes have changed over the years. "It is highly unusual to find so many duplicates and so many changes," he said."

Mr. Tom noted that people had signed on different forms, some of which showed no year, or month, or day. His staff certified those with no year, but could not certify those showing no month or day.

Judge Forcum chided Mr. Tom for not doing more to match petitions with signatures. "The right to vote is the most cherished right we have," the judge said. "People are fighting and, sadly, dying in foreign countries to protect those rights."

In issuing the restraining order, Judge Forcum directed the elections staff to do more to verify signatures and addresses. "This should be about including voters, not excluding them," he said.

LAFCo attorney Carol Woodward insisted that LAFCo had followed the law. "These sections are mandatory; we don't have discretion," she said. "LAFCo turned themselves inside out to do things right."

Even if all the disputed petitions are changed, there will not be enough to trigger an election, Ms. Woodward noted. MROSD attorney Sue Schectman added, "If you count every P.O. box vote, it still wouldn't qualify."

Judge Forcum responded, "Even if every vote is counted and it still doesn't qualify, even if this is an academic exercise, then so be it."

Stay tuned.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.