Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Fight against ordinance isn’t over
Opponents are weighing options now that item on requests for absentee ballots has passed.
By Jason Wells
GLENDALE — An ordinance preventing third parties from handling completed absentee ballot applications that passed on a contentious 3-2 City Council vote Tuesday could face renewed opposition after long-standing — and potentially new — opponents of the law consider their next moves.
At the forefront of any possible coalition opposing the new ordinance would be the Armenian National Committee Glendale chapter, which during the two months leading up to Tuesday’s City Council vote had channeled opposition into a letter-writing campaign that called the measure discriminatory.
The committee’s board of directors on Wednesday mulled several options that could still defeat the ordinance, including a court challenge and signature-gathering campaign to place a referendum to reverse the ordinance on the citywide ballot, said Zanku Armenian, a board member for the committee’s western region.
“It’s too early to make a decision until we have more facts,” he said.
Part of that fact-gathering will come out of a review from the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, which is looking into the issue, said spokesman Michael Soller.
“We are very concerned with voting rights,” he said.
The Armenian National Committee would look to build consensus among any opposition coalition partners before making its next move, Armenian said.
Those partners could include National Korean American Service and Education Consortium and the Korean American Coalition — two immigrant service organizations that joined the committee in opposing the ordinance from the beginning.
Representatives for either group could not be reached Friday, although they have previously expressed interest in joining the committee in its efforts to halt the ordinance.
Until Tuesday, municipal candidates were allowed to hold on to returned absentee ballot applications for up to 72 hours before turning them in to the city clerk, who then issued the voting ballot directly to the voter.
The new ordinance prohibits campaign offices from handling the completed applications, a change immigrant service organizations argue denies potential voters of vital assistance.
This despite language that City Atty. Scott Howard added assuring the groups that no one would be prevented from “educating or assisting voters with a vote-by-mail ballot application.”
In addition to local and regional groups, the city may also have to deal with pressure from the state level after Bob Mulholland — a campaign advisor for the California Democratic Party — said party Chairman Art Torres would issue a letter asking Secretary of State Debra Bowen to intervene in “this failed, or faulty process.”
“We think it’s outrageous and probably illegal,” Mulholland said.
Torres sent a letter before Tuesday’s vote to each city councilman calling the ordinance “an infringement of basic rights” that sought to “limit or inhibit a political party’s right to communicate with or mobilize” its members.
The state Republican Party was not following the issue, spokesman Hector Barajas said.
A spokeswoman for Bowen’s office said the chances for intervention in a municipal process was “unlikely.”
With the ACLU engaged only in a preliminary review of the ordinance and action from the state unlikely, opponents could place a referendum to defeat the new law on the city’s next citywide ballot if they gather signatures from at least 10% of registered voters in Glendale — or about 8,546 residents, according to the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters.
Should opponents collect the needed signatures — and they are verified by the county — Howard said enforcement of the ordinance would automatically be stayed until after the 2009 municipal election.
Already, the idea has strong support from Councilman Bob Yousefian, who on Tuesday tried to lobby his colleagues to put the ordinance to a citywide vote.
“Put it to the people and let them make a decision one way or another,” he said.
That suggestion was roundly rejected by Councilman John Drayman, who said throwing representative government out the window when votes don’t appear to go a certain way for the opposition was unnecessary and unwarranted.
On Friday, Drayman said he had no interest in “working against” the city’s representative form of government, and that if a referendum or initiative calling for the reversal of the ordinance was able to gather the required number of signatures, so be it.
“If that happens, that happens. I’ll live with it,” he said.
JASON WELLS covers City Hall. He may be reached at (818) 637-3235 or by e-mail at jason.wells@latimes.com.
At the forefront of any possible coalition opposing the new ordinance would be the Armenian National Committee Glendale chapter, which during the two months leading up to Tuesday’s City Council vote had channeled opposition into a letter-writing campaign that called the measure discriminatory.
The committee’s board of directors on Wednesday mulled several options that could still defeat the ordinance, including a court challenge and signature-gathering campaign to place a referendum to reverse the ordinance on the citywide ballot, said Zanku Armenian, a board member for the committee’s western region.
“It’s too early to make a decision until we have more facts,” he said.
Part of that fact-gathering will come out of a review from the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, which is looking into the issue, said spokesman Michael Soller.
“We are very concerned with voting rights,” he said.
The Armenian National Committee would look to build consensus among any opposition coalition partners before making its next move, Armenian said.
Those partners could include National Korean American Service and Education Consortium and the Korean American Coalition — two immigrant service organizations that joined the committee in opposing the ordinance from the beginning.
Representatives for either group could not be reached Friday, although they have previously expressed interest in joining the committee in its efforts to halt the ordinance.
Until Tuesday, municipal candidates were allowed to hold on to returned absentee ballot applications for up to 72 hours before turning them in to the city clerk, who then issued the voting ballot directly to the voter.
The new ordinance prohibits campaign offices from handling the completed applications, a change immigrant service organizations argue denies potential voters of vital assistance.
This despite language that City Atty. Scott Howard added assuring the groups that no one would be prevented from “educating or assisting voters with a vote-by-mail ballot application.”
In addition to local and regional groups, the city may also have to deal with pressure from the state level after Bob Mulholland — a campaign advisor for the California Democratic Party — said party Chairman Art Torres would issue a letter asking Secretary of State Debra Bowen to intervene in “this failed, or faulty process.”
“We think it’s outrageous and probably illegal,” Mulholland said.
Torres sent a letter before Tuesday’s vote to each city councilman calling the ordinance “an infringement of basic rights” that sought to “limit or inhibit a political party’s right to communicate with or mobilize” its members.
The state Republican Party was not following the issue, spokesman Hector Barajas said.
A spokeswoman for Bowen’s office said the chances for intervention in a municipal process was “unlikely.”
With the ACLU engaged only in a preliminary review of the ordinance and action from the state unlikely, opponents could place a referendum to defeat the new law on the city’s next citywide ballot if they gather signatures from at least 10% of registered voters in Glendale — or about 8,546 residents, according to the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters.
Should opponents collect the needed signatures — and they are verified by the county — Howard said enforcement of the ordinance would automatically be stayed until after the 2009 municipal election.
Already, the idea has strong support from Councilman Bob Yousefian, who on Tuesday tried to lobby his colleagues to put the ordinance to a citywide vote.
“Put it to the people and let them make a decision one way or another,” he said.
That suggestion was roundly rejected by Councilman John Drayman, who said throwing representative government out the window when votes don’t appear to go a certain way for the opposition was unnecessary and unwarranted.
On Friday, Drayman said he had no interest in “working against” the city’s representative form of government, and that if a referendum or initiative calling for the reversal of the ordinance was able to gather the required number of signatures, so be it.
“If that happens, that happens. I’ll live with it,” he said.
JASON WELLS covers City Hall. He may be reached at (818) 637-3235 or by e-mail at jason.wells@latimes.com.
Save/Share
 |
 |
|
| POLITICAL LANDSCAPE: Legislator tackles nursing shortage |
Chevy Chase Reservoir reduced to hole in ground |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of glendalenewspress.com.
Submit a Comment
We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
Not registered yet?
RSS