The city attorney says the group waited to petition the court to confuse the voters.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
A citizens group led by former Planning Commissioner Richard Carrigan petitioned the state Supreme Court this week to consider whether Councilmember Sharon Barovsky is eligible to serve another term on the City Council.
Although the petition is a request for a review of the recent appellate court decision that Barovsky is eligible to be on the ballot for the 2006 City Council election, the council member would not be removed from the ballot if the Supreme Court were to decide Barovsky was ineligible to run for another term because it has already been printed. However, she would be removed from office if the court decided against her and she was re-elected.
The Court of Appeal panel that ruled 2-1 that Barovsky was an eligible candidate issued its decision on Feb. 8, giving the citizens group time to petition the Supreme Court prior to when the ballot was scheduled to be printed on Feb. 10. City Attorney Christi Hogin said the group strategically did not contact the Supreme Court during that period.
“They’ve done this after the ballots were printed to create confusion in the election,” Hogin said. “And it doesn’t matter, people shouldn’t be confused. Sharon’s name is still on the ballot.”
Carrigan denied there was any attempt to create confusion. He said had the citizens group requested attorney Frederic D. Woocher draft the petition before the scheduled ballot printing day, it would have required him to do it immediately after the Feb. 8 ruling that was issued in the early evening. Carrigan said there would not have been enough time to draft a thorough and well-written petition.
“And the Supreme Court would have had to receive the petition Thursday morning,” said Carrigan, who said Hogin’s accusation was ridiculous. “And then when would the court have heard the case-that afternoon? There simply wasn’t enough time to do it.”
The Supreme Court only hears a small fraction of the cases it is offered. Carrigan said he believes the odds are against him that the court will accept the citizens group’s request, but he said the members decided to pursue the the process anyway because they wanted finality.
“I feel we’re absolutely correct,” Carrigan said. “Half the justices have voted for us [a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the citizens group]. This thing is anything but clear.”
Hogin said she had not seen the citizen group’s petition and therefore could not comment on it. But she said this was not the type of case the Supreme Court would take because there was no question of statewide concern that needed to be resolved.
The citizens group filed the initial suit last month shortly after City Clerk Lisa Pope certified Barovsky as eligible for the 2006 council race. The group said Barovsky could not run for another term because she would be termed-out in April by the city law that limits council members to two terms. Barovsky served a partial term from 2000 to 2002 after the death of her husband, Harry Barovsky, and then was elected to a full term in 2002 that will conclude in April.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs sided with the citizens group on Feb. 3, citing in her ruling an impartial analysis written by then-City Attorney Richard Terzian that appeared on the ballot in 2000 when voters approved term limits. It stated that a partial term counts as a full term. The actual law does not say anything about partial terms.
The appellate panel agreed the afternoon of Feb. 6 to hear the case after receiving a petition from Hogin that morning requesting the appellate process be accelerated because the ballot needed to be printed at the end of the week. The appeal process usually takes more than a year.
In the majority decision, Presiding Justice Paul Turner wrote that the law clearly states nobody can run for more than two four-year terms. And since Barovsky’s partial term was less than four years, he reasoned that did not affect her eligibility to run for council this year. However, in the dissenting opinion, Justice Richard M. Mosk wrote that because of the impartial analysis that appeared on the 2000 ballot, one must assume it was the voters’ intent that a partial term be counted as a full term.
There are five candidates running for two council seats in this year’s election. The other candidates are Mayor Andy Stern, Ryan Embree, Ed Gillespie and John Mazza. There will also be a measure on the ballot asking voters if they want to increase the maximum number of terms a council member can serve from two to three. Election Day is April 11.