Another candidate is ineligible to run because he has less than the required 20 signatures from registered Malibu voters on his nomination papers. The city attorney says candidate Ryan Embree’s campaign statement cannot appear on the ballot because it illegally attacks an incumbent.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
Controversy has already engulfed the 2006 City Council campaign just a little more than a week since it officially began.
Late last week, a group of Malibu activists filed a lawsuit against the city, alleging that Councilmember Sharon Barovsky is not eligible to run for reelection because she will be termed-out in April due to city law. Also, Candidate Ryan Embree’s campaign ballot statement that he turned into City Hall has been declared illegal by City Attorney Christi Hogin because it attacks Barovsky. Hogin said state law limits ballot statements to promoting the candidates who write them and they cannot be used as a method to challenge other candidates. And Jan Swift, a mysterious unknown figure who entered the race, is already out of it because only 17 of the signatures on his nomination came from registered Malibu voters. The requirement is 20.
Four people who are no strangers to Malibu politics filed the Barovsky suit: former Planning Commissioner Richard Carrigan, former City Council candidate John Wall, Emily Harlow (widow of former Mayor John Harlow) and activist Sherman Baylin. In their suit, they allege Barovsky is not an eligible candidate because she would be running for a third term. A city law approved by Malibu voters in 2000 limits council members to two four-year terms.
Barovsky served a partial term from 2000 to 2002 (first being appointed by the council and later elected by the residents to fill the remainder of the term of her late husband, Harry Barovsky) and will complete her first full term in April. An impartial analysis written by then-interim City Attorney Richard Terzian of the 2000 term-limits measure that appeared on the ballot said a partial term counts as a full term. The actual proposal presented to the voters on the ballot said council members would be limited to two terms, without specifying any length for the terms. However, city code states that council members are limited to two four-year terms and makes no reference to partial terms.
“The voters relied on and trusted the wording that appeared on the ballot, which was written by the city attorney, and the voters overwhelmingly approved it,” Carrigan said. “Now, one member of the City Council feels entitled to ignore this law. No one is above the law.”
Barovsky said the suit was politically motivated and that she was disappointed with Carrigan, who had been her political ally since late 2004. The two had been opponents before that.
“I have been assured by several election attorneys that there is no case here,” Barovsky said. “So I intend to run a positive campaign and hope we can elevate the political discourse in the town.”
City Attorney Hogin said Terzian made a mistake with his analysis, but that does not affect the law and Barovsky is eligible to run.
The anti-Barovsky group has hired prominent political attorney Frederic D. Woocher for its case. Carrigan said he was, as of Tuesday morning, the only person paying for the suit. But he said he would accept offers from others to contribute to the cost.
Woocher argued in his petition to the court that Barovsky is ineligible to run because of Terzian’s statement. And he wrote that he agrees with Terzian’s analysis because if Barovsky were to win in the election this year, she would “be elected to two four-year terms and a third, partial term-in direct contravention of the term-limits ordinance.”
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs will hear arguments for the suit on Feb. 3 at 9:30 a.m. at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles.
Embree’s campaign statement that Hogin said violated state law includes seven paragraphs attacking Barovsky, who he does not mention by name but refers to as “the current six-year incumbent.” Hogin said Embree was given the opportunity for the two paragraphs at the beginning and a line at the end of his statement not attacking Barovsky to be put on the ballot, but he chose to withdraw the entire document.
Embree said he disagreed with Hogin’s decision because the state law says that candidates in their campaign statements “may include the name, age and occupation… and a brief description, of… education and qualifications,” but does not say the candidate is prohibited from attacking other candidates. It only specifies that judicial candidates are not allowed to do that.
Swift’s removal from the campaign could be a temporary situation. He said he might try to reenter the race as a write-in candidate. John Mazza, who is running this year, ran as a write-in candidate in 2004, finishing last in the voting.
The other candidates running for the two seats up for grabs in the April 11 election are Mayor Andy Stern and Chamber of Commerce Board member Ed Gillespie.