News Analysis
Looking at a picture of a tense group of people huddled over a table examining ballots, one might be inclined to believe they are down in Palm Beach County, Florida, but they’d be wrong.
This time, the scene is the Registrar of Voters office in Norwalk, Los Angeles County, and the ballots they’re staring at are ballots from Malibu, Calif. The results they’re pondering are those from the recent city balloting for Propositions N and P. That battle, like the Florida battle, is, apparently, far from over.
As we go to press on late Tuesday afternoon, the Registrar of Voters has put the final results onto its Web site at www.LAVote.org. According to the final count, which is expected to be certified, Proposition N passed with 3,278 Yes votes against 2,930 No votes. This means the proposed development deal between the City of Malibu and the Malibu Bay Company will go onto some future ballot to be voted up or down by Malibu voters.
The catch — Proposition P (the Right-to-Vote on Development initiative) also passed, although only by 6 votes. Initially, after the first count, it was behind by 11 votes. But as late absentee ballots were counted, the gap closed to 8 votes. Finally, as the provisional votes were counted, it edged ahead by 6 votes out of more than 6,350 votes cast, which is .00094 percent, in a situation reminiscent of the Florida race.
The question is — does it matter if Proposition P passed since Proposition N got more votes?
Since Proposition N received more votes and also contained a so-called “poison pill,” it allegedly knocks out Proposition P.
That was the theory, but the answer may not be quite so simple.
According to Attorney Fred Woocher, who represents the Yes on P group, he believes that these two measures do not conflict.
“I don’t think N cancels out P,” said Woocher.
Ultimately, a trial court or an appellate court will have to decide whether Woocher is correct or the contrary opinion of Malibu City Attorney Steve Amerikaner is correct. If the election decision stands after a recount, and both N and P pass, with N getting the most votes, then we’re probably on our way to court or to a new political deal.
Both P and N supporters were down at the Registrar of Voters on Monday, at an informal meeting called by the registrar, to hear about the election, the recount procedures and to look at the voter rolls, closely supervised by two officials from the County Registrar’s office. Although neither side would admit it on the record, both sides were also looking to see if they could disqualify some votes. For example, they were looking to see if any of the voters were ineligible to vote because they had registered at their business address or perhaps lived outside the city limits.
The statutory rules allow five calendar days for demanding a recount, which is roughly Dec. 7. It is expected, with only 100 votes separating Propositions N and P, and P’s passage by the barest of margins, that one side or the other, or both, will ask for a recount. A recount means a hand recount.
According to observers, L.A. County avoids the entire “dimpled ballot” question altogether by following a much more conservative rule and only counts ballots where three corners have been punched through.
There are some interesting recount rules from the California Elections Code that may be different than the rules in the State of Florida. The party making the recount request has to pay for it.
The registrar’s office estimated it would take one to four days to complete the recount and would cost about $4,500. The recount is open to the public, supervised, with both sides allowed observers. The results of a recount in California “are null and void unless every vote in which the contest appeared is recounted,” which apparently means no partial recounts allowed. If the results change, then the election results are recertified.
Final Election results
(as of 11/28/00)
Proposition N (development deal)
Yes – 3,278 (52.86%)
No – 2,930 (47.26%)
Proposition P (right to vote)
Yes – 3,178 (50.05%)
No – 3,172 (49.95%)