With all the information and misinformation swirling around regarding the term limits case involving Councilmember Sharon Barovsky, I thought I would put forward my own analysis. Now that the California Supreme Court has the case, here is what could happen.
The Supremes could issue a “summary reversal,” outright declaring that the Court of Appeal’s 2-1 majority decision was wrong, and directing them to adopt the well-reasoned dissenting opinion of highly respected Justice Richard Mosk. The grounds for reversal would be that well-established precedent, both prior Supreme court decisions and oft-cited appellate court decisions, conflict with Justice Paul Turner’s carelessly written majority opinion and that the Malibu voters’ intent, as reflected in what was presented to us on the ballot in the 2000 term limits measure, must prevail.
The Court could decide to hear the case, and issue an expedited ruling following the logic of above or affirming Justice Turner, which would have the effect of overruling the will of 64 percent of Malibu’s voters.
The Court could refuse to hear the case, which would leave conflicting appellate court decisions for future California courts to agonize over regarding which precedent to follow.
The City Attorney made a lot of noise about the importance of getting everything resolved in this case before the ballots for the April 11 election were printed, but the fact is, if the Supreme Court acts at any time before the absentee ballots are mailed out and rules against Ms. Barovsky, it would be a simple matter to line out her name on the ballots. If Ms. Barovsky is declared termed out, any votes for her would have to be deemed illegally cast by the City Clerk. If the Supreme Court does not act before the election, several things could occur. Ms. Barovsky could lose the election, mooting the case in all probability or she could win the election, and if she survives the inevitable further challenge to her taking office then once the Supremes rule, Ms. Barovsky would either be free to serve out her term or would be removed from office by court order. Also, in the unlikely event that Measure U passes, Ms. Barovsky would be eligible to serve up to two more four-year terms depending on how the Supremes rule in the term limits case.
Ted Vaill