Tuesday, June 10, 2008

 

County elections department says Johanna can file for a write-in candidacy - but the law probably says otherwise

Reported in today's Times Standard.

The more I review the law the more I think they're dead wrong. And still neither Crnich nor the Secretary of State is citing any law to support the position - and still no mention whatsoever of Elections Code section 8141, the runoff provision. The question is whether anybody will file a legal challenge.

Addendum: I don't have time at the moment to research this, but in a thread below "Jane Doe" brought my attention back to a case I had written off as inapplicable. I'm having second thoughts.
In the published decision Bradley v Perrodin, (2003) 106 Cal. App. 4th 1153, the court cited Edelstein:

"A runoff election, as Perrodin correctly points out, is merely the second round of voting in a single election. (Edelstein v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 29 Cal.4th 164, 174, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 727, 56 P.3d 1029.)
It appears to be dicta, meaning that it's a portion of an opinion which is not directly pertinent to the central point of the ruling. And it doesn't cite the legal authority for the runoff (ie. whether it's section 8141 or a Los Angeles municipal code provision). But as one poster below points out, the entire discussion of Bradley is state law.

I'm sorry, but I can't shake the feeling that there's a bit of laziness in play in the Secretary of State's office.

If somebody has the resources and time, look up the LA Code to see if they have their own runoff provision. If not, then the courts have an opinion about the issue that differs from the state and local elections departments.

Second addendum: More from the Bradley decision:
A runoff election, as Perrodin correctly points out, is merely the second round of voting in a single election. ( Edelstein v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 29 Cal.4th 164, 174 [126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 727, 56 P.3d 1029].) [***14] If one of the candidates receives a majority of the votes cast in the primary election, there is no need for a runoff election. Where no majority is achieved in the primary election, only those candidates who qualify in the primary election may participate in the runoff election. There is no new filing period for a runoff election.
If they're talking about 8141, the election departments are dead wrong. Period.

Thanks to Jane Doe for making me take another look.

Third addendum: Kimberly Wear, who has been on the story for the Times Standard and worked overtime to clarify the issue over the past few days, has done the research for me and found that the LA Code does in fact have a charter which specifically eliminates write-ins for the ensuing election. Although Bradley didn't specifically cite the local statute, it didn't cite 8141 either. Here is subsection h of L.A. Code section 312.
(h) There shall be no write-in candidates allowed for General Municipal
Elections. The provisions of this section shall apply to write-in candidates in Special Elections unless otherwise provided by ordinance, except that there
shall be no write-in candidates allowed for Special Runoff Elections.
The argument is obvious, namely that if SF and LA thought they were covered by the state law they would not have bothered to provide against ensuing election write-ins in their own charters. The SF law was passed in 1973. I don't know about the LA law. I do know that section 6122, the predecessor of section 8141 was also amended in 1973, but I don't have easy access to that amendment. I also know that the state law which preceded 6122 had allowed for write-ins by specifying that that the candidates winning the primary shall be placed upon the ballot. That wording was removed in either 1961 or 1973. If the L.A. code preceded 1973 then it too may have been a response to the old code.

Again, the SOS has easy access to the legislative history for Section 8141. That would clarify one way or another.

Ms. Wear has gone out of her way here following my criticism earlier in the week, and I appreciate her effort.

Comments:
Another reason that the county needs a charter.
 
Well, that certainly clears up all the confusion.
 
My main concern was that Estelle will still be on the Ballot.

May the best candidate win! I assume that will be the person that garners the most votes. It won't have to be 50%+ 1 vote.

Let the games began!
 
Mresquan, the county needs, and DOESN'T need and bunch of things, that is why Estelle is running.
 
Ernie, WAKE UP OLD MAN! Estelle is a spoiler. A SPOILER! This news is COMPLETE CONFIRMATION of this fact. If she cares about the 2nd district at all she will DROP OUT and endorse Clif. In case you didn't notice, Rodoni won on June 3rd! There is no motive other than selfishness for Estelle to stay in this race. She came in a DISTANT THIRD PLACE and I know you think this was some kind of 'strategy' on her part, and if you believe that, you like having smoke blown up your ass.
 
May the best candidate win! I assume that will be the person that garners the most votes. It won't have to be 50%+ 1 vote.

Sorry Ernie. I'm not even sure about that.
 
Eric, if you're not even sure about the requirements of plurality vs. 50%+1 come Nov. 3rd it really makes me doubt your claims at all. If there is this much obscurity involved in the process, then the Registrar of Voters and SOS probably have got it right. In which case you have noone else to blame but yourself. You said Estelle was not a threat to Clif, because of this runoff process. You were wrong. Dead wrong. Now you have cost Clif the election and allowed Estelle to parade around as though she is Hillary Clinton! When are you going to start calling for Estelle to drop out? Or are you going to drag Clif through the mud with legal challenges to a write-in candidate?? You guys screwed up big time.
 
11:45 - don't blame me, I didn't draft the laws. Look at them yourself and tell me where it's clarified.
 
Ernie,we need a charter so that we don't have to refer back to often obscure state laws to determine how elections are run.Amongst other things.
 
And 11:45, let me just add that it's probably not clarified because the assumption behind 8141 is that there are only going to be two candidates in a spot for one position, meaning that one will have to get more than half. 8142 sets up a provision for a tie. 8140 requires 50 percent plus 1. So if 8141 was not intended to limit the candidates to two, then that's a glaring omission.
 
Well Eric, I said last week that if the SOS made the call, thats it. Just as several months ago I said Estelle is a spoiler any way you cut it.

So if there is a legal challenge, will Estelle stand behind Clif and foot half the bill? My next prediction is no, thats if there is a challenge at all.

The only smart thing to do is have Estelle drop out (She should never have been in this race) and endorse and work towards Clif's election. That is the only thing that will make the write-in question moot. Because a lawsuit looks bad, doesn't look like a clear-cut win, and I would have to say is pretty undemocratic.
 
So I'll ask you this one time Eric, are you going to call for Estelle to drop out? Or are you going for the unclear legal option?

Inaction is the surest way to get Rodoni elected.
 
Supervisor Heider was also thought of as a spoiler going into his election, and indeed he did not garner the votes needed to win in the primary, but he did win the general. Please don't discount a good candidate just because she didn't finish in first place, that is why we have general elections.
 
Look at Obama, people from his opponents camps urged him to drop out too....now look at him he is the frontrunner and so will Estelle be!

There are still over 1,500 absentee ballots that are yet to be counted just in the 2nd district. The November election is completely up for grabs.
Let the voters decide not the poisonous clendenan negatarians .
 
Ernie, please. So what is your theory on how Estelle would beat both Clif and Johanna when she was TEN POINTS behind both of them? And that was with what was apparently a large turnout in SoHum?

Ernie, you are blowing smoke up the asses of Clifs entire campaign. You got them to hold off on Estelle June 3rd. But I don't think you can worm your way around it this time. 3rd place Ernie. 3rd place!
 
Well Eric, I said last week that if the SOS made the call, thats it.

Well, no, two things can happen.

1. The SOS changes her mind (and/or Crnich).

2. Someone files a legal challenge.

As for calling for Estelle to drop out, well, that's not my call. Candidates run because they believe they would be good for the community. Besides, it's not absolutely clear whom that would help. Sohum voters might just sit out the election as before, and that wouldn't help anybody.
 
You know what, you guys are just plain stupid. Johanna deserves to win at this point. A house divided will not stand. The Estelle camp apparently doesn't understand that. Johanna does though.

We don't deserve to win because your ego's have gotten in the way. Estelle's stubbornness has clouded her judgment. We don't deserve to win!
 
Estelle has to stay in the race. Most of the rodoni votes will go to Estelle in November. She was the only one that spoke out against the county spending our much needed tax dollars (2 million to date) on the failed Tooby lawsuite against Bob Mckee. clendenan said there was not enough info for him to "comment"on that county lawsuite. BUT he claims he will be fiscally responsible?

clendenan continues to be an uninformed wimp and will lose in November to Estelle.
 
Look ar 12:24 Eric. This is the mindset Clif is up against. Estelles supporters don't need facts. They are living in a fantasy world. It's up to you and other Clif supporters to confront these people. Call a spade a spade. We all know Estelle stands no chance of gaining Rogers voters. Especially if Johanna can run! This is like I am in the Twilight Zone. Wake up Clif! Wake up Estelle!
 
Eric, I do wish you would stop your anti-democracy campaign because it is really disgustingly ugly politics on your part. Really low-life gutter sniping crapola to try to disenfranchise the majority of 2nd District voters.

You're obsession with winning by cheating voters is something you and your fellow Prog anon-a-holes like J.P. at Heraldo's Hideaway will be remembered for come November.
 
As it stands now there will be a run off with Estelle and cledenan. I'm voting for Estelle. Of the two, she is the only one with the experience and desire to hear people out and include them. She has a better grasp and understanding of the TPZ issues and she doesn't just care about fortuna city politics like cledenan.
 
Um, maybe that's why Clif got so many more votes in Fortuna. It's certainly why he's a stronger candidate: he's in tune with the issues of our district's population base. I'm glad he wants to work with us too.
 
Great! Great! Great! Let the fun begin. Vote for Johanna Rodoni. I love Humboldt County. I love America where freedom rings right dab in the middle of a socialist take over.
 
If Estelle or any people on her campaign reads any of this crap you must know that all of this negative stuff is being intentionally generated by clendenans camp.

They have been waging a negative campaign from the beginning and they haven't stopped.

For example, I received a call from the clendenan campaign right before the election. The woman asked me who I was supporting but I did not want to tell her. She then went on to say Estelle was for "big Box" and cliff wasn't so I should vote for him.

I knew this woman was making this up about Estelle because I had just read and also heard Estelle say that she was for "mixed use" regarding big box, EStelle explained that she is for light industry development as well as numerous retail opportunities for local business' . cliff on the other hand is on record stating that he is not anti-big box, he stated that there is a place for big box just not in fortuna next to his property.

I do not appreciate when anyone's campaign has to resort to such dishonest tactics to try and get people to vote for their candidate. I am going to pay closer attention and will expose these dishonest tactics if they surface again.
 
"she doesn't just care about fortuna city politics like cledenan"

Something else that Eric is threatening litigation on - for Clif to insert himself as a Supe into city business, like retail development within city limits.

Fortunately, he will be proven wrong on that one, just as he has been smacked down convincingly here.
 
When Clif came to my door in Fortuna, his mouth was smiling, his eyes were not. Creepy.
 
Eric, the TS article was not clear. Why should anyone have to take legal action to stop Johanna? Anyone can have their name written on any ballot, and if people want to write in Johanna, Roger, or Elmer Fudd theres nobody going to stop them. It is up to the integrety of the county elections office only to tally votes for a legitimate candidate. Johanna, Roger, and Elmer Fudd are not legitimate candidates in this runoff election, by the clear rules stated before the election. Let them sue.
 
Clif was going around town smelling like a sweaty mule! Clif, it is called deodorant. Use it.
 
How do eyes smile?
 
Eric, the TS article was not clear. Why should anyone have to take legal action to stop Johanna? Anyone can have their name written on any ballot, and if people want to write in Johanna, Roger, or Elmer Fudd theres nobody going to stop them. It is up to the integrety of the county elections office only to tally votes for a legitimate candidate. Johanna, Roger, and Elmer Fudd are not legitimate candidates in this runoff election, by the clear rules stated before the election. Let them sue.

I'm simply focusing on what the law says, and it says that an ensuing election is simply part of a two phase election which prohibits more than two candidates in the runoff. It's not just my reading. It's the California Supreme and Appellate courts'. Their reading makes more sense to me than the SOS', but I'm really just the messenger.

So far, neither the SOS nor Crnich have stated the legal basis for their positions. Maybe I'll get a response to my letter, but I suspect it'll be a cryptic form letter which reads "there is nothing to prohibit" a write-in campaign.

What also amazes me is the absolute lack of critical questioning from the Times Standard about the elections dept. opinions. They just cite them as if they're law. They're not. Statutes and case decisions are law. The TS should know better and dig a little deeper. Very frustrating.
 
De nada, Eric. I am very curious as well as to how they are going to get around the filing date. If a run-off is a continuation of the original election with no new filing date, as the appeals court made quite clear in Bradley v Perrodin, how can a write-in candidate file?
 
That was me above. I have trouble with my nick not sticking when I post.
 
A write in is completely seperate from candidates on the ballot. Come november we will have 2 people on the actual ballot, Clif and if she doesn't drop out (hint, hint) Estelle. So the runoff still stands. But without clarification regarding what happens to the write-in portion, it sounds to me that the SOS is going to get her way.
 
Stop anonymously saying that Estelle should drop out.

Ignore the bullies, Estelle and stay in this race and win! You go, girl!
 
Drop out? Stupid idea projected by Anna Bananas and Anonymii. Do a little research.

When Reagan screwed it all up, where was Clif? Decline-to-state.

When Bush invaded, where was Clif? Decline-to-state.

When Clinton did not have sex, where was Clif? Decline-to-state.

When Dubya burned the constitution and lied us into a pre-emptive war for oil, where was Clif? Nobody knows. He's decline-to-state. When Maxxam took over, screwed it all up, took over the Fortuna Council, laid off our neighbors and went belly-up, where was Clif? Decline-to-state, that's where.

Clif has avoided politics his whole life. That's how you survive in Fortuna. Now he needs a job. That's cool.

Lying and smearing a well-intentioned, honest opponent like Estelle Fennell is Not Cool. Maybe it's some rednecks trying to make Clif look bad. If you people are really backing Clif, back off because you only hurt his cause with this crap.
 
So if you're declined to state that means you don't have an opinion or give a shit ?
 
Carol, nobody is trying to bully Estelle. She came in third place. And a distant third place at that. Even with SoHums higher than average turnout she was well behind. You're putting feminism before the good of the 2nd district (Do you live here, btw?). She stands no chance of beating either Clif or Johanna in Fortuna, as this election proved beyond a doubt.

You don't have any facts with which to support her and be reasonable about it. Instead you claim Clif's people are trying to bully her. I think you need some perspective Carol.
 
Anyways,back to the discussion at hand,I kind of hope that she does run despite the fact that she already could have run and chose not to simply because I wouldn't mind seeing her lose,which I believe would happen,to further prove that that district is up for a change in the guard away from the old guard which has made pot growing and ROTR the only viable economic bases for the district.
Not only that,it'll change the course of elections here drastically as this could become a popular way to get on the ballot,and really could favor liberals in the end.But I'm with Eric and sec.8141 should prevent this from occurring.
 
2:43, it's just stock propaganda. No need to reply to such stuff. Rah! Rah! the supporters even as the ship sinks.
 
Now that we have MarkyMark Konkler's legal opinion I can rest easy.
 
I just want to point out that the people that are knocking Estelle don't even live in the second district. There are some real devious and divisive people out there.
 
I am still getting a pretty good chuckle out of Ernie saying that Estelle's third place finish was part of an overall strategy! How Machiavellian! lol
 
well, estelle shouldn't sue; clif will wipe her out if its one on one- she needs something like johanna running to muck things up, give her some kind of chance...problem is she would still need 34%, something she can't get with ROTR bias perceptions raining on her (lack of) parade...
 
Eric, if you truly believe Clif is now in the drivers seat in this election you better start encouraging him to act like one. And Clif did place 2nd. So if this result is repeated, we will be looking at a Johanna win. He needs to start getting aggressive. Right now he is being completely passive.
 
"And Clif did place 2nd. So if this result is repeated, we will be looking at a Johanna win."

Well actually Clif could be in first,with quite a few votes left to be counted.
 
True.
 
Eric,
The San Diego election website shows there were four elections for mayor, 3/2/04, 11/2/04, 7/26/04 and 11/8/05. The last two were special elections. Until there was a mjority winner, the run off elections continued. The TS article refers to an "uproar" but doesn't explain the whole process in San Diego.

It may be that the Nov election won't be decisive unless a candidate receives a majority vote. The HumCo elections office needs to clarify that if they say write-ins are allowed.

BTW, Donna Frye(who seems the "liberal" candidate) lost the last election with 46% of the vote.
 
oops, thats 7/26/05
 
How can you have a runoff after a runoff? The Supervisor would be sworn in in December. That's not enough time to have yet another election.
 
not a native - it may be that San Diego and many other elections have been held improperly, which may account for the resistance to even looking at section 8141 and the Edelstein/Bradley cases. In any case, the law is the law. You start with the statutes, and then you look at the cases. After that you look at administrative opinions and the like. It's not rocket science.
 
mresquan said...
"So if you're declined to state that means you don't have an opinion or give a shit ?"

Clif has no evidence of past activities that shows he gives a shit about anything outside of his structured Farm Bureau/Christian community.

It is very likely he has made very few mistakes in his life, at least any that were witnessed and not covered up by his 'community'. His supporters are relying on this squeakyclean stick of a man to walk unscathed through the filth they pour out on Estelle.

Estelle is tough. She has an honest integrated vitality that is rare, and she is only looking forward and up, having already been forged by where she's been. I wish we could all be so ready to keep growing! I also wish we didn't have to be so afraid of making mistakes.

I think DTS voters were often those whose parties have gone defunct, and they had to choose something. If they have a politically active community, they vote with them but always must sit on the fence....no mistakes.
 
Clif has no evidence of past activities that shows he gives a shit about anything outside of his structured Farm Bureau/Christian community.

You've got to be kidding!
 
"So if you're declined to state that means you don't have an opinion or give a shit ?"

You said it. I didn't.
 
Eric V. Kirk said...
Clif has no evidence of past activities that shows he gives a shit about anything outside of his structured Farm Bureau/Christian community.

"You've got to be kidding!"

Eric, list his activities in the 1970's, 1980,s 1990, and all the way up to when he spoke up regarding the general plan in the Fortuna in 2007. There is a huge black hole here.

There have been several major issues involving citizens of Fortuna, and Clif has been involved with none of them.

Ok. Apple Harvest Festival happened and he went along with it. And he plays the mandolin, and introduces acts for the Fortuna Concert Series. Commendable, but hardly qualifies one to be supervisor.

To be honest, Clif has done a little more than most people know, and you Eric have already said that no one is squeaky clean. Perceptive people can tell if someone's eyes and mouth don't smile together. Wooden. No charisma.
 
DTS voters are simply people who don't want to be married to a political party. It's really that simple.

Quite frankly, my association with the Democratic Party is that I see it as the most efficient vehicle for progressive politics in the electoral forum. It's not a political party in the European sense, or in the sense of the Green Party or American Independent Party. It's an amalgamation really, where progressives tend to congregate. The Republican party is where conservatives tend to congregate.

Currently, the most left wing Senator in the country is DTS. Anybody want to argue that Bernie Sanders is someone who doesn't have an opinion?
 
I don't live in the 2nd district so it really isn't my business, but I think either Estelle or Clif would make a fine supervisor. Decline to state means exactly that and no more. Making assumptions that because someone hasn't stated their political affiliation means they don't care or hasn't been involved in political issues is idiotic.

I wish both sides would stop the negative attacks like that above and focus on their positives. If the county clerk sticks with her current opinion, even if Johanna doesn't run, a HumCPR backed candidate probably will and you are just giving ammunition to the non progressive(s). Do you really think that would be a better outcome than Clif or Estelle winning?
 
Clif is the kind of man who needs a woman to hold his hand. Drop out for Clif, campaign for Clif, sue for Clif, get out of Clif the mans way! Hell no scumbag Clif! This time the women of the second district know that holding out a helping hand for this manboy means he will hold all of us down. Well we will no longer be your bitch. We will no longer be silent as you backhand us time and again. You men all think the same. If only this powerful bitch would get out of the way! Well she will never back down. And if she appears to coddle you at any time it is only for the purpose of getting close so that she might smother you with a figurative pillow! Choke manboy! You will never put me in the kitchen! And you will never put my sisters in the kitchen. For a thousand years women have been waiting for this day of deliverance. We stand between the candle and the star! Between darkness and light! If you value your lives you will do what you do best, watch out for your own interests. So to you, Clif, I say to you drop out now! Drop out or face the wrath of those you seek to shackle!
 
Write-in papers can be filed up until two weeks out. You have four and a half months left. Estelle and Clif have nothing to gain by smearing one another. The people they represent can only lose.

Stick to the truth. The billionaires boys club gains with this kind of smearing and swearing at each other. The people who live here are the losers when it gets this bad. Learn to disagree without being destructive.

Stop dissing the other guy and do something to help your candidate. Trying to intimidate the other candidate does not count.

It's going to be a long summer.

Peace.
 
This is from Clif's site.

Clif Clendenen was born on January 12, 1953, in Scotia to Andy and Carol Clendenen. He was raised on his family's nearly 100-year-old farm, Clendenen's Cider Works, on the banks of the Eel River in Fortuna. He graduated from Fortuna High School in 1971, and from the University of California at Davis in 1975 with a degree in botany.

After graduating from high school, Clif began working for the California Department of Forestry. In 1971, he was a firefighter in Garberville, and the following year was a firefighter in Whitethorn. In 1973, Clif worked as an engineer for CDF in Fortuna. After college, Clif traveled and worked as a carpenter. In 1978, he joined his parents at Clendenen's Cider Works, which he has operated for the past three decades, augmenting a seasonal farm income with carpentry.

When he's not working on the farm or greeting customers at his shop, Clif enjoys walking, backpacking and playing the mandolin. Growing up in Fortuna, he was active in Boy Scout Troop 81, eventually achieving the rank of Eagle Scout. In 1986, he married his wife Laurie, a special education teacher at Fortuna Middle School. His son Drew, 20, recently moved to Mt. Shasta to become a member of the Mt. Shasta Ski Patrol, and his daughter, Elizabeth, 18, is a freshman at Westmont College in Santa Barbara.

Clif's community involvement has included:

* Developing the Fortuna Apple Harvest Festival, now in its 23rd year

* Past board member of the Fortuna Chamber of Commerce

* Founding president of the Fortuna Concert Series

* Member of the Design Committee for Fortuna Middle School

* Past director of Humboldt County Farm Bureau

* Active engagment in Fortuna's General Plan Update.

Clif has written and spoken to encourage responsible planning and development that will preserve Fortuna's small-town character and foster sound economic development and diversification.

 
Write-in papers can be filed up until two weeks out. You have four and a half months left.

Well, the legal issue really has to be resolved before the ballots are printed.
 
So wonderful that Eric is now an expert on election law. Maybe he should sue the County to keep Johanna off the ballot.
 
In Brady v Perrodin, Brady won the initial case because they found that the SOS didn't hold another lottery to decide the order of the names on the ballot. However, the Appeals Court overturned that decision because a run-off isn't a new election, has the same deadline as the original race, and so no new lottery was required to change the position of the names on the ballot. BTW, the SOS didn't do another lottery for the same reason.
 
Clendenen uses agribusiness chemicals on his orchard. They are toxic. He is toxic and uninformed. At least Estelle has a clue.

Vote for Estelle.
 
How do eyes smile?

Tue Jun 10, 01:35:00 PM

Though we may show a polite grin or camera smile at will, the zygomatic or heartfelt smile is hard to produce on demand.

see http://members.aol.com/nonverbal2/zygosmi.htm#ZYGOMATIC%20SMILE
 
During Estelles time at KMUD she was known for releasing large quantities of radiation via three major sources on the nortcoast. She used the excuse of the radiation being a form of communication. But these radiation emmissions are known to cause cancer.

Estelle causes cancer!
 
Estelle can never truly represent the families in the community.

As I understand it, you are allowed to write someone's name in, on ANY vote, in ANY race! C'mon this is still the USA, right? Besides, I voted for Roger. So I'll probably exercise my right as a free US citizen and write in the name of his wife Joanna, or anyone else I please, in November.
 
One interesting observation I have made about southern humboldt in general... there is a group in sohum that have no clue what civilized citizens believing in the rule of law act like and what purpose is served by conducting themselves ethically. Producing a win based on facts instead of bribes, bullying, and lying this group seems to automatically think everyone is doing the crappy things they pull. In reality most other people would never do those things!
 
People who smear progressive candidates are working for the conservatives. This scorched earth policy of some alleged Clif and Estelle supporters is incredible as in not credible.
 
So wonderful that Eric is now an expert on election law. Maybe he should sue the County to keep Johanna off the ballot.

I'm really not an expert. I'm just somebody who's read the codes and two cases on the subject. If you disagree with my reading of either, please share your thoughts. Otherwise, the sniping is really unnecessary.
 
Read the goddamn case eric instead of just printing what you want out of context.

First, a case can not be cited for something that wasn't at issue in the case.

Second, if you read that case then you would see that 15340 allows a write in in the general election, but that the constitution DOES NOT PRECLUDE A CHARTER CITY FROM PASSING AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING A WRITE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. Since 15430 is still the law and there is no charter to the contrarty, then you lose.

Now, say you are wrong and play nicely with others.
 
My bad - bad typo. "contrarty" should be contrary!
 
People who smear progressive candidates are working for the conservatives. This scorched earth policy of some alleged Clif and Estelle supporters is incredible as in not credible.

Or provocateurs.
 
First, a case can not be cited for something that wasn't at issue in the case.

Second, if you read that case then you would see that 15340 allows a write in in the general election, but that the constitution DOES NOT PRECLUDE A CHARTER CITY FROM PASSING AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING A WRITE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. Since 15430 is still the law and there is no charter to the contrarty, then you lose.


First, yes you can, if the issue is joined at the hip because the ruling determines the scope of application of the same law.

Second, 15340 was discussed in great detail in Edelstein, which defined a runoff election process as a single election with two phases. If 8141 was intended to limit the number of candidates in the "ensuing election" then it does not run afoul of 15340. That was the Edelstein ruling. And Bradley suggests, in the absence of an LA election code similar to SF's, that 8141 was so intended.

I'll assume you missed my earlier posts on the subject.
 
Yes, Eric. Provocateurs. I don't believe progressives would stoop to such nasty lying smears of any candidate, much less a fellow progressive and it is happening from both alleged sides in equal measure. Stinks doesn't it?
 
Otherwise, the sniping is really unnecessary.
Tue Jun 10, 05:22:00 PM

The sniping that this person (4:46) is doing does nothing but show that the person is an idiot.
All Eric has done is research the law and case law. He has shown you and everyone else the words he has found. He has explained it in a way that even I can understand. You don't like what he has produced then maybe you should argue the merits instead of attacking the messenger. Tell me where you think he is wrong.
I’m waiting.
 
The Times-Standard also contacted an elections law expert and the Secretary of State's office, and were provided with the same answer: There is no legal reason in the state Elections Code that bars Johanna Rodoni from making same try here.
”I think the short answer is there is no prohibition in state law,” said attorney Fred Woocher, who has litigated election contests up and down the state.


Woocher goes on to dis the case Eric likes as being a case about local ordinances rather than state law. I'm in Alaska on a vacation so I'm not reading election law but when I did I arrived at the same conclusion Eric did.

BUT, Eric, I don't see that the T-S has to dig deeper than the local elections official, especially when supported by an elections lawyer, to flesh out an elections article. I know you don't agree with them, and I may not either (pending rereading in light of Woocher's ideas) but I can't fault the T-S on this one.

I favor write-ins for all elections, which is not the same thing as saying I think the law allows it. But, truth to say, in a non-partisan election such as that for county supervisor, what's the point in a run-off anyway. Why not just have the winner win the election?

I really don't understand the Estelle drop-out thread (or is it one person posting repeatedly?). If the election is between Estelle and Clif,it looks like Clif will win unless Johanna backs Estelle, but there is no reason on earth that she should not work to get the office, even as the underdog.

If Johanna can run a write-in campaign, and elects to do so (note the subtle pun) then the only hope for beating her is for either Clif or Estelle to drop out, but we're a long way from having any such situation arise: maybe we have to have a court challenge if the SoS & elections officials allow write-ins, and Johanna wants to be one - so, ever;yone, don't count your chickens just yet. This election is proving engrossing and entertaining on the local and national levels. -ED
 
Here are the words of a lying sack of political do-do. Eric is one of Clif Clendenen's main campaign advisors and he is doing his level best to disenfranchise all of Johanna's constituency which means he's trying to stop the majority of voters from having any candidate on the November ballot.

Here's Eric's sleazeball denials of what he's really about:

"I'm simply focusing on what the law says, and it says that an ensuing election is simply part of a two phase election which prohibits more than two candidates in the runoff. It's not just my reading. It's the California Supreme and Appellate courts'. Their reading makes more sense to me than the SOS', but I'm really just the messenger."

....'I'm really just the poor innocent messenger of this BAD NEWS I'm so desperately trying to foist on all of Johanna's voters because I'm just simply Clif's PR guy and simply dishonest at bottom simply because that wins cases in court and simply fools a lot of simple-minded people on my blog who should know better than to trust the words of a lawyer/Pol.

But what do I know, I'm really not an expert on political chicanery. What's that, Eric?

"I'm really not an expert. I'm just somebody who's read the codes and two cases on the subject. If you disagree with my reading of either, please share your thoughts. Otherwise, the sniping is really unnecessary."
 
After Stephen's comment, Tue Jun 10, 06:15:00 PM, the only thing I am sure about is that I would NEVER give Stephen my write-in vote, even if it was for dog-catcher.
 
Leave it to the lawyer to say the county is doing something illegal.
 
Sooooo... Swami Gramps predicts: Noway Johanna will make it as a write in. Too many screwed up ballots. Cliff will be our next Supervisor. He will serve one term. The Swami has spoken.
 
Estelle is a complete spoiler. She likes the sound of her own voice. didn't pp do the same thing?ignoring what the community wanted, and probably laws, and just go forward with rr regardless?so why can't Johanna?
Let the games begin??Ernie, you are a complete dickwad. This is the serious business of our district and county. Everyone should be calling for Estelle the goat-spoiler to endorse Clif. Including the HCDC. Greg and Carol who slimed the TS.Where is your apology Greg?????You two should get out of the HCDC and quit dividing us even more.
Just leave it alone eric. Jesus, let people vote for Johanna if they want.
ERNIE--Estelle came in a DISTANT(and to use your word, embarrassingly low #) last place.
So Estelle makes Bob McKee an issue, and the trial is in appeal. An example of very poor insight, or a failed attempt at humor. ALL the supes wanted the lawsuit against McKee.
Lorraine, I think you said this on Thank Jah, and Estelle thinks big box is good, for her, it's just what kind of big box. Any kind would change Fortuna, and the rest of Humboldt County, for the worse.
Carol "oh i just love Obama, but I voted for Hillary, I voted for the sister and my gender", quote from thank Jah.
Estelle, you could probably have gotten more votes, but you fuc---up with the bias stand you took regards pp/ROTR.
And Mendocino ain't so thrilled with the logging practices of MRC, so maybe you should wait to applaud them when we see what kind of a job they do here. sounds like more of the same pl/maxxam shit to me.
 
In any case, the law is the law.


only until it is changed by a new law, or interpreted by another lawyer
 
It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood. I'll be making my write in vote for Johanna Rodoni.In America voting for whom we want is our right.
 
Otherwise, the sniping is really unnecessary.


unnecessary yes, but so is this entire blog thing we love so. so keep up the sniping it keeps us cumming back.
 
there is a group in sohum that have no clue what civilized citizens believing in the rule of law act like and what purpose is served by conducting themselves ethically.

there is also a group pledging their undying loyalty to satan and the black arts, and they are currently planning on county domination through mind control, obviously starting with the county supervisors.
 
Second, if you read that case then you would see that 15340 allows a write in in the general election, but that the constitution DOES NOT PRECLUDE A CHARTER CITY FROM PASSING AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING A WRITE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. Since 15430 is still the law and there is no charter to the contrarty, then you lose.

"CHARTER CITY"
I don't live in a charter city so DNA-does not apply.
 
Bush wants to leave his successor a "Legacy of international diplimacy"

Lies have become the truth across this nation and in this community.
 
well, let me say it here, as the fucking pandering IDIOT Gregor wont allow any dissenting posts on his site - Estelle is done. Greg has mucho EGG on his face for his idiotic smearing of the TS - when GUESS FUCKING WHAT - HE WAS WRONG AND THE TS Was correct, despite what EWIC wants to believe.
 
Yes any one can write in a name anytime you vote but if the person is not an official write in candidate then the vote is not counted.
 
Greg and Carol have lost much respect throughout the community recently. Starting with the Clinton event that was all but a disaster. They tried to blame everyone from Hillary herself to the Secret Service. Meanwhile they and their cronies got frontrow seats.
 
Even if Mrs. Rodoni chooses not to run, a someone with the same views probably will and will probably wait until the last minute to file. This needs to be resolved one way or the other so that everyone is playing by the same rules in future elections as well. The Appeals Court has said twice that run-off elections are not new elections, but continuation. They may take place at the general election but have different rules spelled out in a law specific to run-off elections (8141). I think the courts should have a chance to decide this.
 
If the candidates were to switch places and Clif were attempting to run as a write-in, no doubt that Arkley would sue to keep his name out of there.

And Steven would applaud.
 
"Greg and Carol have lost much respect throughout the community recently."

Carol and Greg, take this as a symbol of honor. You are being effective, your support of your candidates are appreciated by the majority as we will see in November. Go Estelle!
 
Estelle should be in the race because she, and not Clif for sure, does represent the voice of SoHum. Johanna does too in the fact that she represents the ranchers of SoHum and actually Roger pulled in not an insignificant number of hill people too.

This is Humboldt County and not a courtroom. What we citizens need to pay attention to is what elections stand for in America which is representative democracy. We get to choose who governs us by democratic vote which means the candidate with the most votes wins. In non-democratic elections, the candidate of the people in power wins no matter which way the vote goes. The people in the 2nd District voted in June and they, not the Governor, not County Council, not election officer, chose Johanna as the candidate with the most number of votes. The people chose her and that's democracy in action.

I predict that Eric will swing his anti-democracy stick towards Estelle's campaign following Clif's minions who are now free to attack Estelle with everything they've got trying to scare her out of running.

Don't do it, Estelle. If Johanna considers the election deck's stacked against her and decides not to run as a write-in candidate which I hope she does not do because I think she will win even as a write-in, I would vote for Estelle over Clif any day. Estelle came to my door on her rounds to meet Rio Dell voters. Clif didn't do that..guess his handlers thought it wasn't safe..
 
They should turn this shit into a television reality show! All of you are after each others throats!
 
Its laughable that Stephen thinks his views are those of the majority in the 2nd district. Could anyone be more of an egomaniac than this creep? The majority didn't vote for the dead Rodoni and no one voted for the live one because she wasn't running for election. In a democracy election laws are followed so everyone follows the same rules. Even if your last name is Rodoni and Stephen Lewis wants you elected.
 
Write-in candidacy is the rule, dumbo. This is America. Not some banana or people's republic where political gangsters curtain citizen's voting rights. The majority voted for Johanna in the June primary. She won it fair and square and if she wants to run for office in November as a write-in candidate that is her decision and her decision alone. Every American has the right to write in a candidate of their choice in any election for candidates for public office. Constitutionally guaranteed I guarantee you if challenged.
 
You are a delusional NUT. Johanna didn't get a single vote. About 1/3 of the people voted for her dead husband to honor him, but supervisors must receive over 50% to win an election. Not even half of the people voted for Rodoni. Keep up your lies, they are helping Estelle and Clif.
 
we need some answers and yes there's plenty of time till the election but damn i want some answers NOW...

# if there are more than two candidates in the november election is 50% needed to win? (and where--election code?-- does it say this?)

as a clif/estelle supporter it seems right that with the death and all it seems like a time in the process where a write-in is an acceptable thing...

# is there one answer, one truth? or is it another case of the best justice money can buy?

#should a judge validate this?
 
Thanks, 9:40. Anonymity has it's advantages.
 
"The majority voted for Johanna in the June primary."

Actually,she didn't receive one vote,Stephen,and no,the majority voted against well him,64%.If that wasn't true,we wouldn't even be talking about a runoff election.
 
There was ample opportunity for a write-in candidate to file between the time of Roger's death and the election. That no one chose to file is their own fault. Changing the rules at this point is unfair to the candidates who played by the rules and spent large sums of money to get this far in the process and basically cancels the original election. A write-in candidate must file or their votes won't be counted. The appeals courts have stated that a run-off election is a continuation of the original election with the same filing deadline prior to the original election.
 
If Clif loses to Rodoni(if she chooses to be a write-in candidate) Estelle will go down in history as nothing more than a SPOILER!!!
 
Greg and Carol's support means so much that Estelle was dead last in a contest of 3.
Stephen-pretty hypocritical to like Estelle when she is in favor of Bob McKee, and hugely supported by him. She would not have done anything that Roger did as fa as Tooby goes.I am so hum, and she does not represent my feelings or opinions on anything. From Tooby to reggae to big box to the Mendocino redwoods Company.....Estelle asked you for your support you told us in an earlier post???? Maybe Clif thinks you are a boob and doesn't care about courting you???
Ernie--I shop at the radio shack in Fortuna,and then am trying Winco and Costco in Eureka, trying Estelles mantra that "it depends on the kind of big box",don't need Chataqua, or Blue Moon, or the Boot Leg, who needs to shop in Garberville? Not me bucko. They have it all up north, 2 trips a month, 3 at the most, and I don't have to see your face. YEAH!!! Estelle, big box good!
 
Spittin' mad she is!
 
One good rule: whomever the pot growers want is bad for the rest of us. That would be Estelle.
 
"One good rule: whomever the pot growers want..."

For the past 12 years, that has been Rodoni.
 
Estelle already is a spoiler. Clif would be supervisor-elect right now if it wasn't for her. But what do you expect? Carol is an example of the rabid feminazi's who support her for no other reason than that she has a vagina. That's the best reason they can come up with!

Estelle's supporters will never address her lack of electability in Fortuna. They will never address the reality of her disappointing third place finish. They will never address the fact she has split her own base because of her stance on Reggae.
 
It appears in Estelle's own words and deeds she is PRO BIG-BOX and CORPORATION!!
Not the values I believe in!!
Clif, You have earned my vote.
 
No, it doesnt "appear" that Estelle is "pro big box"; she just understands that a retail development within city limits is not something that supervisor will have a material say in.

Clif and his handlers think otherwise. They are as sure of this as Eric is/was about the whole write-in thing, and you can see how that's going for them.
 
Eric's got egg on his face for sure.
 
IMHO Blogger 9:48am deserves two Pinocchio Awards for their effort at spin.
 
Hey, Eric, it appears from some commentary on-line at the T-S today that your blog is engaged in a contest to see who can be more correct about legal affairs - at least that's the way i read it. They don't mention your blog by name, just "some bloggers" but look at this sentence.

So it was with some satisfaction that we published a story that night quoting a spokeswoman at the California secretary of state's office -- which oversees elections -- as saying an attorney there found there were no obstacles to a Johanna write-in on Nov. 4.

Some satisfaction, as in "we were right all along"

What's newsworthy about this is that blogging, and this blog in particular I would guess since it is more anchored in reality than some (you are, I can't vouch for some anons) are in some way on an equal footing with the conventional print media when it comes to factual assertions.

Congrats from Alaska - ED
 
Hey, Eric, it appears from some commentary on-line at the T-S today that your blog is engaged in a contest to see who can be more correct about legal affairs - at least that's the way i read it. They don't mention your blog by name, just "some bloggers" but look at this sentence.

So it was with some satisfaction that we published a story that night quoting a spokeswoman at the California secretary of state's office -- which oversees elections -- as saying an attorney there found there were no obstacles to a Johanna write-in on Nov. 4.

Some satisfaction, as in "we were right all along"

What's newsworthy about this is that blogging, and this blog in particular I would guess since it is more anchored in reality than some (you are, I can't vouch for some anons) are in some way on an equal footing with the conventional print media when it comes to factual assertions.

Congrats from Alaska - ED
 
"IMHO Blogger 9:48am deserves two Pinocchio Awards for their effort at spin."

Care to point out the "Spin"?

Tell me how it is "spin" to point out that city business is just that - city business, business that a county supervisor will have no material say in?

Tell me how it is "spin" to say that Eric has been saying for over a week that Johanna Rodoni will NOT be able to run as a write in candidate, while at the same time the county elections office and the state of california have both said that she can?

Hmm, care to point out specific spin there 10:20?
 
One of the reasons Progs love me so much is that I won't stand for their bullshit.

Trying to disenfranchise all the 2nd District voters who voted for Johanna by voting for Roger, and these were the MAJORITY of voters for either of the three candidates, is just plain anti-democracy.

Those of you engaging in anti-democracy actions like Eric is doing trying to scotch Johanna's win, trying to eliminate her from running in November, are just like Burma junta' trying to stop Ang San Su Kyi's democracy movement, just like that African a-hole who won't leave , just like all those military regimes we backed up against the popular voters, it's all of one piece--control of society by elitist oligarchies representing special interests and not the majority of the people.
 
Eric fucked up big time. /will we ever see him or Greg and Carol apologize? In reality they are the sub-standard rejects.

Note to Eric Greg and Carol:

When you ASSUME something you end end up making an ASS out of U and Me.

Or in this case you have made an ass out of Clif Clendenan and Estelle Fennel.

Disgusting.
 
11:24- you're prematurely gloating, don't ya think? you think this is the end of it? do you actually KNOW anything? do you know if the run-off election will require 50% plus one? do you know anyone who knows?

is there one fucking answer to this whole thing or is the answer carved out of the constitution bite-sized my lawyers and judges?
 
When it comes to legal affairs I hope the County Council isn't making yet another poor choice involving the county pocketbook.
 
Eric has let his zeal to remove the Rodoni's from power go to his head. Greg and Carol are just mindless cheerleaders and party sycophants.

If Eric wants to tarnish the progressive 'movement' in Humboldt county by filing lawsuit to DISENFRANCHISE a constituency thats his prerogative. His judgment has led Clif's campaign into a huge blunder. Clif is now battling Estelle for Left/SoHum votes that would have been his. Eric, Greg, Carol and all who fumbled the ball here are to blame.

So are we going to trust his judgment again and follow him over the cliff of an anti-democratic lawsuit.

Disgusting indeed.
 
Follow Eric off a Clif?

Mindless sychophants?

My, my.

Someone has certainly gotten to somebody.
 
Before they changed their editorial under pressure from Heraldo, Eric, and Greg & Carol, the T-S had stated Johanna could "appear on the ballot" in November, which is almost as dumb-headed as some of the anti-Estelle commentary on this blog.

Way to go bloggers. Keep 'em honest!
 
"When it comes to legal affairs I hope the County Council isn't making yet another poor choice involving the county pocketbook."

There is already fear of expensive lawsuits bleeding the taxpayers dry, and I am sure our elections office is treading on eggs trying to make that not happen. This is probably why the confusing and cryptic messages coming from this office.

"Yes, Johanna can file for the November election. The filing date for this election has past."

There is obviously big out of district money behind Johanna, and there must be some drama with the players. Hank? Bob?

I see now that the rules of the race can change after the race, but, Please elections office, be clear right now because without rules, democracy has stalled in the 2nd district. Ane even with rules, because powers can change the rules right in front of our eyes, democracy has already taken a hit, and so have Estelle and Clif, who have already invested so much in this campaign.
 
Two of Rodoni's SUPPORTERS are MS. August & Mr. Cambell who are as CORPORATE leaning as they come.
The ONLY candidate to vote for is Clif if we want to stop the CORPORPORATIONS From shoving their type of choices down the 2nd districts throats!
 
11:21am
PR SPIN!!!!
 
Excuse me, I meant 10:49 am.
as the PR SPINNER!
 
So where are Estelles supporters standing shoulder to shoulder with Clif on the write-in issue? That's what they needed and got from Clif when they were trying to promote the idea of Estelles legitimacy.

I guess they are only out for themselves.
 
Why is everyone ignoring election code 8141 regarding run-off elections in nonpartisan races? That seems very suspicious.
 
Well Eric sure is quiet. Could his embarrassment be the cause of his radio silence?
 
" the T-S had stated Johanna could "appear on the ballot" in November, which is almost as dumb-headed as some of the anti-Estelle commentary on this blog"

Yes Johanna can "appear on the ballot" AS A WRITE IN CANDIDATE. Doesnt mean it's pre-printed on the ballot. That's why Greg and Carol are rightly perceived as, well, less than bright.

Tell me, if somebody darkens the circle next to write in, and then WRITES Johanna's name in, does the name appear on the ballot? Yeppers.
 
"Anonymous said...
Excuse me, I meant 10:49 am.
as the PR SPINNER!

Wed Jun 11, 01:13:00 PM"


Well now, lets examine what I said at 1049, shall we:

" Anonymous said...
"IMHO Blogger 9:48am deserves two Pinocchio Awards for their effort at spin."

Care to point out the "Spin"?

Tell me how it is "spin" to point out that city business is just that - city business, business that a county supervisor will have no material say in?

Tell me how it is "spin" to say that Eric has been saying for over a week that Johanna Rodoni will NOT be able to run as a write in candidate, while at the same time the county elections office and the state of california have both said that she can?

Hmm, care to point out specific spin there 10:20?

Wed Jun 11, 10:49:00 AM"


Once again, I ask you to point out any "spin" in those comments. Just because you don't agree with it means that it is spin.
 
"That's what they needed and got from Clif when they were trying to promote the idea of Estelles legitimacy."

Clif supporters have done nothing but rub salt in Estelles wounds. I have heard Clif personally 'tease' Estelle face to face about Reggae, KMUD, and the Mateel, clueless...what a hurtful boor!

The men behind the pulpits three days before the election were preaching hate, bigotry and homophobia to a large and receptive audience. Part of that audience (Clif's supporters) is Clif and his family.

During the campaign before he was killed, Roger Rodoni had little comment on Clif. While talking about Estelle, he referred to her as "my worthy opponent". Roger knew worth when he saw it. Estelle is not looking to Clif for legitimacy.

Thank God Estelle is running. If I had to choose between Johanna and Clif, I would choose Johanna. At least I would know who my opponents are as I work to make things better.
 
3rd place? 3rd place.
 
Estelle and Rodoni are "corporate politics as usual" candidates.
Clif has the vision of sustainable job opportunities which is what the 2nd district is in desperate need of.
We don't need endless miles of corporate strip malls clogging up the remaining beauty of the 2nd district.
DON'T vote CORPORATE!
VOTE CLIF!
 
"We don't need endless miles of corporate strip malls clogging up the remaining beauty of the 2nd district."

More scare tactics and fear mongering. Tell me, where would these "endless miles" of strip malls be located?

If they are within the city limits of Fortuna or Rio Dell, Clif will have no material say as to their development.
 
Is Estelle going to get married now that Lesbians can get married?
 
is she a U S citizen? if so, how did she get that? is she already married? are any questions out of bounds?
 
Oh for Chirst sakes at least read the decision in Bradley. The issues were completely different. In Bradley, two election contests were filed concerning the results of a runoff election for mayor and for one city council seat. The trial court granted the election contest concerning the mayoral race, removing the winning candidate and replacing him with the losing candidate, on the ground that the city clerk had improperly placed the winning candidate first on the runoff ballot. The trial court also granted the election contest concerning the city council race. The court found that the winning candidate had committed election offenses. It annulled her election, replaced her with the losing candidate on the ground of a ballot name-order error by the clerk, and declared the candidate whose election had been annulled ineligible ever to hold public office again.

As to the mayoral election, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and reinstated the winning candidate as mayor. As to the city council race, the court affirmed the portion of the judgment annulling the winning candidate's election for having committed offenses against the elective franchise, but reversed the portion of the judgment for the challenger based on the name-order change, and further reversed the portion of the judgment imposing the lifetime elective office disqualification. The court held that the city clerk properly used the same random alphabetized draw for ballot placement in the runoff election as he had in the primary election. The court said that a runoff election is merely the second round of voting in a single election, and therefore, Elec. Code §§13112 and 13113, does not require the clerk to request a new randomized alphabet draw for the runoff election. The court further held that the trial court properly annulled the city council candidate's election on the basis of the election offenses, even though it did not find that the offenses would have changed the result of the election. However, the trial court erred in awarding the city council seat to the losing candidate on the basis of the primacy effect theory (the candidate listed first wins a certain number of votes simply because of ballot placement). The court held that no judicial or statutory authority exists to reverse the election results where, due to unintentional clerical error, the ballot listed the candidates in the wrong alphabetical order. Finally, the court held that the lifetime elective-office disqualification should not have been imposed, since the candidate disqualified by the trial court had not been convicted of a felony under Elect. Code, 18501.

Now in Edelstien, the question presented by the case was whether former City and County of San Francisco, Cal., Charter art. XIII, § 13.102 (repealed Mar. 5, 2000), by prohibiting write-in voting in runoff elections for municipal offices, violated the free speech clause of Cal. Const. art. I, § 2(a). The state supreme court reviewed and determined that Govt Code 15430 allowed for write in votes in a general election and then reviewed the matter to see if the charter violated the constitution. The court concluded it did not. Those challenging the measure entirely failed to supply the court with cogent reasons to conclude that disallowing write-in voting in runoff elections violated the free speech clause of the California Constitution. San Francisco allowed write-in voting in its municipal general elections.


Now Eric - since the Supremes recognized that 15430 allows write in candidates in general elections AND that it constitutionally permissible for a municipality to pass local legislation to prohibit it, then given the fact that there is NO SUCH PROHIBITION in this county and 15430 is still in effect, do you want to say "oops," you made a mistake OR are you going to continue to try and justify a very lazy attempt to spin things your own way?

Now, lets all be nice and play fair.
 
ERIC JUST GOT SKOOLED! BooYaa!
 
'Clif has the vision of sustainable job opportunities which is what the 2nd district is in desperate need of."

Sustainable jobs according to cliff means hiring mexican workers at below minimum wage to PICK his apples, OH and not PICKED until he has his mexican workers also engage in sustainable agriculture by spraying poisonous chemicals on his apples . Now that is a great example of sustainable agriculture and jobs! way to go cliff way to treat the workers ...Just what the 2nd district needs. GO cliff!
 
Estelle import Irish immigrants and East coast developers!!!
 
the clendenan campaign and their handlers are nothing but pathetic negative frauds. That's why Friends of the Eel River do not want anything to do with them anymore. They are fakes.
 
ps eric

In addition to what I posted at 3:09, I forgot to respond to what you earlier posted about using cases for issues other than what was decided in the specific case.

May I quote: County of Ventura v. Channel Islands Marina, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 615, 626 [“[A] case is not authority for matters not discussed therein.”

or maybe Contra Costa Water Dist. v. Bar-C Properties, 5 Cal. App. 4th 652 and Palmer v. Ted Stevens Honda, Inc. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 530, 539 [238 Cal.Rptr. 363].) "Opinions are not authority for issues they do not consider."

What did you learn in law school? This is basis stuff Eric.

Now back to work friends and remember to play fair.
 
'Clif has the vision of sustainable job opportunities which is what the 2nd district is in desperate need of."

Sustainable jobs according to cliff means hiring mexican workers at below minimum wage to PICK his apples, OH and not PICKED until he has his mexican workers also engage in sustainable agriculture by spraying poisonous chemicals on his apples . Now that is a great example of sustainable agriculture and jobs! way to go cliff way to treat the workers ...Just what the 2nd district needs. GO cliff!
 
Unfortunately many of the Rodoni and Fennel supporters are of the corporate mind set.
They just don't represent the values and feelings of the 2nd district.
VOTE CLIF!
 
That's why All of the major Labor Union groups in Humboldt co have come out and Endorsed Estelle and not cliff.
 
Wow, who is that one vile and vicious blogger or are all Estelles supporters behaviorally challenged?
 
Eric is hiding out. He knows he has embarrassed himself professionally and morally. I expect him to use a family medical emergency or flat tire excuse for why he has disappeared.

Well let me tell you something Eric Kirk! You can run but you cannot hide! Your filthy tactics of voter disenfranchisement will follow you.
 
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
 
3:37PM
SPITTIN' MAD YOU ARE.....
 
Nah 3:35. It is a Rodoni supporter flinging mud at both sides hiding behind the pretense that they are Clif or Estelle supporters. McRove tactics. Progressives don't have to stoop to such tactics to win.
 
lets not forget that this "blogworld" barely penetrates real life out there in redway, rio dell and the hills...

so spew all we want- it doesn't really resonate out there in the real world (MAYBE a canary in a coal mine)
 
Estelle is endorsed by alot of people who only know her through the KMUD news "regurgitations".SURFACE, no depth. Estelle has more defects than an LA river trout.she is very much SURFACE. And like G.W., she just repeats the same words over and over and over......... just changing the sequence. And I heard that she ASKED for her endorsements, they were not GIVEN out of the blue..this Clif supporter says let Johanna run if she wants to. She probably wasn't ready to do the write in back right after Roger's death, to have to do debates, be in the public eye so much after the tragedy, TOO MUCH TOO SOON, don't ya think?
 
If Johanna is going to run she needs to stand up and let her positions be known just like the other candidates.
None of this hiding behind her husbands recent passing.
 
When was Humboldt county ever part of the "real world"?????
 
"That's why All of the major Labor Union groups in Humboldt co have come out and Endorsed Estelle and not cliff."

IMHO because Estelle is telling EVERYONE exactly what she believes they want to hear instead of doing the research and giving the reality of the world. Just the kind of person you want in the green oval office.
 
"Progressives don't have to stoop to such tactics to win."

No, they go after the big stuff like stopping voters from voting for the candidate of their choice so that they end up having to vote for a Prog candidate.

Right now, Heraldo is again censoring my posts because I made it too hot there for him again and he can't take criticism, neither can Eric who will deny being at fault forever because he's got ego problems. Perhaps he should go anonymous like his bud Heraldo.

Can you imagine Juhanna Rodoni or Jill Geist relying on some anonymous blogger for factual information? Yet this is just what Eric, Hank, and Progs do when citing Heraldo for information. Citing an anonymous tipster..a real class act in responsible citizenry by our wonderous Prog invaders.
 
I'll wait for the inevitable anon pouncing on my typo..
 
"Now, lets all be nice and play fair."

Johanna, you are a cheater!
 
Johanna is a joke. Let her run.
 
What is the election code that prevents a deceased candidate from being on the ballot in a runoff?

If the runoff is a continuation of the primary and there is no new filing deadline set (Edelstein and Bradley), how can a write in candidate qualify (as required in Section 15340-15342, which states in part: “Each voter is entitled to write the name of any candidate for any public office,) to be a candidate that people could write in vote for if they missed the deadline to file?
 
Once again, Fennel and Rodoni represent the Status Que!
VOTE CLIF for CHANGE!
 
You want to see more of the low-life level Eric's gangsters are up to besides Eric's attack on democracy here? Go to Heraldo's hideaway blog and see Heraldo/Ken Miller in action trying to smear the cops again. You'll see a heavily edited video of a cop beating a guy on a bike but look closely and you'll see the reason why which anon 7:38 or something like that posted--the guy on the bike aims it at the cop and all the ensuing actions by the cop result from this attack by the guy yet Heraldo and buds there are trying to frame the cop.

Heraldo's censoring my posts there so I thought I'd post 'em here before Eric sees them and protects his good King of the Anon-a-holes whom he and Hank listen to with eagerness. Citing an anonymous blogger for "facts" from an identity fraud..only in Progland's Theatre of the Absurd..
 
man i was at the faire and i was just trying to have a good time, and clif comes up trying to get me to vote for him and i was like leave me alone man and he was c'mon vote for me, and he started playing his mandolin, giving me the hard musical sell and then estelle came by and pretty much chased him off- she gave me a slap on the shoulder as she left and later i found that she had stuck an estelle bumpersticker on my back!...
after that i said fuck it i'm voting for Juhanna...
 
Can anyone tell me the justification for the exorbitant consultant fee's these campaigns paid for? Especially considering the consulting 'experts' were clueless about whether a write-in would be on the ballot? In fact, they were wrong.

Why would I donate any additional money to either camp knowing they have no clue about the process?
 
Clif has the vision of sustainable job opportunities which is what the 2nd district is in desperate need of."

yeah he has a vision, with lots of colors, yes the colors, such pretty colors, wow the colors, colors, ....
 
I voted for Roger Rodoni knowing that he had died in a horrible car wreck because I felt that if he won the governator would reappoint his widow to the supervisors position he held. Everyone else I know who voted Roger wanted his widow to take his place, Whomever believes that we all voted Roger to honor his passing is just about as diluted as those who believe Clif's vision of sustainable job opportunities. Trails and cluster developments the environmental progressive pipe dream towards economic ruin.
 
Right 9:35. The conservatives are doing so much better with wars, outsourcing of jobs, importing workers, and resource extraction.
 
"Why would I donate any additional money to either camp knowing they have no clue about the process?"

The process was law and the rules spelled out by our county elections office prior to the primary.

Johanna's camp is trying to sneak an end run around the law and the agreed rules of fair play.

The way it stands, the elections office has made absolutely contradictory (or sublimely consistent?) statements that leave everyone confused. If you want to blame someone, blame Johanna.

The elections office needs to clear this up asap, so the campaigns may continue under known rules of engagement.
 
Adding a write-in would change this from a run-off election to a new general election.

In partisan elections, there is a primary followed by a general election. That is not the case here. For this non-partisan seat, the general election was on June 3rd. The November ballot is a runoff election, only necessitated by the failure of any candidate to get 50+1.

Allowing new write-in candidates, especially one who has never appeared on the ballot previously, would effectively turn this into a second general election. If no one got 50+1 this time, then there would have to be another runoff, presumably allowing yet other write-in candidates. If Johanna is allowed as a write in, then anyone else must also be allowed. And if write-ins are allowed in this run-off election, they would have to be allowed in any successive run-offs, too.

If new write-in candidates are allowed in a run-off, then the process must logically allow for endless runoffs, each time allowing yet more new candidates to mount write-in campaigns.
 
It sounds to me like the only way there would be more than 2 candidates in a runoff is if 2nd place was a tie. 8142
 
I can't find anything about what percentage the winner of a runoff has to get.
 
One proof Eric is totally lacking in class is his inability to admit he was wrong about anything, even when he has had his nose rubbed in the facts. He's a shitty lawyer and a horrible person, misquoting cases. "Opinions are not authority for issues they do not consider." is the law, and Eric's opposite twisted statement is propaganda and it is a lie. Lying lawyer, why you lie?
 
Eric has been noticeably silent for him (and no, Eric, I didn't write the anon comment before this one).

Eric is singlehandedly dragging the whole Clif Clendenen campaign down to one issue--whether or not Clif's main public spokesman is an anti-democracy fanatic or just an overly ambitious lawyer who is so obsessed with winning he's quite willing to stomp on the voting rights civil liberties of the community to get it.

If Clif has this same mentality, no one should vote for him. In fact, if Clif cannot see Eric's ploy for what it is, that doesn't speak very highly of Clif's future as a Supervisor if he cannot protect the rights of voters in the 2nd District from his own political handlers.
 
the election law is the election law; we all , you me eric, want to find out what the law is and then follow it, in this case...
 
The only way all voters' rights are protected is by making sure that everyone follows the law, no exceptions. There are definitely some problems with how the election laws are interpreted with contradictory information handed out from the county clerk's office. This needs judicial review, not a politician's opinion.
 
I fought the law and the law won.
 
so will a judge step up and say This Is The Way It Is? no, i think someone has to Take It To The Judge...that is risky for a political candidate, especially two from a small town...there needs to be a new organization formed Citizens for Fair and Free Elections, something like that? or????

obvioulsy i don't know shit but ain't blogs fun?...
 
When will Rodoni step up to the plate and debate with the other two candidates or is she just running on her husbands memory?
 
That's a great idea 8:31. This issue has long range implications for our county and should be completely resolved now rather than having to overturn elections after the fact because the laws weren't followed. Let the chips fall where the law says they belong.
 
9:29pm;
Step away from your LAVA LAMP!
 
Is this write-in candidacy yet another bright idea coming from our incompetent "county council"?
The county council's office is getting extremely good at wasting taxpayer dollars!
 
One thing that'll be good about allowing Johanna onto the ballot will be the return of hand counted paper ballots.
 
anonymous says "There is already fear of expensive lawsuits bleeding the taxpayers dry, and I am sure our elections office is treading on eggs trying to make that not happen."

Pepper spray, lawsuit, Rodoni bled the taxpayers.

Tooby Ranch, lawsuit, Rodoni bled the taxpayers

Johanna Rodoni write-in, threatened lawsuit? No problem. Bleed the taxpayers!

Please elections department, stand up to this disgusting strongarming.

The Rodoni legacy is little more than a show of disrespect for the taxpayers of his (her) district.
 
"Johanna Rodoni write-in, threatened lawsuit? No problem. Bleed the taxpayers!"

Hmm, I think any threatened litgation has come from Eric. Supporter of - Clif.

I think it will all go for naught. I don't think J is going to end up running. But - She can, the likes of Eric, Carol & Greg Connors not withstanding.
 
11:51am;
Maybe you have not lived here long enough to know that this game between county council & BOS has been going on long before Clif and Eric!
 
Someone will run if this opinion isn't challenged. If not Johanna then someone who shares Rodoni's views (whatever the rich people want).
 
Eric was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Now he refuses to come back to his own blog due to the shame.
 
I think all three candidates should withdraw immediately. It would end the viscous and idiotic posts.
 
I won't be filing any lawsuits. I have only just spoken to Clif, and he has no inclination to make an issue of the matter as he simply wants to focus on his campaign whomever he is running against. I've sent the Secretary of State and Crnich's office information for them to consider. I have not yet heard back from them. That's going to be the extent of my involvement unless they have any questions of me.

If the write-in campaign does talke place and I find some time after November, I may take it up again with the SOS then, or perhaps I'll lobby the legislature to either clarify the intent of the runoff, or eliminate the second phase altogether so that people aren't wasting their time and money on first round campaigns which mean nothing.

Don't have the time to read this whole thread right now. Maybe later on tonight.
 
12:53pm:
You've been caught taking advantage of a good DAD who chose to take some special time with his son!
Hope your happy with the harassing blogs you posted here in his absence!
I only hope you have no children to spend your miserable time with!!!!!!
 
"It would end the viscous and idiotic posts."

If a post is not viscous enough it will not hold up the fence. Now that is idiotic!
 
ps eric

In addition to what I posted at 3:09, I forgot to respond to what you earlier posted about using cases for issues other than what was decided in the specific case.

May I quote: County of Ventura v. Channel Islands Marina, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 615, 626 [“[A] case is not authority for matters not discussed therein.”

or maybe Contra Costa Water Dist. v. Bar-C Properties, 5 Cal. App. 4th 652 and Palmer v. Ted Stevens Honda, Inc. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 530, 539 [238 Cal.Rptr. 363].) "Opinions are not authority for issues they do not consider."

What did you learn in law school? This is basis stuff Eric.

Now back to work friends and remember to play fair.


Okay, I peeked. It's true you're not supposed to quote cases for issues they don't consider, but that doesn't mean the case has to be exactly on point with your particular issue. Bradley confirmed that a runoff election process does not run afoul of the voter's right to the write-in option and appears to have applied the Edelstein ruling to either an LA election law or the state runoff system. That they were dealing with a separate process issue is irrelevant. The point, as I said earlier, is the application of the law in general under the Edelstein ruling.

Which brings the issue back to the chief issue is question - was section 8141 intended to limit the candidates to those surviving the first round, or not? There's no other issue that ultimately matters. And so far, I've seen no discussion of the question off of the blogs, except for a cryptic statement on the KMUD story last week from an unnamed election law expert that 8141 is "trumped" by the write-in statutes. But Edelstein says otherwise.

The issue is that the SOS has apparently held the opposite view since at least 1982. And they have already issued a public statement they would have to retract.

But I've done what I can on the issue. I don't have the time for more. Too much on my plate.
 
12:53pm:
You've been caught taking advantage of a good DAD who chose to take some special time with his son!
Hope your happy with the harassing blogs you posted here in his absence!
I only hope you have no children to spend your miserable time with!!!!!!


Thanks 1:46, but I don't take this stuff personally. I've long since realized that some people blog anonymously as an outlet for their anger at the world. Better here than against people in their lives.
 
"I won't be filing any lawsuits."

If the elections department wishes to to be involved in a lawsuit and lose, then allow Johanna to write in. This is not an idle threat. It is just what happens when someone runs roughshod over the law.

If the elections office has been threatened with a lawsuit should Johanna not be allowed to write-in, by sticking to the rules, the office would be on the winning side, backed by the law, and Johanna and company would lose. Yes, there would be some cost, but freedom is priceless.
 
Someone will run if this opinion isn't challenged. If not Johanna then someone who shares Rodoni's views (whatever the rich people want).

It won't matter either way. Clif will probably be the next Second District Supervisor no matter what the candidate permutations. I'm more convinced of it than ever before. I'll explain why later.
 
If the elections office has been threatened with a lawsuit should Johanna not be allowed to write-in, by sticking to the rules, the office would be on the winning side, backed by the law, and Johanna and company would lose. Yes, there would be some cost, but freedom is priceless.

Johanna and company are going to lose anyway, but if you feel very strongly about it, maybe contact a voter rights organization. They may feel strongly as well.
 
Eric, your opinions are out the window now because you've dug yourself a huge hole that every voter in the 2nd District who voted for Johanna is going to back filled right over you as the worst anti-democracy activist around.

You are a disgrace to democratic government, Eric, and if Clif still holds onto you after the political albatross you've hung around Clif's campaign, it will be only because you Progs are devoid of ethics and will accept any low-ball players.

Right up there with your bud, Heraldo, who's currently trying to frame a police officer on his blog with a rigged video.
 
Hi Stephen! Nice to see you're as cheerful as ever.
 
Well, I've got a lot to be happy about. You have made a name for yourself as Humboldt County's most dangerous threat to democracy for 2nd District voters. You put a millstone around your client Clif's neck that all 2nd District voters for Johanna will not let Clif forget with your zeal to disenfranchise all of Johanna's voters.

If Clif has types like you and Bonnie and god knows who else calling his shots for him, then he's got a lot of explaining to do to Fortunans especially.

So, altogether, it's been a good week and if Johanna decides to run, she's now got an even better chance because of your huge political blunder that Clif has to crawl out from under. Which I see he has begun to do by not asking you to continue on with your attempts to steal democracy away from 2nd District voters.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Free Website Counter
Free Web Site Counter

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.
Click for www.electoral-vote.com