HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-2017 - Jenkins511 17 T
Law Office of
STEWART D. JENKINS
0"�i1
Municipal Law, Estate Planning & Family Law
1336 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Phone (805) 541-5763 Fax (805) 547-1608
Website www.stewjenkins.coni
May 16, 2017
J.Christine Dietrick,
City Attorney/Prosecutor
Mayor and Council Members
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Hand Delivered
Re: Agenda Discussion Item 12, call for a special election for the voters to decide upon
"AN INITIATIVE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 15.10 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED `RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION' AND TO ADOPT
NEW CHAPTER 15.10 ENTITLED `NON-DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING."
Violation of Elections Code nestled in the proposed resolution calling that election
Reply to Ms. Dietrick's memo of today's date.
Gentlefolk:
Ms. Dietrick overlooks the fact that California Elections Code § 13119 is part of a
chapter commencing with § 13100, which specifies that the chapter applies unless otherwise
specified. Both sections were adopted in 1994.
In 1998, the Legislature adopted Elect.C. § 301, otherwise specifying that a ballot as
being a sheet "of paper upon which are printed the names of candidates and the ballot titles
of measures to be voted on by marking the designated area ..."
Once the petition is filed, "no petition section shall be amended except by order of
a court ...." Elect.C. § 9210. This continues to apply in unconsolidated city elections.
As does Elect.C. § 9214(b) the council must submit the initiative proposed ordinance,
without alteration, to a vote of the voters of the city. Without alteration, includes the ballot
title which the City attorney prepared as part of the initiative measure. Elect.C. § 13199,
combined with § 301 would simply provide for addition of the words shall the ordinance,
AN INITIATIVE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 15.10 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
www.stewjenkins.com
1
MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION" AND TO
ADOPT NEW CHAPTER 15.10 ENTITLED "NON-DISCRIMINATION IN
HOUSING" be adopted.
Citation of § 13247's permissive suggestion that the ballot statement may be
abbreviated does not permit the City or the City Attorney to lengthen the ballot statement
with a prejudicial city argument that will appear next to the places to check "yes" or "no."
The purpose of the "ballot title" is to permit the voters to recognize the same measure
when thev vote that was circLilated. Ms. Dietrick's allusion to irrelevant Elect.C. § 10403
would only be "pertinent", as section (a) quoted in her letter says, if the special election you
were setting was consolidated with a statewide election. Elect.C. § 9051 would only apply
were this a statewide measure, or an election consolidated with a statewide measure. It isn't.
This is no small matter, and that this and my prior communication to you on this
subject is meant to protect the Council, the Clerk, as well as the voter in their right to identify
the measure to be voted on as the one that was circulated.
I look forward to the council complying with voters' rigIA under the Elections Code.
www.stewjenkins.com
2