Metropolitan News-Enterprise

 

Thursday, March 29, 2018

 

Page 1

 

Judge Hogue:

Candidate Cannot Use Ballot Designation Of  ‘Consumer Protection Attorney’

 

By a MetNews Staff Writer

 

ONICA VALLE COLE

Attorney

Unemployed lawyer Onica Valle Cole yesterday lost her bid for a writ ordering Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan to accept her desired ballot designation of “Consumer Protection Attorney.”

The case is one involving crossed wires. The Office of Registrar Recorder has taken stances based on the appearance that she was on active bar status; it emerged at yesterday’s hearing that her actual status during the relevant period of time was inactive.

On Feb. 26, Cole submitted a request to the State Bar that her status be changed from “active” to “inactive,” but at the time she had submitted her nomination papers to the Registrar-Recorder’s Office, on March 9, she was still listed on the State Bar website as “active.”

That office on March 13 notified Cole that her primary proposed designation, as well as her proposed alternatives—“Consumer Prosecutor/Attorney” and “Los Angeles Prosecutor/Attorney”—were rejected based on non-compliance with Elections Code §13107(c), a new provision added by last year’s SB 235. The provision says:

“A candidate for superior court judge who is an active member of the State Bar and practices law as one of his or her principal professions shall use one of the following ballot designations as his or her ballot designation: ‘Attorney,’ ‘Attorney at Law,’ ‘Lawyer,’ or ‘Counselor at Law.’ The designations “Attorney” and “Lawyer” may be used in combination with one other current principal profession, vocation, or occupation of the candidate, or the principal profession, vocation, or occupation of the candidate during the calendar year immediately preceding the filing of nomination documents.”

Past Pursuit

Cole relied on a preexisting provision, which says that a candidate may use “[n]o more than three words designating either the current principal professions, vocations, or occupations of the candidate, or the principal professions, vocations, or occupations of the candidate during the calendar year immediately preceding the filing of nomination documents.”

She contended that since she was out of work, having been fired Jan. 3 as a deputy Los Angeles city attorney, she could use a description of her job in 2017. She filed a writ petition on March 19 to establish that right.

However, under the Code of Regulations, a past profession, vocation, or occupation may be used only if the candidate has no current one, and, the code also provides that an active member of the State Bar does have a profession: that of attorney. The Registrar-Recorder’s Office, operating under the impression that Cole’s application for inactive status had not yet been acted upon and that she remained an active member, as reflected by the State Bar website, approved the title “Attorney/Mother.”

Then, on Monday, the State Bar changed the listing of Cole. It showed she had, in fact, gone on inactive status on March 1, and had reverted to active status that day.

Hogue’s Ruling

Ruling on the writ petition yesterday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Amy D. Hogue denied relief for the reason that Cole was on inactive status on March 9 when she filed her papers. The judge pointed to a section of the Code of Regulations which says:

“A candidate who holds a professional, vocational or occupational license issued by the State of California may not claim such profession, vocation or occupation as one of his or her ‘principal’ professions, vocations or occupations if… the candidate’s licensure status is ‘inactive’ at the time the candidate files his or her nomination document….”

Hogue declared:

“Because all three of Petitioner’s proposed ballot designations contain either the term ‘prosecutor’ or ‘attorney,’ Petitioner may not use any of the three proposed designations.”

She did not rule on the designation, “Attorney/Mother,” given that no petition affirmatively sought a declaration as to its permissibility, although opposition of one of Cole’s rivals for Office No. 67, Deputy District Attorney Dennis P. Vincent, did request that the designation be barred.

If the Registrar-Recorder’s Office acts in conformity with Hogue’s decision, Cole’s designation, if there is one, would be limited to “Mother.”

No Designation

However, Vincent’s opposition contends there should be no designation. In that opposition, his attorney, Richard M. Foster points out that under §13107, when the election authority advises a candidate that his or her proposed designations have been disallowed, the candidate has three days to come up with an acceptable one.

The statute says that if the candidate fails to do so, “no designation shall appear after the candidate’s name.”

Foster wrote:

“To date, Ms. Cole has failed to submit any acceptable designation to the Registrar. Since the time limit within which Ms. Cole was allowed to submit alternate ballot designations has passed, Ms. Cole should not be allowed to submit additional or alternate ballot designations after the denial of her writ. As such, Ms. Cole should only use her legal name.”

Today’s Hearing

Another ballot designation challenge will be heard today. Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Troy Davis is asking that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James Chafant bar the designation of his opponent in the race for Office No. 118, criminal defense attorney David D. Diamond, as a “Police Commissioner” (while allowing the word “Attorney.”)

Davis contends the amount of time Diamond spends tending to duties of his unpaid post is insubstantial, while Diamond, in a declaration, insists to the contrary, without setting forth the average amount of time devoted to those duties.

A candidate for Office No. 113, Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Javier Perez, said yesterday he will not challenge the designation of candidate Michael P. Ribons—who terms himself “Arbitrator/Lawyer”—unless he winds up in a run-off with Ribons. The legitimacy of the candidate’s claim that acting as an ‘Arbitrator’ is a “principal” occupation has come into question.

Also running for Office No. 67 is State Bar Court Judge Maria Lucy Armendariz and a third candidate in the race for Office No. 113 is Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Steven Schreiner.

 

Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company