Page 1
Logan Ordered to Show Cause in Gascón Recall Dispute
Judge Chalfant Indicates Initial Receptivity to Contentions by Committee Seeking District Attorney’s Ouster That Registrar-Recorder’s Office Has Obstructed Efforts to Establish That Valid Petition Signatures Were Rejected
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge yesterday ordered county Registrar/Recorder Dean Logan to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued forcing cooperation with a group in its effort to amass evidence that a sufficient number of signatures on petitions were collected—despite a contrary determination by his staff—to force a special election posing the question of whether District Attorney George Gascón should be recalled.
On Aug. 15, Logan’s office proclaimed that the number of valid signatures fell 46,807 short of the 566,857 that were required, saying that 195,783 of them were rejected. The Committee to Support the Recall of District Attorney George Gascón has exercised its right under Government Code §6253.5 to examine the signatures.
It maintains that Logan has unreasonably restricted those conducting the examination by granting access to the office only three days a week and limiting the number of monitors to 14, and otherwise burdening them, rendering impossible the successful completion of their task in the time allotted.
Former District Attorney Steve Cooley, a leader of the recall movement, commented yesterday:
“The Recall Gascón team is very confident that there were more than enough valid signatures for the recall to be certified. Today’s hearing and the judge’s tentative ruling are a big step to that end.
“The ball is now in the registrar’s court.”
Dec. 6 Hearing
Judge James Chalfant did not honor a request by the committee to set a hearing on the preliminary injunction within two weeks, but did expedite the matter, slating a hearing for Dec. 6, advanced from the Jan. 26 date initially scheduled. He commented:
“The court concludes that the case is not entitled to priority because it is not an election contest and Petitioner is not an elector. Nonetheless, the case should not languish.”
He indicated that he is presently inclined to grant a substantial number of the committee’s requests, observing that some of the restrictions imposed by Logan’s office strike him as unduly inhibiting. He ordered the parties to meet and confer, “face to face,” to pare the issues.
The committee alleges in its petition for a writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief that Logan is “spoon-feeding the Committee only those records that support the Registrar’s rejection decision, while suppressing the data that might demonstrate that a rejection was improper.”
The ex parte application for an OSC re preliminary injunction seeks access to all signatures on file for a voter where a mismatch was declared, an electronic list of all residence addresses on file for any voter whose address on the petition was found to be incorrect, as well as information in connection with signatures that were perceived to be a duplicate, invalid because the person had died, or placed in the category of “fatal pending.”
Outdated Manual Followed
Also asserted by the committee is that staff members used an out-of-date manual, rather than adhering to current guidelines under which there is a presumption in favor of validity. It seeks “[a]ll training materials or user manuals” for the “Election Management System, which includes definitions of all codes, abbreviated terms, and other information necessary to reasonable interpret the data contained in the system.”
If granted, the preliminary injunction would allow the committee to have 25 representatives on the Registrar-Recorder’s Office premises five days a week and access to 25 computer work stations, as well as permission to use personal electronic devices.
Such use has been barred, and other restrictions have been imposed which the all committee contends has improperly burdened it.
Attorney’s Declaration
One of the volunteers who has been checking signatures is Pasadena attorney Marian M.J. Thompson, a former deputy district attorney. She said in a declaration in support of the application for a preliminary injunction:
“[T]he Registrar… prohibits Committee representatives from marking or using pencils, pens, or highlighters on the hard copies of any reports given to the representatives to aid us in keeping track of signatures already reviewed, and for staff to pull petitions for signatures we require for review. And because Committee representatives cannot use personal electronic devices during the review process, we must instead write down the voter’s name, voter ID. and petition page for every signature that we require to review, which unreasonably and unnecessarily prolongs the examination process. It also makes later organization and use of the handwritten notes taken extremely arduous.”
Thompson continued:
“The Registrar requires us to submit all questions related to invalidated signatures in writing, despite the gross inefficiency of such a process. This has forced the Committee to submit hundreds of voter-specific questions in writing, almost all of which the Registrar has refused to answer.”
Frustrating Objective
Under current restrictions, the lawyer said, committee representatives “can only review a total of about 400 signatures per day,” meaning that they “will not be finished reviewing rejected signatures until May 2024—just six months before Gascón’s first term ends” (on Dec. 1, 2024). That, she noted, would be too late to call a special election in light of Elections Code §11007(c) which bars the recall of an official in the event “[h]is or her term of office ends within six months or less.”
Based on her experience in checking the signatures, she declared, the committee could complete its task “in 3–4 months” if the preliminary injunction is granted.
Thompson said yesterday that the committee “is hopeful that the court’s comments and order will encourage the registrar to grant its reasonable requests as outlined in the proposed order.”
If not, she warned, the committee’s lawyers are “prepared to fully litigate this matter.” The committee issued this statement:
“This initial decision is a win for transparency and a win for Los Angeles voters. The Registrar’s counting process was seriously flawed, and the restrictions on the review prevent the Recall Committee from being able to demonstrate just how pervasive those errors were. We are grateful to Judge Chalfant for understanding the urgency of this matter, especially as the citizens of Los Angeles continue to have their safety put at risk by George Gascon’s reckless policies.”
It noted that since a review began on Sept. 6, 2022, “[c]lear, obvious, and legitimate challenges have been identified for 39% of the invalidated signatures” that have been reviewed. These included signatures having been determined to be those of persons who weren’t registered when records showed that they were, ones that were disallowed because they had been printed although the signature provided when the person registered was likewise printed, and signatures that were deemed bogus because the person put down his or her residence address, as directed by the petition, rather than the address where registered.
Also, where it was found that where a voter had signed the petition twice, according to the review, rather than counting one of the signatures, Logan’s staff disqualified both.
Inflated Voter Rolls
The committee also pointed out that the number of signatures needed is that of 10 percent of the registered voters in the county and said:
“According to estimates from independent and non-partisan data analysts, Los Angeles County active voter rolls were artificially inflated by at least 208,000, and as much as 515,000, when the number of signatures required for qualification of the recall was originally set. Those estimates do not account for those who died out of state but are still registered in LA County. “This problem has been persistent. In 2019, LA County was sued and agreed to remove 1.5 million inactive voters from its voter rolls because LA County had failed to maintain and clean up its voter rolls for years, and had more voters on its voter rolls than actual citizens. Federal law requires such removal. The Registrar also agreed to ensure the accuracy of its active voter rolls moving forward.”
It alleged that while Logan’s office took the position that 566,857 signatures were needed, the actual number was “anywhere from 515,357 to 546,357” signatures.
The committee remarked:
“This issue alone could substantially affect the outcome of the recall given that the Registrar has already identified what it deems to be 520,050 valid signatures. This does not even account for the signatures that were clearly wrongfully invalidated.”
The case is Committee to Support the Recall of District Attorney George Gascon v. Logan, 22STCP03795.
Attracts Controversy
Gascón attracted controversy from the start of his term, which began Dec. 6, 2020. On that first day, he issued a series of “special directives” which inured to the benefit of criminal defendants, such as barring enhancement allegations, requiring that those already alleged be withdrawn, and not opposing paroles.
Some of the directives were invalidated by Chalfant; the Court of Appeal for the most part affirmed; and the matter is now before the California Supreme Court.
The Association of Deputy District Attorneys conducted a plebiscite in February with plebiscite 97.9% percent of those casting ballots expressing the view that Gascón should be recalled.
If a recall election is ultimately staged and the plebiscite incumbent is ousted, voters will also decide who his successor will be, to serve until the end of the term to which Gascón was elected.
Logan’s fate as registrar-recorder is also in question, with the termination of his employment by the Board of Supervisors looming as a possibility should it be judicially determined that a proper counting of signatures did not take place.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company