September 25, 2007

The Sabatino Report

We continue to have welfare for developers. 

George Petrulakis, chief counsel for developers, and chair of the Charter Review Committee,  has the city pay legal bills by leading the city council to the U.S Supreme Court to fight district elections.  The City lost the case before the Appellate Court and the State Supreme Court.

Petrulakis managed to have the Board of Supervisors pay $400,000 for the Salida Now initiative.  The Board then cancelled having a vote of the people in November and passed the deal by their own vote.

Do you believe the City formed a committee to give you a real choice on district elections and then go to the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent it from happening? 

You can read the Bee article below and there will be more on the Morning Mayor Show on KMPH 840 AM at 8:00 this morning.

How do you feel about what is being done with your tax dollar?

The Modesto Bee

Print This Article

Posted on Tue, Sep. 25, 2007

Modesto to high court: Strike voting rights act

By ADAM ASHTON
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

last updated: September 25, 2007 02:56:42 AM

Modesto on Monday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to accept its bid to strike a state voting law, arguing that rejecting the city's appeal could jeopardize thousands of local election systems throughout California.

The city is defending itself against a 2004 lawsuit filed by three Latino residents who claim Modesto's at-large City Council elections dilute voting power.

They want the city to adopt district elections, which require candidates to live in specific neighborhoods.

Modesto argued that it should not be forced to make that change because of the lawsuit, known as Sanchez vs. Modesto. The case hinges on the California Voting Rights Act, which the city contends is unconstitutional because it enables minorities to sue for election reforms solely on the basis of race.

On Sept. 11, lawyers for the Latino residents filed a petition with the high court arguing that it's too early for justices to hear the case.

They wrote that an advisory measure scheduled to appear on the November ballot could lead to the city adopting district elections, which would make the lawsuit irrelevant.

But the city countered that the advisory measure is not binding, and it would not strike the lawsuit's impact on Modesto.

If the justices deny the city's request, for example, the city likely would be forced to pay more than $1 million in legal fees incurred by the lawyers for the Latino residents.

The city's "petition should not be denied merely because Modesto is exploring what it will do if the (Supreme Court) review is not granted," wrote John McDermott, a Los Angeles attorney advising the city in the case.

The opposing sides characterize the California Voting Rights Act differently.

County judge sided with city

Robert Rubin, the attorney for the Latino residents, calls it an anti-discrimination measure intended to ensure equal voting power between different communities.

McDermott labels it "race-balancing legislation" that significantly lowers the threshold for lawsuits that demand election changes. He argues that it shifts the onus of those claims from a requirement that the minority group prove that it has lost elections because of a racial bias to a demonstration that racially polarized voting exists.

Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Roger Beauchesne sided with the city in the lawsuit in 2005, but California's 5th District Court of Appeal in Fresno upheld the law and overturned Beauchesne's ruling in December. The state Supreme Court in March upheld the law by declining to hear the city's appeal.

Bee staff writer Adam Ashton can be reached at This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it or 578-2366.