Press Release: Redwood City School Bonds Elections Trial Heard

Press Release - For immediate release

Contact: Christopher Robell (650) 245-7395   chris_robell@yahoo.com  

Blog: ballotlabel.blogspot.com
April 19, 2023

Redwood City School Bond Elections Trial Heard in San Mateo County Court 

Judge Nicole Healy heard the trial of the election contests against the $298 million bond (Measure S) for Redwood City Elementary School District and the $591 million bond (Measure W) for Sequoia Union High School District) yesterday at 9:00 a.m., as scheduled. The trial lasted 2-1/2 hours.

The Contestant, Christopher Robell of Redwood City, presented the case to the Court. Deputy County Counsel Brian Kulich represented the Contestee, County Elections Officer Mark Church.

The contest focused solely on the questions (ballot labels) printed on the ballots on which the voters cast either a Yes or No vote. Robell claimed that the questions were illegal in almost all respects because they didn't conform to the requirements that the legislature had set when it enacted an amendment to the statute covering local measures in 2018 to prohibit improper practices that affect elections.

Robell argued that the requirements were enacted to prevent the government from taking sides in an election using public moneys. He argued that the printing and circulating of ballots where the question was a series of arguments in favor of a yes vote, violated the California constitution. He cited California Supreme Court decisions that held that such expenditures, whether authorized by statute or not, were unconstitutional. Church's Counsel seemed to be taken by surprise by that argument.

County Counsel argued that the contests should be dismissed because Robell had failed to take an opportunity to go to court during a 10-day period in August, prior to the ballots being printed, to have the questions changed. The judge appeared to agree despite Robell’s argument that such a feat is a practical impossibility. 

When asked why he conducted the trial without a lawyer, he said, "There are no lawyers in California, representing taxpayers, who seem to be interested in election contest rules or law. There's no money in it for them."

Robell was energized that he was able to get the court to follow the special proceeding rules. As a result, he was able to conduct the actual trial of the contests. "This may be the first election contest conducted according to the rules in California history. I'm very pleased to have accomplished that."

Most people don't know that the judges in San Mateo County are paid an additional $10,000 a year, and may receive other benefits, paid by the board of supervisors according to public records obtained from the county. The judge didn't disclose this before the trial, but admitted as much in court. Some would say that this presents a conflict of interest in trials when county counsel is representing one of the parties.

When it came time for the closing arguments and rebuttals, the judge appeared to accept arguments and case citations by county counsel without exception or challenge, while behaving in the polar opposite manner when Robell made arguments and cited cases.

There was drama prior to the trial, as well. At 5:01 p.m. on the evening before the trial, Robell was surprised by an e-mail transaction from county counsel that served him with hundreds of pages of documents. The judge was not happy with county counsel for pulling that stunt.

Robell has 10 days to file a brief supporting his arguments and rebutting county counsel's arguments, after which the judge will make a decision.

Based on the judge's performance, Robell is expecting that the judge will rule against him. On the positive side, he said, that, when he files his appeal, this will be the first time that the 2018 ballot question law will be heard by an appellate court. Because it's also a constitutional issue regarding the government spending taxpayer money to influence an election, it could even wend its way to the Supreme Court. That's what happened in 1976, when Sam Stanson, without a lawyer, took his case about government spending taxpayer money to win an election to the Supreme Court for a landmark decision.

---

Background:

An election contest is a not traditional adversarial lawsuit with which most people are familiar. It is a special proceeding, with special rules, created by the Legislature in 1850 to determine whether an election should be overturned based on a limited number of reasons. The rules are contained in Division 16 of the Elections Code.

# # #