Ballot Label Cheating in Redwood City

Press Release - For immediate release Contact: Christopher Robell (650) 245-7395    c hris_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 l...

April 3, 2023  Press Release - For immediate release Contact: Christopher Robell (650) 245-7395    c hris_robell@yahoo.com     Blog: ballotlabel.blogspot.com Redwood City Voter Seeks to Invalidate Local Bond Measures  On March 29, 2023, Christopher Robell filed election contests in the Superior Court of San Mateo County to set aside the Measure S (Redwood City Elementary School District's $298 million bond) and Measure W (Sequoia Union High School District's $591.5 million bond) elections. The issue: the Measure S & W ballot labels, which are the 75-word ballot questions that are often the only thing voters read before they vote, were misleading and not in compliance with the law. Mark Church, Registrar-Recorder of San Mateo County, is the elections official for both elections but did not reject these measures.  Historically, there has been an ongoing problem of the unsuspecting public being misled by municipal bond advisors who write the ball...

 

1/6/23:   I came by the County Clerk's office to attempt to file the elections contest as a special proceeding. I made it clear that I wanted the proper legal procedures followed hence did not want to have it filed as a civil action.  The Clerk Supervisor (Ms. Karen Wilmes) was not sure how to file the statement of contest. Knowing elections contests such as mine may not be very common, I anticipated there might be some confusion or concern filing it the proper way. So prior to my visit, I prepared a letter, addressed to Mr. Neal Taniguchi (Court Executive Officer), describing how election contests should be filed. I showed the letter to Ms. Wilmes. She offered to hold the letter to Mr. Taniguchi, the cover sheet, and the statement of contest paperwork, marking it as "received", and would follow up with me once she had clarity on filing procedures. I could then decide whether or not to file and pay any required filing fees.  Letter to Mr. Taniguchi re Election Contest Fil...

Below are three Civil Grand Jury Investigation Reports clearly articulating the ongoing problems with Ballot Labels (i.e., the 75 word ballot question) intended to deceive the public: Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report: "If You Only Read the Ballot, You're Being Duped" Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Report: "The Need for Accuracy and Impartiality of Ballot Measure Questions" Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury Report: "Words Matter: Did Measure G Mislead Voters?"

Below are various communications sent by proponents of Measures S & W: "informational" pre-election materials from the district mailed to voter (paid for by taxpayers) post election campaign mailings (>95% paid for by directly by developers and indirectly by taxpayers) Superintendent's newsletter covering Measure S "information" (paid for by taxpayers) District communications It is worth noting that the 75 word ballot question (i.e., the ballot label) includes almost all the same arguments/benefits as the marketing campaign material and does NOT include many items it is required to by law (e.g., maximum interest rate, duration of the tax, the fact that the board itself selects the "independent" bond oversight committee, etc.). 

Senator Scott Wiener wants to reduce financial disclosure of new proposed taxes and instead allow tax propoents to describe the "benefits" to the community. Seems to me this is electioneering on the ballot and a violation of the Constitution: CalMatters: "Transparency on California’s local ballot measures faces new threat"