For those of you in the community of Wildomar who are critical of Martha Bridges for her oppositional commentary in the local media, you should understand that Martha is a highly-evolved, thoughtful citizen, whose concerns can be ignored, but only with great civic peril.
According to the City of Wildomar agenda for the next Wildomar City Council meeting, set for December 12, 2012, the city council will be going into closed session to discuss a lawsuit recently filed by Ms. Bridges, asking for the Court to enforce the California State Constitution, by restoring the election process for electing it’s city council back to the original “vote by district” concept, voted on and approved by a majority of Wildomar citizens in 2008, even as they approved cityhood.
Please click on the following link to the City of Wildomar Agenda, to confirm:
According to the lawsuit, the City of Wildomar was not lawfully permitted to seek to overturn the original “vote by district” ordinance in favor of a subsequent and illegal ordinance, which was approved after a Special Election in 2009, overturning the election results of the original vote.
Again, according to the lawsuit, the subsequent and illegal vote and ordinance was “unconstitutional.”
Rather than seeking to overturn any particular election since 2008, which would be disruptive, the lawsuit asks for a specific solution of returning to a “vote by district” for the next election in 2014, when three City Council members (Benoit, Walker and Swanson) are up for re-election.
It would behoove the current City Council to press the City Attorney for a realistic appraisal of the merits of Martha’s arguments, as set forth in her lawsuit. Since this appears to be a conflict between two elections on the same issue of “vote by district” versus “at large” voting, the Court, in my opinion, could eventually go either way.
Further, since the lawsuit does not seek to overturn previous elections, the implications for the future, if the Court agrees with Martha, are not that onerous or disruptive.
In any event, the issue should not be summarily dismissed by our elected officials, without seriously considering the merit and validity of her arguments.
However, in the past, the Wildomar City Council generally takes an automatic defensive stance on any litigation, despite the legal merits of the matter.
In this case, it is my belief that Martha’s “bite” is far more to be feared than her “bark.”
Comments can be made to email@example.com.
And far more expensive to defiantly resist, if her lawsuit is meritorious.