Press Enterprise Editor Misses The…..

 

 

….BOAT VOTE 

Future Wildomar Elections – 2008
   Vote Count Percent
By District 3,457 56.96%
At Large 2,612 43.04%
Total 6,069 100.00%

And the point of Martha Bridge’s litigation.

A recent Press-Enterprise Editor’s Opinion mis-represents Wildomar’s electoral history, as follows:

http://www.pe.com/opinion/editorials-headlines/20121223-editorial-let-voters-decide-how-to-structure-wildomar-elections.ece

When the issue of cityhood for Wildomar was initially placed on the ballot, the Local Agency Formation Committee (“LAFCO”) further required that the voters also choose the method of electing their City Council members, so they did!

As a result, on February 05, 2008, a majority of the voters approved cityhood for Wildomar AND they also chose to elect their future city councils “by District.”

Wildomar Council At Large- 2009
   Vote Count Percent
YES 1,397 60.45%
NO 914 39.55%
Total 2,311 100.00%

However, on November 03, 2009, a smaller number of voters approved a substitute “at-large” scheme which was generated from the Wildomar City Council, especially councilmember Marsha Swanson. In fact, 2060 “more” voters initially voted for districts than did those who later voted for “at-large.”

It is crass, if not willful, mis-representation on the part of the Press-Enterprise Editor to suggest that “another vote” should be the solution to the hand-wringing dilemma that Martha Bridges has apparently caused for the current City Council, who facilitated the wasteful expenditure of additional funds to conduct an election in November 2009, which overturned the will of a larger number of voters, voting in the original context of “cityhood,” itself.

Although former Wildomar City Attorney Julie Biggs provided a legal opinion that the November 2009 vote was a proper methodology available to the city council, legal opinions are only that, “opinions,” until a judge or a jury agrees with the opinion in the event a legal dispute arises, which it has.

As a result, Martha Bridges has taken legal umbrage, as is her right, over the questionable November 2009 vote and has decided, through her lawsuit, to ask the Court to weigh in on one side or the other of the issue in dispute.

Having read her Complaint, she is not asking the Court to overturn any previous election, which would be costly and chaotic. Instead, she has reasonably asked the Court to simply honor and restore the will of the voters who voted, in greater numbers, for districts in the February 2008 election.

Perhaps the Editor of the Press-Enterprise should review the history of elections in the City of Wildomar in order to get his/her facts straight before summarily dismissing Martha Bridge’s effort through the Court.

Comments can be made to zakturango@excite.com .

Oh crap, indeed!

Advertisements

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: