Letter: SLT city attorney violates First Amendment
To the community,
Like the paid parking foes who received a “rejection” of their initiative earlier this week, our medical marijuana voter initiative was also rejected. That makes two separate citizen groups that the South Lake Tahoe city attorney has denied their First Amendment rights and twice that he has flaunted the law to exercise authority he doesn’t have.
The city attorney claims, “It is the duty of the city attorney to review the text for compliance with California law. If the text is proper and appropriate following that review, the city attorney should provide a ballot title and summary, allowing the circulations of petitions.”
Steve Kubby
That is not what the law says. Here is the actual law that pertains: “Section 9203 (a) Any person who is interested in any proposed measure shall file a copy of the proposed measure with the elections official with a request that a ballot title and summary be prepared. This request shall be accompanied by the address of the person proposing the measure. The elections official shall immediately transmit a copy of the proposed measure to the city attorney. Within 15 days after the proposed measure is filed, the city attorney shall provide and return to the city elections official a ballot title for and summary of the proposed measure. The ballot title may differ from any other title of the proposed measure and shall express in 500 words or less the purpose of the proposed measure. In providing the ballot title, the city attorney shall give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the proposed measure in such language that the ballot title shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure.”
Please note that “any proposed measure” may be submitted and the city attorney must issue a ballot title and summary. The word “shall” means “mandatory” as it relates to issuing the ballot title and summary.
I publicly challenge the city attorney to provide a legal basis for his authority to reject a voter initiative, because the language of the Section 9203 (a) of the California Election Code is clear enough and he does not have any authority to decide what petitions qualify for the ballot. Furthermore, by rejecting our initiative the city attorney has directly violated one of the key warnings of Section 9203 (a), by creating an argument of “rejection” which creates extreme prejudice against our proposed measure.
Worse still, the city attorney is directly obstructing our First Amendment right to petition our government, under color of law. Such obstruction can only serve to create the appearance of a city government at war with the community, determined to block opposition through unlawful means.
So far, not one word from any City Council members to speak out against this outrageous and unprecedented attack on the right of the people to seek redress through the initiative process. Indeed, to the citizens who seek redress on the issue of paid parking, as well as those who seek a sane medical marijuana policy, these illegal actions by the city attorney and the silence of the City Council calls into question the judgment and character of those who are supposed to serve us.
Steve Kubby, South Lake Tahoe
It’s sad to know that the city council really only cares about 3 things in this town. Themselfves, their own ideas and tourist. Great feeling for a local.
Thanks for the info. Why isn’t the anti paid parking coalition going public like you have ? Why aren’t they outraged ? Let’s hear from some of those people too.
“That makes two separate citizen groups that the South Lake Tahoe city attorney has denied their First Amendment rights and twice that he has flaunted the law to exercise authority he doesn’t have.”
Mr Kubby, your above statement is worded to intimate that these two separate actions were taken by the same person. I may be mistaken, but haven’t we gotten a new city attorney over the past year? I’m not questioning the gist of your letter, just asking for some clarification.
Both “rejections” came last week from the same city attorney, Tom Watson. However, two years ago, another city attorney issued a two page title and summary for a medical marijuana initiative I wrote that is nearly identical to the one just rejected.
For more on the second group being rejected see: https://www.laketahoenews.net/2013/11/slt-city-attorney-says-paid-parking-foes/
To see a video report about the city attorney’s actions to ban voter initiatives see:
http://youtu.be/i_SSfhkbRdE
The closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program.
Paid parking is a government program, and the last thing any municipality will ever do is admit to a mistake.
Level, yes, the city attorney was hired within the past 12 months. Yes, he is the same individual who blocked both requests.
If Steve has clearly stated all the facts and there are no other sections of this law that would give credence to what the city attorney has done, this is very, very serious. The city council might have a bigger problem than they know. If the city attorney ever had to testify in front of a grand jury it would be interesting to learn who has provided him direction to take these actions.
Remember, the city attorney was hired by and reports to the city council. Its their job to manage and question all of this if it is a rogue action by the city attorney and not of their will.
I thought Steve Kubby moved to Canada?
I agree that Mr. Kubby as well as the paid parking group, Tahoe4Tahoe, are being blocked from collecting signatures to put their issues on the ballot.
I believe 3 city council seats are on the ballot.
If the sitting council members don’t change the parking ordinance they created on their own or allow signatures to be collected so it can be on the ballot and allow Mr. Kubby’s initiative to follow the same process, then “we the people” should make sure they aren’t our representatives, at any level of government (Angela Swanson is running for higher office).
Please submit these questions to the County DA and the County Elections Board or whomever else has authority to question these actions. I would also suggest contacting the Sacramento Bee as I am sure they are lacking in stories to write about. It seems obvious that our City Attorney has violated the letter of the California Statute and should answer for it.
When will government officials remember for whom they work? I think only when they are held to the letter of the law like the rest of us.
My Two Cents.
Mayor Tom Davis just contacted me to advise me that he will be looking into this issue. I thanked the Mayor for his personal and prompt attention to this matter, but I reminded him that rights delayed are rights denied.
I need to contact you on a matter that is more important than the Johnny Poland case. Look up U.S.C. 1983 . My matter is more important than you may anticipate.
Is it possible that the City Manager and City Attorney are unaware of Steve K.’s vast litigious experience and history of success concerning medical marijuana issues? Or that a solid base of voting locals would likely defeat the parking meters? I don’t think so. There must be some solid legal reason they were able to reject these two initiatives or they wouldn’t put the City at risk for potentially expensive lawsuits and the most certain political defeat of certain Council members in the next elections. Would they?
To Bijou Bill . Your latest comments show that you know nothing about government corruption. The cause of government corruption first arises from the belief that the government officer (person acting unlawfully) is superior to the citizen’s rights. Nixon best exemplified this frame of mind when he believed that his actions were lawful because he was the president, and he, the president, could do anything because his office was the law. Nixon escaped prosecution for obstruction of justice when he resigned . You assume that a city officer will always act reasonably, with fear of accountability. They don’t always act reasonably. City officials often think they will escape accountability due to their stature in holding the position of authority. Here we find such another case.
Tahoe pizza Eater,
Apparently you are incapable of basic reading comprehension or you would have understood the meaning of my interrogative post.
Your attempt at educating me on the history of gov’t corruption was a pathetically shallow word salad of the obvious better suited for someone else in A.Jones/nutjob world.
B. B. I did not misinterpret your comments. No matter how clearly something is explained to you, you just don’t understand the truth. The law is stated clearly by Mr. Kubby. The constitutional tort is also explained by Mr. Kubby. You attempted to justify the city attorney’s actions through use of a theory that he, ( the city attorney ) must know something more than we the citizens know. The applicable law has been described herein. The words of the law applied, demonstrate unlawful misconduct. It is you who needs to undergo further education towards reading comprehension. You state, and I quote ” There must be some solid legal reason they were able to reject these two initiatives” You used the word “must” , in the context showing that the city attorney “must” not be violating the rights of citizens. You could have reread your comment and accepted your error. Instead you attack me with your insults.
Mr. Kubby; just curious if you have seen the draft that was turned into the city attorney and the reason it was actually turned down. I saw the draft when it was turned into the city clerk not the attorney as it had to go to the clerk first. If you would like to discuss this further please call me. Thank You. 530-308–5265
tahoe Pizza eater,
Here’s a clue: Your dubious interpretation of the law in an online discussion forum has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of this situation. Your pathetic jail house lawyer assertions about what is or is not a “constitutional tort” or “applicable law” may impress some of the voices in your head but come on man, these things are a little more complex than that. EOM
” You used the word “must” , in the context showing that the city attorney “must” not be violating the rights of citizens. ”
No he didn’t.
Bills comment was not the most clear comment I have read, I had to reread it to get the intention of it.
What I read, the word ‘must’ was not used strictly, and intended to bring up the possibility that something else is going on here. It was used with a hint of absurdity, hence the second half of the sentence.
Dear City Council Members,
It’s been over ten days since the clock ran out on the city attorney to provide a title and summary to the Tahoe4Tahoe group and three days past due for our group’s medical marijuana initiative. During that time, you have continued to evade your oath of office with your silence and your dereliction of duty.
When you assumed your seat as a member of the South Lake Tahoe City Council, you took the following oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.”
You swore to DEFEND the Constitution and with it the Bill of Rights, which means your official oath of office REQUIRES you to condemn the unconstitutional actions of the city attorney.
There is a reason the First Amendment comes first in the Bill of Rights, because it is the most important right of a free people. The First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Here in California, the right of the people to petition the Government through the voter initiative process has been enshrined in the Constitution of the State of California for over one hundred years.
Opposing the right of the people to seek change through a voter initiative, as you have done with your silence, is an insult to this community and to those who sacrificed their lives to secure our freedom. It is a slap in the face to all who serve today to protect our freedom. It raises all sorts of unpleasant questions about your moral character and judgement. It creates the appearance that your word means nothing, that you lied when you took your oath of office and that you are morally unfit to hold any elected office whatsoever.
Today you have an opportunity to redeem yourself and to show this town what you are made of. That’s because I’ve told the city manager that we will extend our deadline to the end of today for the city attorney to issue our title and summary. I don’t speak for the paid parking foes, but I believe they will agree to the same terms.
All this can be fixed and you can show us where you stand on defending our constitutional rights, by publicly condemning the actions of the city attorney and demanding he issue the two title and summaries immediately.
Thank you in advance for doing the right thing today and for your service to our community.
Let freedom grow,
Steve Kubby
(Sent via email to all city council members earlier today. Yes, I know they will probably dig in their heels, but let’s be positive and give them a chance to do the right thing.)
Steve, you gave them an ultimatum. What’s the consequences if they don’t act by end of day? Also, do they have the option to put something on the ballot past the date that state/county set?
Thanks in advance for responding.
If the mayor is looking into this issue, then does that mean he did’nt know what the city attorney was doing? Who does know the CM? Lots of questions that need to be answered and soon.
It is a crime, punishable by $5,000 fine and one year in jail to delay a voter initiative. The City Council members, City Manager and City Attorney all had a chance to fix things today and they blew it. Now they can tell it to the judge. See Elections Code Section 18620: Every person who seeks, solicits, bargains for, or obtains any money, thing of value, or advantage of or from any person, firm, or corporation for the purpose or represented purpose of fraudulently inducing, persuading, or seeking the proponent or proponents of any initiative or referendum measure or recall petition to (a) abandon the measure or petition, (b) fail, neglect, or refuse to file in the office of the elections official or other officer designated by law, within the time required by law, the initiative or referendum measure or recall petition after securing the number of signatures required to qualify the measure or petition, © stop the circulation of the initiative or referendum measure or recall petition, or (d) perform any act that will prevent or aid in preventing the initiative or referendum measure or recall petition from qualifying as an initiative or referendum measure, or the recall petition from resulting in a recall election, is punishable by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code for 16 months or two or three years, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Oh please Steve, give it a rest. We all know you want to legalize Pot but the voters did not “elect” you to the City Council and now you have an “axe” to grind.
As far as the paid parking is concerned, I have lived in town for about 30 years and have not paid any parking fees. Locals know where to park and not park, out of towners can pay for all the parking they want for all I care.
Steve kubby is the new ted long. Likes to hear himself talk like a lawyer. Thinks everyone in slt wants a potshop in their neighborhood. Well, good luck with that.