In a sign of the increasing contentiousness in local politics, the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters is being challenged with regard to at least four matters that are to appear on the November 5 ballot.
In Upland, a former mayoral candidate is challenging the language contained within a measure the city council on a 4-to-1 vote on August 9 asked the registrar to place on the ballot as well as what she said is biased language in the legal analysis of the measure by the city attorney which is to accompany the preview of the item to be contained in the packet of information provided to voters with the sample ballots to be mailed to voters toward the end of September.
An incumbent seeking reelection to the Cucamonga County Water District Board of Directors has gone to court to challenge the registrar of voters office’s apparent acceptance of one of his opponent’s description of herself as a water services professional, despite her lack of professional experience or licensing in that regard.
An incumbent Rancho Cucamonga councilwoman has gone to court to overturn the registrar of voters office’s determination that she had failed to qualify her candidacy for reelection because some of the 20 signatures of her constituents registered to vote in her district she was required to obtain endorsing her candidacy were determined to be invalid.
In Ontario, a candidate for city council there has launched a similar legal challenge to the disqualification of his candidacy after the registrar of voters office made an initial finding that he was good to go in his race but then determined he should be left off the ballot because some of the signatures he gathered were in some way defective.
On August 9, the Upland City Council held a special meeting at which it considered a resolution to place on the November 5 ballot a measure that, if passed by a majority of the city’s voters, would impose on all shoppers patronizing commercial establishments within the 15.6-square mile city an added one cent per dollar in sales tax. At the same meeting, the council considered rescinding a vote it had made on July 22 to place a measure on the November 5 ballot that called for altering the city’s longstanding business license tax and the fee schedule for businesses operating in the city. While the revamping of the business licensing formula the city uses would have resulted in the city increasing its revenue by somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 million per year, city officials estimated the sales tax override in Upland would generate for the city somewhere around $22 million in additional income annually. Ultimately, with Councilman Carlos Garcia casting the dissenting vote, the council voted 4-to-1 to forsake pursuing having the voters adjust the cost of the city’s business operating permits and instead committed to asking the city’s residents to consent to a higher sales tax.
The proposal to appear on the ballot was dubbed the City of Upland Infrastructure, Public Safety and City Services Measure, which will present to Upland’s voters a question worded thusly, “To improve and maintain infrastructure, including repaving major roads/neighborhood streets, and repairing potholes/sidewalks; and preventing cuts to 9-1-1 emergency response, neighborhood police patrols, gang/crime prevention and addressing homelessness, shall the measure establishing a one-cent sales tax, generating approximately $20,000,000 annually for general city services, which cannot be taken by the State of California, with citizen oversight, audits, disclosure, and local control by Upland, be adopted?” Voters are to have the option of voting either “Yes” or “No.”
Lois Sicking Dieter was one of three candidates who challenged then-incumbent Mayor Debbie Stone in the 2020 election, a four-way contest in which then-incumbent Councilman Bill Velto prevailed. Sicking Dieter has taken issue with the council majority’s action, which replicates what it did two years ago, when the city council placed a nearly identical measure before the voters in the 2022 election. In that case, what was designated as Measure L failed to gain passage, garnering 10,222 votes or 44.6 percent in favor and 12,697 or 55.4 percent in opposition.
In 2022, the city submitted a measure with language that abided by  Elections Code Section 13247 and Elections Code Section 13119, which require, respectively, that the measure language which appears on the ballot – known as either the measure statement or ballot question – be concise and not be stated in a way that is argumentative or worded in a way intended to prejudice the voter one way or another with regard to the content and intent of the measure.
Elections Code Section 13247 provides as follows: “The statement of all measures submitted to the voters shall be abbreviated on the ballot in a ballot label. The ballot label shall be followed by the words, ‘Yes’ and ‘No’”
Elections Code Section 13119(a) states, “The ballots used when voting upon a measure proposed by a local governing body or submitted to the voters as an initiative or referendum measure, including a measure authorizing the issuance of bonds or the incurrence of debt, shall have printed on them the words ‘Shall the measure (stating the nature thereof) be adopted?’ To the right or below the statement of the measure to be voted on, the words ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ shall be printed on separate lines, with voting targets.
Elections Code Section 13119(c) states, “The statement of the measure shall be a true and impartial synopsis of the purpose of the proposed measure, and shall be in language that is neither argumentative nor likely to create prejudice for or against the measure.”
Elections Code Section 13247 states, “The statement of all measures submitted to the voters shall be abbreviated on the ballot in a ballot label as provided for in Section 9051. The ballot label shall be followed by the words, ‘Yes’ and ‘No’.”
According to Sicking Dieter’s petition for a writ of mandate, which was filed on her behalf by attorney Cory Briggs, “With respect to the statement of Measure N: The statement, as set forth in the resolution, does not follow the statutorily prescribed format: ‘Shall the measure (stating the nature thereof) be adopted?’ The statement is not a true and impartial synopsis of the purpose of the proposed measure. The statement is expressed in language that is argumentative and/or likely to create prejudice for or against the measure.”
Sicking Dieter’s suit seeks “a judgment and/or order determining or declaring that the ballot statement (also known as the ballot question) for Measure N does not fully comply with all applicable laws and a writ of mandate compelling the City of Upland, Upland City Clerk Keri Johnson, San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Stephenie Shea as the respondents to correct the ballot statement for Measure N and a prohibition against the respondents and any other parties acting at their request, in concert with them or for the benefit of one or more of them from taking any action on any aspect of, in furtherance of, or otherwise based on the ballot statement for Measure N unless and until all applicable laws, as determined by the court are complied with.”
Ashley Stickler, who is the incumbent councilwoman representing Rancho Cucamonga’s District 1, has initiated legal action in the form of a petition for a writ of mandate naming Rancho Cucamonga City Clerk Janice Reynolds in her capacity as the city’s election official and San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Stephenie Shea in her capacity as the county’s senior election official. Stickler, represented by attorneys Brian Hildreth and Katherine Jenkins of the Sacramento-based law firm of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, in her suit maintains that she is on the verge of being excluded from the November 5 ballot in the face of conflicting findings with regard to the validity of the signatures of the voters who endorsed her candidacy on the papers she filed with the city clerk’s office to run for reelection.
According to Hildreth and Jenkins, “On July 25, 2024, petitioner [Stickler] submitted her candidate nomination papers for the office of member of the city council, District l, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the November 5, 2024 general election. On July 29, 2024, respondent registrar of voters certified to petitioner that her nomination papers were sufficient and contained the correct number of valid signatures, and accepted them for filing. The filing period for a municipal candidate’s nomination papers ended on Friday, August 9, 2024.”
Stickler’s petition for a writ of mandate continues, “On Saturday, August 10, 2024, late in the evening, respondent registrar of voters informed the city that it had reevaluated all nomination petition signatures and that petitioner did not, in fact, meet the nomination requirements because there were not enough valid voter signatures on her nomination petition. On Monday, August 12, 2024, the Rancho Cucamonga city manager informed petitioner of this finding and forwarded her the updated statistics by email. By this date, it was too late for petitioner to cure any deficiency in her nomination papers. Typically, if a nomination paper is determined to be insufficient, or a candidate fails to obtain the correct number of valid signatures on his or her nomination paper, the elections official issues a supplemental signature petition to the candidate on which the candidate may collect additional nomination signatures. This supplemental petition must be filed no later than the last day for filing for that office. The last day of filing for petitioner’s office was Friday, August 9, 2024. However, petitioner was not made aware of the purported deficiency issue until Monday, August 12, 2024, after the deadline for filing supplemental nomination papers pursuant to Elections Code section 10221. Therefore, petitioner had no time to collect and submit additional valid signatures to respondent city clerk before the legal deadline to do so. Immediately upon learning of the issue, petitioner did quickly obtain a supplemental nomination paper from the city, and on August 13, 2024, submitted 9 additional valid nomination signatures to respondent city clerk.”
Hildreth and Jenkins maintain that “without an order of this court, respondents will be unable to verify and accept these supplemental signatures, so that petitioner’s name will be included as a qualified candidate for member of the city council, District 1, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at the November 5, 2024 general election. This petition seeks to correct any error, omission, or neglect of duty that has or is about to occur.”
Stickler’s petition requests “a peremptory writ of mandate ordering respondents, and their officers, agents, and all persons acting by, through, or in concert with them, to accept petitioner’s supplemental nomination petition, qualify petitioner as a candidate for member of the city council, District 1, for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and place petitioner’s name and ballot designation on the ballot, sample ballot, voter information guide, and all other official materials, for the November 5, 2024 general election.
Stickler’s was not the only applicant for candidacy in the November 5 election who was previously determined to have qualified for the ballot and then encountered the registrar of voters office’s rescission of that certification as a consequence of the reexaminations that took place over the weekend of August 10/11. On August 12, notifications went out to Rachel Arzu, challenging incumbent Highland District 3 Councilwoman Penny Lilburn, informing her that her candidacy, which was previously certified, was being rejected because signatures she had obtained were deemed invalid. Similar notifications were sent to Joshua Augustus, running against incumbent Rialto Mayor Deborah Robertson; Ted Bohanon, opposing Apple Valley District 1 Town Councilman Larry Cusack; Gregory Hogan, running in the wide-open contest for Highland District 1 city councilman; Bill Jensen, seeking the open post as Hesperia District 5 city councilman; Jose Nikyar, running for the newly created position of District 4 representative on the Ontario City Council; and April Ramirez, a hopeful for the Twentynine Palms District 2 city council position.
In the cases of Hogan, Jensen and Ramirez, the consideration that the incumbents who currently hold the posts they are seeking were not seeking reelection meant that the filing deadline was extended until August 14 for those considering whether to compete in those contests. All three, Hogan, Jensen and Ramirez, were informed of the inadequacies in their previous filings and were able to use the added time to go out and find enough valid signatures of bona fide registered voters to add onto their already-existing string of signatures to validate their candidate applications.
For Arzu, Augustus, Bohanon and Nikyar, however, the outcome was far less sanguine. Despite having been told earlier that the registrar of voters had certified all of the endorsing signatures on their candidacy papers as valid, they were informed that some of the signatures had subsequently been determined to be inadequate or invalid and that they were no longer in the race.
Like Stickler, Nikyar did not take the rejection of his candidacy lying down. He retained San Bernardino-based attorney Tim Prince, who filed on his behalf a petition for a writ of mandate naming Ontario City Clerk Sheila Mautz and Registrar of Voters Stephenie Shea.
According to Prince’s filing, Nikyar “filed with the respondent Ontario city clerk all papers necessary to become a candidate for Ontario City Council, District 4 on July 23, 2024, including a nomination petition containing 30 signatures in satisfaction of the requirement of 20 valid signatures to qualify as a candidate for Ontario City Council on the November 5, 2024 ballot. The signatures were submitted well over two weeks in advance of the deadline of August 9, 2024, in order to allow time for respondents to verify the signatures and advise petitioner if any additional valid signatures were required in advance of the deadline.”
According to Prince, “Respondents subsequently advised petitioner that some of the signatures were invalid, and petitioner submitted additional signatures to respondent city clerk.”
According to Prince, Mautz handed the documents Nikyar had filed off to the registrar of voters office, which verified the endorsing signatures. Thereafter, according to Prince’s filing, “On August 6, 2024, three days before the deadline, respondent city clerk notified petitioner that the signatures were sufficient and told him, ‘Congratulations! You have qualified as a candidate on the ballot.’ Five days later, after the deadline of August 9, 2024, respondent registrar notified respondent city clerk, ‘Late Friday night, staff identified a clerical error that impacted the evaluation of city nomination petition signatures.’ Due to this technical error within respondent registrar’s office, it was determined after the deadline that the previous approval of signatures was reversed and that petitioner needed four additional signatures from District 4 residents to qualify for the ballot. Respondent city clerk sent correspondence dated August 13, 2024, to petitioner informing him ‘how sorry I am’ that respondent ‘registrar of voters has caused’ respondent city clerk to issue ‘revised findings for Jose Nikyar’s petitions for City of Ontario City Council, District 4’ indicating four additional valid signatures are needed to qualify. ‘The county counsel advises that it would require a court order’ to remedy the error, and ‘we would suggest that you consider retaining legal counsel to assess your legal options to… qualify for the November 5, 2024 election ballot.’”
Accordingly, Prince states in his filing, “Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate directed to respondents Sheila Mautz, in her official capacity as city clerk of Ontario, California, and Stephenie Shea, in her official capacity as the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters, to promptly accept additional signatures in satisfaction of the requirement they admit they previously determined petitioner had met, and if those signatures are verified and acceptable in satisfaction of the legal requirement of 20 signatures, to include petitioner’s name as a qualified candidate for member of the city council, District 4, in the City of Ontario, in the November 5, 2024, general election.”
Prince’s filing continues, “Petitioner had no alternative but to rely on the ‘determination’ of respondents, the elections officials, as to the sufficiency of the signatures. He had no opportunity to rectify the error, and he is entitled to relief by order of this court. Candidates who submit timely nomination petitions allowing more than adequate time for evaluation of signatures must be treated fairly, given accurate information, provided necessary forms, and afforded the opportunity to comply with nomination procedures and requirements. Voters must have the right to choose from all candidates without exclusion of candidates due to clerical error.”
-Mark Gutglueck