WHAT’S SPANISH FOR ‘LEGALESE?’… A long time ago, in a galaxy far away (the Monterey Courthouse), Supervisor DAVE POTTER predicted to Squid that the COUNTY GENERAL PLAN update process would end at the ballot box. Squid probably rolled Squid’s eyes.

Squid should have seen it way back then: the similarities between Potter and YODA. Both wise, both short, both…green. Shrewd prophesy Potter did make. Hmmmm.  

But not even a Jedi master could have foreseen how messy the General Plan battle would become.

Backers of the General Plan Initiative—recently shot down by a federal judge because it wasn’t circulated in Spanish—have asked the US NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS to make an emergency ruling to put the measure on the June ballot. And they’ve got a powerful election law attorney on their side.

On March 31, attorney RICHARD L. HASEN filed a friend of the court brief supporting the emergency motion to put the initiative back on the ballot.

“I am writing to bring to the court’s attention the fact that the lower court’s decision in this case [to strike down the slow-growth measure] threatens to wreak havoc on the upcoming June and November 2006 elections in California because its reasoning calls into question the legality of every state and local initiative that qualifies to appear on the ballot.

“Other states and localities in the Ninth Circuit with an initiative process (including Montana and Washington State) also face disruption until this court decides the merits of this appeal.”

Hasen, an LA attorney and professor at Loyola Law School, has co-authored a leading case book in the field of election law, and wrote The Supreme Court and Election Law. He co-edits the Election Law Journal and he’s the author of the Election Law Blog. He knows what he’s talking about.

He says that Padilla v. Lever doesn’t apply to the General Plan Initiative because the Padilla decision only applies to recall petitions. (And in a footnote, Hasen explains that if Padilla isn’t overturned, in a county like Los Angeles, a recall petition would have to be circulated in five languages.)

Hence, Hasen says the court should place the measure on the ballot, “granting the stay pending appeal will not infringe on the voting rights of groups protected by section 203 [of the voting Rights Act].

“As I noted in my Los Angeles Times op-ed, ‘The petitions serve merely to qualify initiative or recall questions for the ballot. Once those measures are on the ballot, then all voters in the jurisdiction get to vote and are entitled to relevant ballot materials in all languages required by the Voting Rights Act.’”

No word yet, in any language, on whether the appeals court agrees.