Will County now ignore the Padilla decision?

A week after a federal court ruled that a citizens initiative petition didn’t need to be translated into Spanish, Monterey County Supervisors sat in closed session Tuesday, Sept. 26, discussing three similar lawsuits with county attorneys

The meeting followed a 9th Circuit Court ruling in the Padilla v. Lever case, which had claimed that a recall petition against an Orange County school board member violated the Voting Rights Act because it wasn’t translated.

“There is no legal basis for the County to delay moving forward.”

Earlier this year, County Supervisors had used Padilla as justification to keep two key land-use measures off the June ballot.

One of the lawsuits discussed in the Sept. 26 closed session meeting was Rangel and Buell v. County of Monterey, et al., the case which set off the firestorm of legal action about the land-use measures.

In late February, Sabas Rangel, Maria Buell and Rosario Madrigal filed a federal lawsuit arguing that the General Plan Initiative, which had been signed by 16,000 voters, violated the Voting Rights Act because petition materials weren’t circulated in Spanish. The three later filed a second, similar lawsuit against opponents of the Butterfly Villages development (part of the bigger Rancho San Juan plan).

While none of the three plaintiffs would talk to the press, Carlos Ramos, a political consultant, accused local slow-growthers of discriminating against Latino residents. Ramos charged petition circulators with targeting white neighborhoods, misrepresenting the referendum to Spanish-speaking voters, and thereby violating the Voting Rights Act.

County Supervisors sided with Ramos and refused to put the anti-sprawl measures on of the ballot.

A few days later, General Plan initiative supporters filed a lawsuit against the County, Melendez/Madrigal v. County of Monterey, which asked the court to put the issue back on the June ballot. That lawsuit was also on the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting, as was Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition, et al. v. Board of Supervisors, et al., a lawsuit trying to force the County to allow residents to vote on Measure C, the Butterfly Villages initiative.

These three lawsuits are tied up in court; judges had delayed deciding the cases until Padilla had been reheard. But now that the court has made its decision on Padilla, county officials don’t seem to be taking much notice.

Last week, Assistant County Counsel Leroy Blankenship told the Weekly that he didn’t believe the new decision on Padilla would have any immediate implications for Monterey County’s pending court cases. Blankenship didn’t return phone calls this week asking if he would advise the supes to call a special election on the two anti-sprawl ballot measures.

If County Supervisors don’t call a special election, says Frederic Woocher, an attorney for Measure C and General Plan initiative supporters, he and his clients will continue to fight these land use battles in court.

“There is no legal basis for the County to delay moving forward with the elections on the qualified petitions,” he says.