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.

• • •

Earlier in the year, many residents accused the supervisors—as well as Ramos and his group—of using the Voting Rights Act to quash the democratic process. They pointed out that Ramos and his clients targeted only these two anti-sprawl measures, and apparently didn’t care that school bonds or tax measures weren’t translated.

Rather than discuss the matter as a land-use debate, some continued to describe the legal battles in racial terms: as a dispute between Latinos who work here, but can’t afford to live here, versus no-growthers who’ve already got their Monterey County homes.

Bill Melendez takes issue with that analysis. A retired teacher and former state director of League of United Latin American Citizens, Melendez is a plaintiff in the lawsuit that seeks to put the General Plan Initiative back on the ballot. He calls himself a Latino activist and a voting rights activist.

In the late ‘90s, Melendez fought a Voting Rights Act case against Monterey County that ultimately went to the US Supreme Court, and another against the County in 2003. Both won.

“How can it be Latino activists against the other side?” he says. “I’m one of those Latino activists. And I’m opposed to the General Plan as put forth by the Board of Supervisors.”

For the past couple of years, pro-development groups have argued that slow-growth policies hurt Latinos because they drive the cost of housing up beyond what many workers can afford. Melendez doesn’t buy into this line of thinking.

“The reality is, as a Latino activist, I am concerned about affordable housing,” he says. “My view is that if you are doing any building, it should be in excess of 50 percent affordable because that’s what we need in Monterey County.”

The General Plan initiative calls for 30 percent of any new subdivisions to be built for low-income and working families.

Melendez cites a 2001 study, prepared by the County, titled “Report on Jobs and Housing in Monterey.”

The 14-page report says, based on workforce income, future housing should be built so that 22 percent will be affordable to very-low income residents, 19 percent affordable to low-income residents and 25 percent affordable to “moderate incomes,” the working class including teachers, police officers and firefighters.

“This is what the county was saying in 2001,” Melendez says, “That’s 66 percent. Two-thirds of all new housing stock. And we’re quibbling about 15 or 20 percent? C’mon, get with it.”

• • •

At the most recent board meeting, on Sept. 26, Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition Chair Julie Engell expressed a similar sentiment to supervisors, before they recessed to closed session.

Engell was among the petition gatherers who collected some 15,000 signatures to put Measure C on the ballot, and a similar number to put the General Plan initiative up for a vote.

Now that the court has decided Padilla, she wants the supes to stop using taxpayer dollars to fight the two ballot measures.

“Call a special election,” she said. “I can anticipate the argument: If 15,000 of us had simply rolled over, played dead, you wouldn’t have to use our money against us [in court] Please, stop the opposition. Stop wasting our money.”