Judge Meyer Issues Ruling on Charter Case

Charter Propositions Upheld; Citizenship Praised

Visiting Judge John Meyer issued a four-page ruling on  Michael Carlson et al. v San Juan County et al., to attorneys in the case representing the plaintiffs (Stephanie O’Day) the county (Randall Gaylord) and the State (Jeffrey Even and Laura Watson) today, February 27.

In the statement, Meyer said he was “asked to assess the legality and propriety of a political process created for and voted on by the duly-constituted electorate of San Juan County.

“I heard argument which highlighted great traditions of democracy from the Magna Carta to the Mayflower to Federal and State Constitutions to present day forms of local government.  I received detailed explanations of how Propositions 1, 2, and 3 came into being.  I heard descriptions of the bias or motives of the participants; how the goals of the original Freeholders were thwarted by the Charter Review Commission (CRC); how a small but strategically situated minority in the County overrode the will of the people; and, finally, how the electorate was confused and misled into supporting an alternative form of government which will lead San Juan County into disaster.  The heart of this debate is whether or not San Juan County should be governed by a council of six or three; that is not an issue for me to decide. I can only determine whether the process that brought us here is acceptable under the law. “(Emphasis added).

Meyer states that the work of the Charter Review Commission (CRC) was carried out in “an open and extremely transparent manner, with all sorts of opportunities for input from the entire citizenry;” and that the County Council and voters acted properly and the Charter Propositions as approved are valid.

The judge notes, “Most interesting to me, though perhaps not particularly relevant, is that Proposition 1, 2, and 3 essentially implement the same system of government that existed before the original Home Charter was put into effect in 2005.”

Judge Meyer denied the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing/Justiciability. He likewise denied the motion to dismiss for delay (laches).

He grants the Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendants in the case, saying that the “one subject rule” for ballot measures  “applies only to the State Legislative process and not to local measures;” and further “that only one subject was addressed in each of the three propositions… all consist of the introduction, concise statement, and question called for under law, nothing more or less.

“Finally, I find no substantial evidence in the record that the ballot titles were confusing and misleading to the average, inquiring San Juan County voter.  …   I have great faith in the ability of the citizens of San Juan County to make informed decisions. ”

San Juan County has a Home Rule Charter, so the statutes thought to be applicable are irrelevant.  The State really has nothing to say about how San Juan County created its Charter.  Also, residency districts, as opposed to voting districts, may be unequal in population and size.  That is precisely what we have in San Juan County.  If anyone doubts that theory, take a look at the discrepancies in Congressional Districts around the country.” Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

In the Equal Protection” argument of the Plaintiffs in the suit, Meyer rules, “Here, the Plaintiffs have failed to show that a suspect class or fundamental right has been infringed.  As noted before, residency districts can and do have unequal populations; this is allowable so long as the voting district encompasses the entire county.  Not one of the propositions put before the voters has an impact on the fundamental right to vote.

“Unfortunately, whether or not a random Lopez Islander may have a better chance to get elected than a resident of other islands is irrelevant constitutionally.  Under the Proposition 1 scheme, no one is denied the right to be either a candidate or to cast a vote.”

The judge upheld the scheduling of elections as mandated by the adoption of Charter Proposition 1, saying “In order to make the new system work, it is necessary at the outset to start the new office holders at the same time.  In the future the terms will become staggered.  Regardless of what public policy may or may not be with regard to staggered terms, there is only one way to commence a new system.  The numbers of general, primary, and special elections to be held in San Juan County are an unfortunate but necessary by-product of the changes required by the passage of Propositions 1-3.

“Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction halting the April [2013]election is denied.”

“Although it has not formally been brought before me, I in no manner of thinking believe that this was a frivolous lawsuit.  The Plaintiffs raised good and debatable issues that deserved the review of an impartial tribunal.  Further, it became quite clear to me that a number of people participated for more than merely not liking the political result, but to question the process.  That was most impressive to me, as it represents an extraordinarily high level of interest and commitment to good government amongst the residents of San Juan County.

A lawsuit such as this is truly a part of a great American tradition: respectful dissent and honorable opposition.  I believe that Ms. O’Day’s opening remarks and posture throughout this case – while not forgetting the excellent work by Messrs. Gaylord and Even – aptly showed why, in this magnificent Democracy of ours, citizens can petition for redress of their grievances and receive a full and fair hearing. “