Comments on: Silicon Valley Democrats decry ballot changes

By: My_Opinion

My_Opinion — Sat, 01 Oct 2022 02:53:04 +0000

In reply to Resident. “ Sylvia Arenas is upset because she’s actually being forced to follow the instructions she was given at the outset? Interesting” She’s upset because the only thing that got her on the ballot to begin with was the “D” word. It’s almost funny.

By: SJTaxpayer

SJTaxpayer — Wed, 28 Sep 2022 21:18:34 +0000

“slow performance on election day” – This is what scares the heck out of me!

Sounds horrible, but I have lost faith in our whole election system – I’ll still vote begrudgingly.

By: Robert Means

Robert Means — Fri, 23 Sep 2022 02:57:49 +0000

JohnMichael O’Connor, thank you for the actual citations and background. I agree with your legal assessment and your call for the County Executive to start a search for Ms. Bushey’s replacement. I have been concerned about the ROV’s office since her promotion. Based upon your statements, I feel justified.

By: JohnMichael O’Connor

JohnMichael O’Connor — Thu, 22 Sep 2022 22:37:26 +0000

“Santa Clara County’s registrar decided it (sic) would not allow political party endorsements to be included in any candidate statements that pertain to all nonpartisan offices up for election this November.” Shannon Bushey’s preferred pronoun is “it”?
Ms. Bushey has no such authority under the CA Election Code. Election Code section 13307 (a) (1) states that a candidate’s statement “…shall not include the party affiliation of the candidate, nor membership or activity in political organizations.” The Code is silent on the issue of endorsements. It is a well settled axiom of statutory interpretation that if a statute is silent on an issue, there is a conclusive presumption that the legislature did not intend to address it or prohibit it.
Election Code section 13313 (b)(1) states that any voter or election official may seek a writ of mandate or injunction requiring any or all of the statement to be amended or deleted within the 10 day public examination period. The 10 day limit is mandatory. It is in effect a statute of limitations controlling all such petitions. The standard of proof is “clear and convincing proof that the statement is false or misleading”. It does not allow Ms. Bushey to unilaterally “decide” to exclude a statement that is true and is not prohibited by law. The time for Ms. Bushey to have filed such a petition has long expired. Just another example of the slow walk Ms. Bushey brings to her job. Her office is always the last of the major counties to certify election results, and is always in the last five of all 58 counties. I have long wondered how Ms. Bushey has kept her job, given the consistent poor, slow performance on election day and thereafter.
It is now up to those who challenge Ms. Bushey’s unauthorized editing to go to court. But it would be a waste of taxpayer money and public employee time to require the challengers to sue. Ms. Bushey should rescind her illegal decision and save everyone the time, energy, and money of going to court. The County Executive should mandate it, then start a search for her replacement.
The case is one of statutory interpretation, not free speech as Messrs. James and McGarrity claim. It is long settled that specific tightly tailored regulations on what can and cannot be stated in official election documents are not free speech violations.

By: Resident

Resident — Wed, 21 Sep 2022 22:43:45 +0000

Sylvia Arenas is upset because she’s actually being forced to follow the instructions she was given at the outset? Interesting.

By: My_Opinion

My_Opinion — Wed, 21 Sep 2022 22:30:34 +0000

“The decision is based on an April court ruling in Orange County that requires a candidate endorsed by a political party to remove that reference, on the grounds it violates California election law for all candidates running in nonpartisan races.”

PERIOD!

By: Hummm…..

Hummm….. — Wed, 21 Sep 2022 20:51:01 +0000

The headline “Silicon Valley Democrats decry ballot changes” is odd. As opposed to who?

By: Don Gagliardi

Don Gagliardi — Wed, 21 Sep 2022 17:25:02 +0000

Good. Local races are supposed to be nonpartisan. Party affiliation is immaterial, especially since virtually every candidate is of the same party, anyway.