Reform Bid Loses April Ballot Spot

Citing legal concerns, the Los Angeles City Council in a close vote Tuesday refused to place Mayor Richard Riordan’s government-reform initiative on the April ballot pending a federal court order.

The council majority in the 8-7 vote argued that the mayor’s initiative is so legally flawed it would expose council members to lawsuits if they put the measure to a citywide vote. Riordan’s supporters said the decision, in effect, denies voters a voice in government reform.

Later in the day, U.S. District Court Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer declined to order the council to place the measure on the ballot until lawyers for the mayor and the council come to agreement on pending legal questions raised by the initiative.

“I’m not signing an order until I know that I’m on sound legal ground,” Pfaelzer said, ordering both sides to meet today to resolve their differences.

Riordan and his supporters have little time to qualify the measure for the city’s April election. The city clerk has said the council must decide this week.

“The council is just grasping at any straw to thwart the will of the people,” said Councilman Joel Wachs, a supporter of Riordan’s initiative.

Riordan’s measure would ask voters to create a 15-member government-reform panel and to elect the panel’s members. The mayor spent $400,000 of his own money to collect the signatures needed to qualify it for the ballot.

David Fleming, a Studio City attorney who teamed with Riordan on the reform initiative, called the vote part of a “continued pattern of delay by the council.”

The Valley Industry and Commerce Assn. in a statement urged the council to “discontinue further efforts to frustrate or delay the implementation of the initiative that gives registered voters the right to decide whether or not to form an election citizens charter commission.”

The vote Tuesday is the latest wrinkle in a continuing power struggle between the council and the mayor over how to overhaul the 71-year-old city charter, which serves as a blueprint for governing Los Angeles. Riordan’s initiative calls for the citizens reform panel to write a new charter and place it on a subsequent ballot for approval.

Riordan and others say the charter now dilutes authority in City Hall, making it difficult to hold anyone accountable.

But a majority of council members have criticized Riordan’s efforts, calling it an attempt at tipping the balance of power toward the mayor’s office. The council has created its own advisory reform panel to recommend charter revisions.

For the mayor’s measure to qualify in time for the April 8 ballot, City Clerk J. Michael Carey said candidates for the reform panel would have to file a declaration of candidacy by Jan. 27 and collect at least 500 signatures on a nominating petition by Feb. 18.

Although Riordan and his supporters collected 304,000 signatures to qualify the measure for the April ballot, the council has raised a series of legal issues over how Riordan’s reform panel would be elected.

When the petition was circulated this winter, it called for a “citywide” election of panel members, as required under state law. But the council questioned whether an at-large election would violate the Federal Voting Rights Act that ensures minorities are fairly represented. The council suggested an election by districts.

Riordan sued the city to have Pfaelzer clarify the issue.

The judge gave each side a small victory, agreeing with the council majority that at-large elections would violate the federal act and also ruling the measure should be placed on the April ballot.

But a majority of council members say they could be sued for putting a modified version of the measure on the ballot after 304,000 voters signed petitions calling for at-large elections.

After the council vote, some Riordan opponents blamed the mayor for the legal predicament.

“We are in this legal quagmire because of an action filed by the mayor,” Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas said.

Ridley-Thomas says the council wants to put the measure on a ballot promptly but that there probably is not enough time for candidates to learn about the election, decide whether to run and mount a campaign before the April 8 election.

Although Pfaelzer appeared willing to order the city to place the measure on the ballot, she said she first wanted lawyers for the mayor and the council to agree on several points, including, for instance, whether panel members should be elected by a 50% plus 1 majority or simply by the most votes.