Elections Code section 13107 was brought to my attention yesterday:
13107. (a) With the exception of candidates for Justice of the State Supreme Court or Court of Appeal, immediately under the name of each candidate, and not separated from the name by any line, may appear at the option of the candidate only one of the following designations:
(1) Words designating the elective city, county, district, state, or federal office which the candidate holds at the time of filing the nomination documents to which he or she was elected by vote of the people, or to which he or she was appointed, in the case of a superior court judge.
(2) The word “incumbent” if the candidate is a candidate for the same office which he or she holds at the time of filing the nomination papers, and was elected to that office by a vote of the people, or, in the case of a superior court judge, was appointed to that office.
(3) No more than three words designating either the current principal professions, vocations, or occupations of the candidate, or the principal professions, vocations, or occupations of the candidate during the calendar year immediately preceding the filing of nomination documents. For purposes of this section, all California geographical names shall be considered to be one word. Hyphenated words that appear in any generally available standard reference dictionary, published in the United States at any time within the 10 calendar years immediately preceding the election for which the words are counted, shall be considered as one word. Each part of all other hyphenated words shall be counted as a separate word.
(4) The phrase “appointed incumbent” if the candidate holds an office other than a judicial office by virtue of appointment, and the candidate is a candidate for election to the same office, or, if the candidate is a candidate for election to the same office or to some other office, the word “appointed” and the title of the office. In either instance, the candidate may not use the unmodified word “incumbent” or any words designating the office unmodified by the word “appointed.” However, the phrase “appointed incumbent” shall not be required of a candidate who seeks reelection to an office which he or she holds and to which he or she was appointed, as a nominated candidate, in lieu of an election, pursuant to Sections 5326 and 5328 of the Education Code or Section 7228, 7423, 7673, 10229, or 10515 of this code.
So why has Kari Verjil allowed Brad Mitzelfelt to be designated as “San Bernardino County Supervisor”?
3 users commented in " Is Kari Verjil at it again? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackThey play very dirty games for exampple they didn’t return my recall petitios on Postmus, Ramos and Miltzelfelt within the ten day time frame last time and this time they have had them for almost 10 days, They know the Petitions well and yet envoke the ten day time table every time and they also addded 5 new changes. Human error is one thing but these people are plain sleazy. I even wonder if are votes even count at all with crooks like these no tellen what kind of other games these klowns are playing
From what I now understand Bob Nelson brought this to the attention of Kari Verjil before the ballots were printed and he was ignored. This goes right along with what we have been saying and that is that appears that Mark Uffer-controlled Kari Verjil is doing the BIA boys bidding for them.
From Bob Nelson. As a candidate for First District Supervisor, for the purpose of correcting any errors, I receved an advance copy of the Registrar’s proposed ballot listing for each of the four candidates. The next day, I faxed back an objection to Brad being listed as “San Bernardino County Supervisor” without the qualifing word “appointed” as mandated by section 13107(a)(4). The Registrar ignored my complaint.
On April 21st I submitted a formal complaint to Marsha Sage, our county’s Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer regarding the Registrar’s refusal to correct the ballot listing.
I also complained about the Registrar’s refusal to waive the pay in advance requirement for the $5,497 charge for a candidacy statement to appear in the voters pamphlet distributed to all votes. Since this charge represented 60 percent of my annual income, from Social Security, and 5,497 percent more than I had in my campaign fund, in accord with Election Code 13309(a) as an idnvidual “unable to pay in advance the requisite fee” I requested a waiver of the pay in advance requirement and the name of the individual or individuals making this determination. The request was denied with the decision made by “Registrar of voters staff”.
And the oath pledge of the Registrar of Voters posted on her website calls for her to be “flexible and innovative within the framework of the law” in carrying out here duties “on behalf of the public interest.”
California Election Code Section 13307 (4)(e) leaves it up to the board of supervisors to decide whether or not to charge a fee for including these candidate statements in the voters pamphlet. And section 13307(4)(c) leaves it up to the board to decide what the fee will be and whether or not it must be paid in advance, as well as the length, from 200 to 400 words.
Elections are meaningless without challenger candidates. And without candidacy statements, many voters muct make choices based on name ethnicity, sex, and and listed occupation. Particularly for candidates unable to reach every voter with billboards, radio, newspapers and TV ads.
My complaint to the the Ethics Czar included being told by the Registrar staff on the afternoon of February 19th, 2008 that it was the last day to file for the June 3,2008 election. Since the fee was $1,313 and I did not have a checkbook or the cash with me and there was not enought time to go to Hesperia and back before the Registrar’s office closed, this might have been the end of my attempt to run for office. Howver my mother was with me and she wrote the chech which I covered the next morning with one of those instant loan checks.
Leave A Reply