City attorney invalidates referendum: War on Bayview/Hunter's Point!!

>This morning the San Francisco City Attorney
>issued a 13-page opinion claiming to invalidate
>the referendum petition on the Bayview Hunters
>Point Redevelopment Plan. More than 33,000
>signatures were turned in. This put us over
>10,000 more signatures than we needed. According
>to City Attorney Dennis Herrera, the opinion was
>requested by Mayor Gavin Newsom, Board of
>Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, District 10
>Supervisor Sophie Maxwell (BVHP is in District
>10) and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.
>The City Attorney's press release (below) and
>the full opinion are posted front and center on
>his website, www.sfgov.org/cityattorney/.
>
>*************************************************************
>Key Omissions Invalidate Referendum Petition on
>Bayview/Hunter’s Point Redevelopment Plan
>
>Signature Gatherers Ignored Requirement of
>California Elections Code That Redevelopment
>Plan Be Attached to Petitions for Consideration
>
>
>SAN FRANCISCO (Sept. 19, 2006)—City Attorney
>Dennis Herrera today issued a 13-page formal
>legal opinion holding that a referendum petition
>filed against the City ordinance that adopted
>the Bayview/Hunter’s Point Redevelopment Plan
>failed to comply with a California Elections
>Code requirement that the complete text of the
>ordinance, including key documents incorporated
>by reference, be attached to the petition for
>consideration by prospective signatories.
>According to the public opinion published on the
>City Attorney’s Web site this morning, the
>circulated petition included a copy of the City
>ordinance but omitted such obviously essential
>documents as the Redevelopment Plan itself.
>Without this key document, prospective signers
>were deprived of information they were lawfully
>entitled to consider before signing the
>referendum petition, including the boundaries of
>the redevelopment project area; the scope of
>eminent domain allowed under the plan; land use
>controls; and affordable housing requirements
>and programs. Because signature gatherers
>failed to comply with this procedural
>requirement of state law, Herrera’s opinion
>concludes, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
>has a ministerial duty to reject the referendum
>petition as invalid, thereby rendering the
>enacting ordinance immediately effective.
>
>“We take our citizens’ right to direct democracy
>very seriously, and that includes protecting the
>integrity of the referendum process,” Herrera
>said. “California law is clear—and California
>courts have been consistent—that referendum
>petitions must attach the complete text of the
>measure along with key documents incorporated by
>reference. Voters are entitled to fully
>understand what they are signing as petitioners,
>and California law rightfully protects our
>electoral process by ensuring that citizens have
>the proper information before them to make an
>informed judgment. It is clear that without the
>Redevelopment Plan, a signer could not
>understand the ordinance.”
>
>The City Attorney’s opinion, which was issued as
>a result of inquiries from Mayor Gavin Newsom,
>Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin,
>District 10 Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, and the
>San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, is entitled
>“Validity of Referendum Petition Filed Against
>the Bayview Hunter’s Point Redevelopment Plan,
>Ordinance No. 113-06,” September 19, 2006. The
>full opinion is available online on the City
>Attorney’s Web site at
>http://www.sfgov.org/cityattorney/.
>
>