An 8th Judicial District judge determined his court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit brought against Loveland City Clerk Patti Garcia by supporters of a citizen petition on Monday.
The decision effectively halted a request from the supporters for more days to gather signatures, though Garcia’s office had already agreed to review more signatures in addition to the 2,142 signatures recognized as valid out of 3,589 submitted previously.
“It’s clear from the evidence that there are a couple of things that happened that caused confusion,” judge Daniel McDonald said, explaining his ruling. “The vast majority of it is COVID-19. Clearly, without that, it probably would have gone a little bit differently.”
The proposed ballot question being advanced by the petition would ask voters to allow retail marijuana businesses in Loveland. Currently, no marijuana businesses are allowed in the city. Supporters must gather at least 2,888 signatures from registered electors to place the item on the ballot.
At issue Monday were emails and phone calls between Garcia and the plaintiffs, through which plaintiffs Autumn Todd and Tom Wilczynski said Garcia tried to mislead them as to the amount of time they had to submit collections of signatures.
“The evidence shows that Ms. Garcia has engaged in a series of half-truths, misstatements that were uncorrected, and, when convenient, a misremembering of what transpired,” lead attorney Michael Dailey said.
However, the plaintiffs indicated at other points that they knew they only had 90 days to submit signatures, and Todd said he only “skimmed” the email in which Garcia informed him that the collection of 2,142 signatures was not sufficient, after which they had a limited amount of time to protest the determination, which they did not do.
The group also alleged that Garcia refused to accept collections of signatures within the 90-day window when they would have been allowed to submit them. Garcia’s attorneys argued that they have since agreed to accept more signatures, which they said rendered the plaintiffs’ request for relief moot.
“There is a clear process, as the court noted, for protests and then for judicial review,” defense attorney Alicia Calderon said. “Had a protest been filed, the clerk could have established a clear record. The clerk also could have corrected her errors.”
McDonald said the fact that the plaintiffs did not protest Garcia’s office’s findings meant they hadn’t exhausted the administrative remedies available to them, which was a condition of the court moving on to hear the merits of the case.
“There was sufficient instruction given about those procedures,” he said. “They may not have understood it, but the clerk can’t force someone to read their emails and fully understand what they’re doing.”
He also challenged the group’s contention that Garcia had acted dishonestly. Garcia was questioned at length by Dailey on Monday about her communications with the plaintiffs as well as statements she made in a July 7 Reporter-Herald article.
“I watched her testify,” McDonald said. “Her demeanor was truthful … Court is not maybe her most comfortable place to be, and I don’t blame her, but I did not find her to be dishonest in any way.”
Loveland’s City Council was scheduled to vote on adding the question to the ballot Tuesday night, with a second and final vote scheduled for Sept. 1 if supporters are found to have gathered the 2,888 valid signatures needed.
Garcia later said her office has not counted the additional signatures received but plans to count them as they are verified. The office is expected to finish its count this week.
"hear" - Google News
August 26, 2020 at 07:03AM
https://ift.tt/34zUu08
Judge declines to hear case by marijuana ballot petitioners against Loveland city clerk - Loveland Reporter-Herald
"hear" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KTiH6k
https://ift.tt/2Wh3f9n
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Judge declines to hear case by marijuana ballot petitioners against Loveland city clerk - Loveland Reporter-Herald"
Post a Comment