CA Elections Code on candidate Statement
Lancaster City Council candidate Johnathon Ervin has evidence that the City of Lancaster has violated the California Election Code (Section 13313) by denying members of the public an opportunity to have copies of the Lancaster City Council candidates’ ballot statements for the April municipal election.
Additionally, Ervin’s ballot statement was publicized and released to the public.
“On January 20th, I saw my candidate statement, the one I affixed my signature to and that was submitted to the City Clerk and Asst. City Attorney, posted online in a Facebook discussion board, ” Ervin said.
A member of Antelope Valley Letters to the Editor Facebook group posted the ballot statement on social media and claimed, “The statement I posted got sent to me as an e-mail attachment. I guess it’s makin’ the rounds among interested AV peoples.”
However, both Ervin and his campaign aide had been told by City officials on two different occasions that no one could make copies of the candidate statements, take photos of them or in any way record them; and that they were to be viewed only, and that hand-written notes could be made.
California Election Code (Section 13313) clearly states that:
“(a) The elections official shall make a copy of the material referred to in Section 13307 available for public examination in the elections official’s office for a period of 10 calendar days immediately following the filing deadline for submission of those documents. Any person may obtain a copy of the candidate’s statements from the elections official for use outside of the elections official’s office. The elections official may charge a fee to any person obtaining a copy of the material, and the fee may not exceed the actual cost incurred by the elections official in providing the copy.
(b) (1) During the 10-calendar-day public examination period provided by this section, any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or the elections official, himself or herself, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the candidates statements to be amended or deleted. The writ of mandate or injunction request shall be filed no later than the end of the 10-calendar-day public examination period.
(2) A peremptory writ of mandate or an injunction shall issue only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law.
(3) The elections official shall be named as respondent and the candidate who authored the material in question shall be named as the real party in interest. In the case of the elections official bringing the mandamus or injunctive action pursuant to this subdivision, the board of supervisors of the county shall be named as the respondent and the candidate who authored the material in question shall be named as the real party in interest”
You might also like
State of Arizona publicity pamphlet 1978 : propositions to be submitted to the qualified electors of the State of Arizona at the general election, November 7, 1978
Book (The Secretary)
When political candidates make general statements suggesting "change" if elected, what do you feel they mean? | Yahoo Answers
Originally, I though change meant different from the Bush, Jr. administration. Then Obama seemed to take over "change" as his campaign jargon against Clinton. This seemed to work so successfully to the other candidates that even the Repubs. coined the term. Now we have John McCain wanting to change things & keep them the same....ie: "I am a traditional conservative" who wants to change things....
I think, A word, is a word, is a word....with out the right stuff behind it??? or Actions speak louder than words.....
...and that is my walk down the trite little path of candidate speak f…