Confusion over Prop. LL leads to unusual move
When the city sued itself and lost last year, it decided to appeal the court’s ruling.
The results so far are racked-up attorney fees most likely to be paid by taxpayers, a voter-mandated law still not being enforced and a case that has taken more than three years to resolve.
Proposition LL, approved by Santa Monica voters in 2000, limits public officials from receiving gifts and campaign contributions from companies that contract with the city. It blocks officials who award contracts more than $50,000 from receiving campaign contributions, gifts or employment from the party to whom the benefit was awarded. Malibu asked to give more money to schools But City Clerk Maria Stewart refused to enforce the law because it’s unconstitutional, based on advice from the city attorney. City officials, who are normally supportive of campaign finance reform, think the measure — levied by a local taxpayer and consumer rights advocacy group — violates First Amendment rights mostly because it’s full of holes.
The law was so poorly written that the city was forced to sue itself just to enforce it, elected leaders said. The amount of attorney’s fees in the case is unknown.
When Prop. LL was supposed to go into effect, Stewart was unsure on how to enforce it because it was riddled with confusing provisions.
The City Council wanted clarification too, but it also wanted to make sure the city was honoring the “will of the people” — the 59 percent of city voters who okayed the law. And suing the group that forced the measure onto the ballot, the Oaks Project, wasn’t an option because city officials didn’t want to appear to be going against that will, officials said.
So the only way the city thought it could clarify the law’s constitutionality was to sue its own city clerk for not enforcing it, then wait for a judge to rule.
“It was a way to internally get in front of a judge,” said City Councilman Kevin McKeown.
But it appears the city’s strategy may have backfired.
Santa Monica Superior Court Judge Debra Yang dismissed the suit in April 2002, but not because it’s unconstitutional — rather that the city had no legal grounds to sue because no one had challenged the law.
McKeown said Yang focused on the flaws of the procedure instead of the constitutional issue because it was easier. Yang left the bench to become the United States Attorney for Los Angeles shortly after her decision.
“She really didn’t want to deal with it,” McKeown said. “But we are increasingly confident in getting a definitive statement in the constitutionality of the law and a timely resolution.”
Oaks Project Director Margaret Strubel said the organization became a party in the suit last year because it didn’t feel there was an adequate defense.
“The city is paying attorneys on both sides of this,” she said, adding that City Hall’s scheme of suing itself shows its desperation in the case.
The case is currently waiting to be heard in the Court of Appeals.
“This has dragged on for too long,” Strubel said. “We’re furious that they are ignoring the will of the voters.”
Meanwhile, the city is still confused on how to enforce a law it believes is flawed.
“We either had to wait for someone to sue us for not enforcing it or wait for someone to sue us for violating their civil rights,” Stewart told the Daily Press last year. “I don’t particularly like my name as defendant on any lawsuit but I felt that I was going to get sued one way or another.”
And it might as well be her allies suing her, Stewart said. The city is paying for two outside law firms to fight the case — representing both the plaintiff, the City Council, and the defendant, Stewart.
The irony now is that the taxpayers will pay the price because they were duped into signing onto a bad law that was primarily used in Santa Monica as a spring board for a statewide issue that the Oaks Project was pushing, officials said.
McKeown said Santa Monica was a test market for the initiative that has now been tried out in Claremont, Pasedena and San Francisco. Only San Francisco is currently enforcing it. The municipalities that have refused to enforce Prop. LL also are seeking clarification on the law in the courts, city officials said.
McKeown said the law is unconstitutional because it limits people on how they can express themselves when financing political campaigns and is too broad.
“It’s a good law, it’s just that it was approached wrong,” he said.
However, Strubel said the law was tailor-made for Santa Monica and is narrowly focused to prevent the appearance of political corruption and special interest campaign financing.
“We are not saying the Santa Monica City Council is corrupt,” she said. “We just want to make sure there is no appearance that there is.”
Strubel added that the law effects a small number of individuals and city officials can always recuse themselves from voting if there is a conflict of interest. Mayor of Malibu defends city’s schools contribution
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on April 28, 2003. Read the original PDF.