Hearing Update – Reasons Referendums are Illegal
October 10th, 2016 by iPhone
Plaintiff’s attorney Justin Allen then began listing each initiative and referendum, along with the legal reasons the should be excluded.
The primary reasons he included were that many of the petitions submitted were contrary to state law, included vagueness, lack of depth in ballot titles, and being contrary to current city ordinance.
At 10:45, city attorney Witt Barton stated that the city clerk simply performed her duties, knowing that her decision, either way, would be “subject to review.”.
Barton then explained that these petitions were presented to the clerk “at the last minute,” and “didn’t want to be the one to keep these issues off of the ballot.”
Both attorneys stated that the initiatives were submitted in time, but the referendums were not filed in time, to be on the ballot. Referendums are described as efforts to change something covered by state law.
Allen closed his comments saying that no one feels City Clerk Andrea Chambers did anything wrong, and was simply performing her duties, but wanted the courts to make the final decision.
Choose another article
Newer article: Plaintiff’s Example of A&P Dissolution Violation
Older article: Hearing Update- Petition Testimony
