Laserfiche WebLink
MR. TRULSON: Mr. Oda, say that we had two <br /> options like these as proposed. Not strictly these two <br /> options, just two options, and we had the election and there <br /> was not a majority in either one of the options. People <br /> wanted the change but there was only a plurality on one. . . <br /> MR. ODA: Right. <br /> MR. TRULSON: Would it be a valid election <br /> unless it was challenged? <br /> MR. ODA: No, because the County Clerk cannot <br /> certify that to be a majority under the statute. It would <br /> not be valid. He;: has to certify under the statute that a <br /> majority of the people have voted for that particular amendment. <br /> The County Clerk is going to have an awful lot <br /> of problems determining what, in fact, is the amendment in this <br /> particular ballot. Is it a separate amendment so far as the <br /> first part is concerned, separated from the second option, ;, <br /> provision section? If the option provision section is a <br /> separate amendment in and of itself, a separate portion, it <br /> has a separate majority.'f hen the problem would disappear. <br /> I 'm not sure that it is.. In fact, I don ' t think it is a separate <br /> amendment. <br /> MR. TRULSON: Is it possible to make it two <br /> amendments? Is there a possibility? No, there' s not, you ' re <br /> still having a. . . <br /> MR. ODA: I can ' t think, right now, of any way <br /> that I could make the two sections as the way they are proposed <br /> or in any way that I could have thought of since the time that <br /> the original one was proposed into two separate amendments <br /> because they, in fact, as I see it, are only one. <br /> I think, going back, I don ' t want to rehash this <br /> thing but there was some similarity with the problem in that <br /> 1966 case that went to the Supreme Court. The facts are not <br /> the same all along but I think the principle involved in that <br /> case---the Supreme Court Justice who wrote that dOcision said <br /> that the ballot language could not have been. . .I forget the <br /> words he used but he was very critical of about the way the <br /> ballot was put together. It could not have been more ineptly <br /> drafted , or words to that effect. <br /> So, that lengthy response, Mr. Chairman. In <br /> all due respect to Mr. Moss, I think he has done a great deal <br /> of work on these provisions and I certainly appreciate the <br /> input he has made. It 's unfortunate that I just don ' t happen <br /> to agree that this thing will be sufficient for the purpose <br /> of covering all corners so far as problems go. I would like <br /> to say, yes, I think it will work but I just can ' t. <br /> CHAIRMAN SAKATA: Do the commissioners have any <br /> other questions pertaining to this? <br /> -11- <br />