Steve, Chuck, AND Mike?

What can their argument possibly be? That the Secretary of State abused her discretion in allowing seven, or eight, or nine candidates to list "Mayor" or "Vice-Mayor" as their principal occupation on the June ballot?

That is something that every Secretary of State, both Republican and Democrat, has allowed for decades.

In footnote # 2 of his opinion, Presiding Justice Sills, himself a former Mayor, waxed eloquently about how much time a Mayor of a major Orange County city must spend to fulfill his or her duties. He called Carlson's argument to the contrary "...a highly counterintuitive proposition at best..."

Does anyone really think a Sacramento judge is going to grant Carlson's motion when the Presiding Judge of the Court of Appeals in Carlson's home county ridiculed his basic argument?

Look for the wise member of the Sacramento bench to listen carefully to the arguments and then deny the petition and award Mayor Cook her costs from Carlson.

The only winner here is Southwest Airlines.

Can anyone speak to what Mr. Schroeder is trying to accomplish here? I am sincerely kind of confused as to why he would be so riled up about this. Thanks.

Schroeder likes to see his name in the paper, and he really does not much care what damage he is doing to the candidate or organization he claims to represent. There is no doubt that dragging this on hurting Rohrabacher and helping Cook, but it is getting him lots of ink, so he benefits.

Why do we pay attention to Schroeder? Why does he have any influence? He's going to drive this party into the ground.

So now we have the Treasurer of the California Republican Party (plaintiff Keith Carlson), the Secretary of the California Republican Party (Steve Baric), and the General Counsel for the California Republican Party (Chuck Bell) all wound up in a lawsuit over a ballot designation in a safe district.

And they've already been scolded by the Court of Appeals.

It's no wonder that the party is in trouble if this is the kind of game that they feel is worth this much time and effort.

Could somebody please put a leash on that guy.

Wasn't the deadline for printing yesterday? This is the first time I've seen a Friday deadline.

The deadline actually is established by statute, and it expired last Monday. Because it went to the court of appeals and back, the court might consider accepting it.

Nice try Anonymous @ 3:16 PM, but the deadline is NOT established by statute, and it DID NOT expire last Monday.

Below is the text of Elections Code Section 13314. As you can see, you need only show that you will not substantially interefee with the conduct of the election. The sample ballots are not due to be printed until NEXT weekend...so there is plenty of time for the Court to act.

13314. (a) (1) Any elector may seek a writ of mandate alleging that
an error or omission has occurred, or is about to occur, in the
placing of any name on, or in the printing of, a ballot, sample
ballot, voter pamphlet, or other official matter, or that any neglect
of duty has occurred, or is about to occur.
(2) A peremptory writ of mandate shall issue only upon proof of
both of the following: (A) that the error, omission, or neglect is
in violation of this code or the Constitution, and (B) that issuance
of the writ will not substantially interfere with the conduct of the
election.
(3) The action or appeal shall have priority over all other civil
matters.
(b) Venue for a proceeding under this section shall be exclusively
in Sacramento County in any of the following cases:
(1) The Secretary of State is named as a real party in interest or
as a respondent.
(2) A candidate for statewide elective office is named as a party.

(3) A statewide measure that is to be placed on the ballot is the
subject of the proceeding.

The Republican party state officals ( Carlson and Baric ) and Schroeder were laughed out of a courtroom in Sacramento today.

In Orange County, they filed the wrong lawsuit on the wrong people in the wrong court using the wrong part of the law.

In Sacramento, the court noticed that these clowns didn't manage to serve Debbie Cook properly, which invalidated their case. Nevertheless, out of caution the Republican party officials and their boy Schroeder to be wrong again.

Debbie Cook is the Mayor of Huntington Beach, and her ballot designation is perfectly accurate and legal.

The malicious frivolous lawsuits, and lawyers fees will damage the Republican party. I hope the party isn't picking up the tab with their depleted treasuries.

One Who Doesn't Know:

You missed 13313(b)(1). The writ must be filed within the 10 day public examination period. You read the election code about as well as Carlson, Baric and Schroeder.

13313. (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.