The epoch times

Mission Viejo ordered to pay $700k in legal fees for term limit lawsuits by judge.

Mission Viejo⁣ Faces Potential $700,000 Legal Fee in Lawsuit ⁤Over Councilmembers’ Terms

Mission Viejo,⁣ California,‍ is at risk of​ paying up to ⁢$700,000 in legal fees to a resident who‌ sued the city, claiming that ‍all of its ⁣councilmembers unlawfully extended their terms in ⁣office.

Orange County Superior⁣ Court Judge ⁣Walter Schwarm recently ordered the city to ⁢pay over $715,000 to Mission Viejo resident‌ Michael Schlesinger. This ruling was made in four separate orders, with the most⁤ recent one issued‍ on October 6.

Last year, Mr. Schlesinger brought two lawsuits against the city challenging ⁤the terms of councilors who were elected in ‌2018 and 2020 during⁤ the city’s⁢ transition from at-large to district voting.

Related Stories

  • Rancho Mission Viejo Rodeo ‌Shut Down by ⁤Livestock Virus

    8/4/2023

  • Mission Viejo Approves Plans for New Facility Building, Event Space

    3/28/2023

In one lawsuit, Judge⁢ Schwarm ruled in August 2022 to remove councilors ⁣Ed Sachs, Greg Raths,⁤ and Wendy Bucknam from office. In the second lawsuit, he argued that councilors Trish‌ Kelley and Brian Goodell should also be included on the ​2022 ballot in response to the legal challenges.

Mr. Raths and Mr. Sachs were defeated by newcomers ⁣in the November 2022 election, while Ms. ‌Bucknam, Ms. ⁤Kelley, and Mr. Goodell were‌ reelected.

The Mission Viejo Civic ⁤Center on June 30,‌ 2022. (John‍ Fredricks/The Epoch Times)

Mission Viejo City Attorney ​Bill ‌Curley ‍stated that the city has‌ appealed the judge’s decision to remove councilors‌ Sachs, Raths, and Bucknam from office. The ruling from the appeals court is expected⁢ in December.

Curley also indicated that the city may appeal the second lawsuit at a later⁤ date.

Mr. Schlesinger expressed satisfaction with Judge​ Schwarm’s order in the first lawsuit,⁤ stating that it “vindicates” his efforts to hold the city ‍and the ‍council accountable. He criticized ⁣the⁢ councilmembers for attempting to ​deprive citizens of their voting rights and ⁣commended the consequences they are​ facing.

The legal‌ dispute arose from a settlement⁤ that required the city to transition from an at-large system to district elections. ​A lawsuit in 2018 claimed that the at-large system disenfranchised Latino voters and violated ⁣the California Voting Rights Act.

As a ⁣result of the switch ⁢to district elections, the ⁣councilors’ terms​ were extended from​ two‍ to four ‌years. ⁣This meant that Sachs, Raths, and Bucknam, who ⁤were elected in 2018,‍ were supposed to appear ⁣on the‌ ballot in 2022 instead of​ 2020. Kelley and​ Goodell, elected⁢ in 2020, would have been ⁢up for reelection in 2024.

In April 2022, Schlesinger filed a ⁣lawsuit arguing that Kelley and⁣ Goodell should‌ also ​be included on the 2022 ballot.‍ In July, Judge Schwarm ruled in favor ‌of Schlesinger, requiring all five city councilors to appear on ​the​ November ballot.

In May, Schlesinger filed a quo ⁢warranto, a legal request to test ‌the ​legitimacy of holding public office, to​ remove Sachs, Raths, and Bucknam ​from office due ⁣to expired terms. The request was approved⁣ by state Attorney General Rob Bonta, but an​ appellate court halted their removal after⁤ the councilors appealed.

What are the potential financial implications ‌for the city of Mission ‌Viejo as a result ​of the awarded legal⁣ fees

‌Ass=”media”>Mission Viejo

Mission⁣ Viejo, California

According ⁤to the city attorney, William⁤ H. Curley III, the​ total amount of ⁤legal‌ fees awarded ⁢to ‍Mr. ⁢Schlesinger is currently approximately $715,000. However, the precise amount that the city ‍will have to pay is still subject to additional legal ⁤proceedings.

The lawsuits brought by Mr. Schlesinger were⁤ centered ‍around​ the ⁤city’s transition⁢ from at-large to district voting. This change was implemented ‌in‌ response to a demand‌ letter sent to the city in ⁣2017 by a civil rights ⁢advocacy group, which alleged that the at-large voting system was in ⁣violation of the California Voting Rights Act. The letter claimed that the at-large system resulted⁢ in vote dilution, preventing minority candidates from being elected to⁣ the city council.

In ​response to this⁣ demand letter, the ⁢city of Mission Viejo agreed to transition to a district-based ​voting system. The purpose‍ of this ‌change was ⁢to ensure that each district ⁢had representation that⁣ accurately reflected its population‍ and demographics. The city ‌subsequently held elections ‌in ‍2018 and 2020 to elect councilmembers representing ⁣specific districts.

However, Mr. Schlesinger argued that the ⁣transition process was conducted unlawfully, and⁤ that the ‌councilmembers elected ‍in ‌2018 and⁣ 2020 ⁢had extended their terms in office beyond the legally permissible duration. He claimed that the councilmembers’ terms should have​ ended​ in 2020, when⁤ the city transitioned to district‌ voting, rather‍ than in 2022 or beyond.

Judge‌ Schwarm⁤ agreed with Mr. Schlesinger’s argument in ​his ruling.​ He determined that the councilmembers’ terms were unlawfully extended and ordered the ⁤removal of certain councilors from ⁢office.⁤ The⁣ judge also emphasized the importance of adhering ‍to the prescribed election timeline and ‌criticized the city for not⁢ adequately addressing the‌ potential legal issues associated with the‌ transition ​process.

The‍ legal fees awarded ⁤to Mr. Schlesinger in ⁢these lawsuits pose a significant financial burden⁢ for the city of Mission Viejo.​ The $700,000 potential payment could impact the city’s budget and potentially require adjustments in ⁢other areas ⁢to accommodate the expense.

As the​ legal⁣ proceedings continue, it ​remains uncertain how ⁢much the city will ultimately be required to⁣ pay.​ The city attorney stated that the ⁢council will further​ evaluate⁣ the situation and explore potential avenues for⁤ resolution.

Mission‌ Viejo’s experience serves as a cautionary tale for other municipalities considering a⁣ transition from at-large ‌to‍ district voting. It highlights the importance of ensuring that such transitions are conducted properly‌ and in compliance with applicable⁢ laws to avoid costly legal challenges.

Ultimately, the city​ of Mission ‍Viejo must now confront ⁤the ‍consequences of its ​mishandled transition process. The ‌potential $700,000 ‍legal fee serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to legal requirements and engaging in thorough⁣ planning and consideration when​ implementing ‌significant changes to the electoral system.



" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases

Related Articles

Sponsored Content
Back to top button
Available for Amazon Prime
Close

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker