California 4th District Court of Appeal Agrees with San Bernardino County Voters

On May 25th, 2023 California’s 4th District Court of Appeal (4DCA) ruled against the Board of Supervisors and in favor of Measure K. This initiative is championed by grass-roots organizations dedicated to reforming local government. The appeal court handed the proponent, Nadia Renner, a victory in San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Lynna Monell; Nadia Renner. The Red Brennan Group supported Ms. Renner in the effort to place Measure K on the ballot.

San Bernardino County voters overwhelming agree with this ruling. Voters unabashedly supported the reform measure with over two-thirds approving the initiative in the November 2020 election.

What follows is a series of questions and answers concerning the content, history, the legal battle, and the county’s response to the reform backed Measure K.

Measure K – The Content of Reform

What did Measure K Propose?

Measure K proposed a single, four-year term for county supervisors. Additionally, it set compensation for elected members of the Board of Supervisors on par with the median household income in the county.

Why was Measure K Proposed?

Measure K was designed to alter the incentives of people running for election to the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors. A single, four-year term would remove any reason for elected officials to chase political contributions at the expense of their constituents’ bests interests.

How was Measure K Approved?

Measure K was placed on the ballot on the strength of 75,000 signatures gathered from San Bernardino County voters. At the November 2020 election, greater than two-thirds of the voters approved Measure K. This was the largest number of favorable votes for any initiative ever in San Bernardino County’s history.

The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Respond to Reform

How did the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Respond to the Peoples’ Reform?

The Board of Supervisors’ response was what one would expect from a group motivated by self-interest. Rather than lead the reform effort, the board wielded the levers of power to undermine the effort from the start.

How did the Board of Supervisors Undermine Reform?

On the strength of just their own five signatures, the Board sponsored a competing measure on the November 2020 ballot. Marketed as an effort to modernize the county charter, “Measure J” was entirely designed to benefit the five members of the Board of Supervisors. The initiative ensured the board retained its excessive compensation package and allowed board members three, four-year terms in the seat of power if reelected.

Did the Board’s Initiative Succeed?

The board’s Measure J passed by less than a one percent margin while voters were far more supportive of the reform Measure K, approving it by more than a two-thirds vote. Measure K prevailed and should have been the law. However, the Board sued to keep Measure K from going into effect while aggressively implementing Measure J.

What was the Board of Supervisor’s Response to Measure K’s Victory?

The Board of Supervisors immediately brought a lawsuit to halt implementation of the peoples’ reform. The lawsuit was ultimately titled San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Lynna Monell; Nadia Renner.

Was that the Only Response from the County Board of Supervisors?

No. In addition to using tax-payer funding to, effectively, sue their own constituents, the Board of Supervisors likely facilitated an effort to pass state legislation to stifle local reform.

How?

Assemblyman Chad Mayes, a long-time member of the San Bernardino County political elite, sponsored Assembly Bill 428. This legislation proposed that local voters could set no less than two, four-year terms as a term limit for county supervisors. AB 428 also allowed board members of a charter county, such as San Bernardino, to set their own compensation. While Governor Newsom ultimately signed AB 428 into law, it was not before Mayes was forced to make concessions that were ultimately a crucial component of the 4DCA ruling in San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Lynna Monell; Nadia Renner.

The Lawsuit is Filed, Languishes then Punted by San Bernardino County Superior Court!

How Does Local Government Use the Courts?

A key lesson for San Bernardino County citizens is that local government is not there to serve the interests of their constituents. Rather, local governments exist to serve their own interests. If a grass-roots organization challenges that interest, they will end up in court. For a relatively small investment in legal services, local governments tie up reform efforts for long periods of time.

At times the government’s effort to slow the process was a comical farce. During the Lawsuit’s trip through the courts there were substantial delays due to the presiding judge not being available, or the opposition attorney being unavailable because their spouse scheduled a business trip. This is all part of a strategy to kill reform efforts and do it via attrition in the courts.

What Happened in San Bernardino County Superior Court?

In general, Judge Donald R. Alvarez and Judge David S. Cohn handle election matters in the San Bernardino County Superior Court. Reform minded legal efforts typically have a tough sled making it through the trial court intact. This was particularly true in San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Lynna Monell; Nadia Renner. Judge Alvarez reasoned that a single, four-year term limit was unconstitutional because it was too “severe.” Alvarez did opine that the compensation clause in Measure K was allowable. Alvarez ultimately decided that Measure K was not legal because the term limit and compensation clauses were not severable. This despite the petition containing a severance clause that was standard legal boilerplate language. Despite this unjustifiably deferential treatment in the trial court, the appeal court handled Measure K much differently.

What Happened with the 4th District Court of Appeal’s Tentative Decision?

The appeal court’s process is generally to receive briefings, provide a tentative written decision, hear oral arguments, then publish the final decision.

At the Court of Appeal Renner made four arguments:

Conversely, the Board of Supervisors argued:

The 4DCA’s tentative decision, published July 12, 2022, was entirely against the career politicians. Essentially, the Board of Supervisors lost on each of its arguments.

How Did the Board of Supervisors Respond to the Appeal Court’s Tentative Decision?

The Board of Supervisors responded to the tentative decision by foisting one of the greatest acts of dishonesty in California politics on its constituents. Just two weeks after 4DCA’s tentative ruling the supervisors approved the first reading of the board-sponsored “Taxpayer Protection and Government Reform” initiative which was ultimately labeled Measure D. Belying its title, this amendment to the county charter was really designed to accomplish the following:

The county political elite (read anyone that feeds at the county coffers) closed ranks behind the supervisors. Public employee unions, developers, real estate magnates and the supervisors donated over $1.2 million dollars to support the “Yes on D” campaign.

Voters, overwhelmed by a deceptive ad campaign that claimed even to fix roads and stop inflation, approved Measure D.

The Red Brennan Group immediately filed a lawsuit on behalf of county voters to contest the Board of Supervisors’ Measure D.

What Happened with the 4th District Court of Appeal’s Final Decision on Measure K?

The Board of Supervisors lost the legal battle. 4DAC ruled in favor of Renner in every respect. The court held that:

What Happens Next?

San Bernardino County politics are a dumpster fire. In a county where:

San Bernardino County voters are the only solution to what ails the county. Voters must: