HJTA files lawsuit over Legislature’s unconstitutional attempt to shield Sen. Josh Newman from recall

Today the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit to stop the Legislature’s unconstitutional efforts to undermine the voter-led recall of state Senator Josh Newman.

“The Legislature has pulled out all the stops to silence the voice of taxpayers and undermine the people’s right to a fair and democratic process,” stated HJTA president Jon Coupal. “You can’t justify changing the rules midway through, which is why we believe we’ll prevail in asking the court to step in and right this wrong.”

HJTAFor months, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has been working with concerned taxpayers who seek to recall Senator Josh Newman over his vote to impose over $5 billion in new annual taxes on cars and gasoline. On July 7, the Secretary of State reported that 87,884 signatures had been collected—far and above the 63,593 signatures needed to qualify the recall for a vote.

In an underhanded attempt to protect Newman, the Legislature scrambled to pass Senate Bill 96, a gut-and-amend bill that would deny voters in Senate District 29 their due process by unnecessarily extending the state’s recall approval process.

Joining with four of the recall petitioners, HJTA filed the lawsuit to issue a stay on the implementation of SB 96 and compel the Secretary of State to certify the recall petitions.

To download and read the full lawsuit, please click here.

This entry was posted in 29th State Senate District, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Jon Coupal, Josh Newman. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to HJTA files lawsuit over Legislature’s unconstitutional attempt to shield Sen. Josh Newman from recall

  1. Jane Rands says:

    According to the analysis for 96 it “Requires the Secretary of State to notify a county elections official that a petition received a sufficient number of signatures to initiate a recall election. After this notice has been provided, the bill would provide for a period of 30 business days in which voters who signed the petition may withdraw their signatures. County election officials would then have 10 days after the end of that 30 day period to send an updated list of signatures to the Secretary of State.”

    It appears that this change was put in place to allow sufficient time for voters to remove their name from a petition in circumstances such as when signers are tricked into signing a recall petition by paid signature gatherers trying to make a quick buck.

    30 days seems like a reasonable amount of time to help protect the integrity of our electoral process and avoid holding an unecessary and costly recall election for which there is not truly sufficient support from the electorate.

    • GC says:

      Your flawed assertion relies on either the grossly incomplete “analysis” of an unnamed source or an otherwise fair analysis that you intentionally distorted by reducing it to that partial excerpt. The bill dictates far more recall changes and often with the heavy-handed bias of requiring extra processes without any expressed timeline to protect against the abuse of unending delay. You’ll find each of the indefensible stalling tactics in their entirety online, readily accessible via the CA.gov site’s legislative directory, and void of any esoteric language that might necessitate “analysis” to understand the blatant manipulations of Newman and his “maul the recall” cronies. Their rule rigging breaks the people’s once respected right to a timely resolution of grievances by affording undesirables a wasteful stay in office, long after a registrar’s accounting for any possible signature withdrawals would still leave a sufficient number to qualify the recall election.