State GOP, Cleared in Suit, Seeks Fees

The California Republican Party, which was absolved of wrongdoing in a lawsuit over the posting of security guards at Santa Ana polling places in 1988, is now seeking more than $287,000 in costs and attorney’s fees, contending it never should have been sued.

In documents filed in U.S. District Court, the state GOP demands $251,538.50 for attorney’s fees and $35,674.25 to cover other expenses incurred in defending itself against the lawsuit brought by five Latino voters.

The lawsuit was “groundless, unfounded, meritless, frivolous and vexatious,” the state GOP said in papers filed March 16.

The California GOP was the only defendant to be dismissed from the case by a judge and held blameless. Although the other defendants admitted no wrongdoing, they settled their portions of the lawsuit for sums totaling about $480,000. They included Assemblyman Curt Pringle (R-Garden Grove), Assemblyman John R. Lewis (R-Orange), the Orange County Republican Central Committee and two of its officials.

The plaintiffs contended that Pringle and others tried to frighten Latino voters away from polling places by hiring uniformed guards to carry signs saying “Non-Citizens Can’t Vote.” Pringle narrowly beat Democratic candidate Christian (Rick) Thierbach in that election.

The prevailing party in a civil lawsuit is generally entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs from the losing party. The two sides often argue over the amount and the accounting. In this case, attorneys for the five voters are contesting the state GOP’s request. A hearing is set for April 16 before U.S. District Judge J. Spencer Letts.

In court papers filed Friday, the plaintiffs’ lawyers attacked the state GOP’s bid for costs and fees on several grounds. They contend it was filed too late, that the attorney’s fees are not properly accounted for and that the fees are not adequately itemized. They also argue that the California GOP is not entitled to any reimbursement for certain portions of its expenses.

The voters’ lawyers also dispute the GOP’s contention that the lawsuit was groundless. Despite the party’s dismissal from the case, there was substantial reason to believe the organization was involved in the decision to post the poll guards, the attorneys said.