Vote Puts Initiative on Hold

Citing legal concerns, the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday narrowly refused to place Mayor Richard Riordan’s government reform initiative on the April ballot pending a federal court order.

The council majority in the 8-7 vote argued that the mayor’s initiative is so legally flawed that it would expose council members to lawsuits if they put the measure to a citywide vote. Riordan supporters said the decision, in effect, denies voters a voice in government reform.

Later in the day, U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer declined to order the council to place the measure on the ballot until lawyers for the mayor and the council agree on pending legal questions raised by the initiative.

“I’m not signing an order until I know that I’m on sound legal ground,” Pfaelzer said, ordering both sides to meet today to resolve their differences.

Riordan and his supporters have little time to qualify the measure for the city’s April 8 election. City Clerk J. Michael Carey has said that the council must act this week.

“The council is just grasping at any straw to thwart the will of the people,” said Councilman Joel Wachs, a supporter of Riordan’s initiative.

Riordan’s measure would ask voters to create a 15-member government reform panel and to elect the panel’s members. He spent $400,000 of his own money to collect the signatures needed to qualify the measure for the ballot.

The vote Tuesday is the latest wrinkle in a continuing power struggle between the council and the mayor over how to overhaul the 71-year-old City Charter that serves as a blueprint for governing Los Angeles. Riordan’s initiative asks the citizens reform panel to write a new charter and place it on a subsequent ballot for approval.

Although Riordan and his supporters collected 304,000 signatures to qualify the measure for the April ballot, the council has raised a series of legal issues over how Riordan’s reform panel would be elected.

When the petition was circulated this winter, it called for a “citywide” election of panel members, as required under state law. But the council questioned whether an at-large election would violate the Federal Voting Rights Act that ensures minorities are fairly represented. It has suggested an election by districts.

Riordan sued the city to have Pfaelzer clarify the issue.

She gave each side a small victory, agreeing with the council majority that at-large elections would violate the federal act and also ruling that the measure should be placed on the April ballot.

But the council majority says it could be sued for putting a modified version of the measure on the ballot after 304,000 voters signed petitions calling for at-large elections.

Although Judge Pfaelzer appeared willing to order the city to place the measure on the ballot, she said she wanted lawyers for the mayor and the council to agree first on several points, including whether panel members should be elected by a 50% plus one majority or simply the most votes.