EDITORIAL

The people’s right to take a measure to the voters by gathering enough

valid signatures is the foundation upon which democracy is built.

Political causes -- no matter how noble -- are not always endorsed by the

lawmaking body, whether it be the state Legislature or the local City

Council. That is why the petitioning process exists.

So without weighing in on the merits or potential shortcomings of the

controversial Greenlight initiative, we believe it should be allowed on

the ballot.

The small group of community members made up of both environmentalists

and resident activists spent several months gathering signatures for the

petition. The measure, if passed, would require public votes on

development projects that would generate more than 100 peak-hour car

trips, create more than 100 homes or add more than 40,000 square feet of

floor space over what the general plan allows for a given area.

At least 10,000 people agreed with that premise and signed the petition.

The 6,800 names required to put the initiative on the ballot were

validated by the Orange County Registrar of Voters.

The city clerk is the designated election officer for the city. Newport

Beach’s LaVonne Harkless checked the petition over for its compliance

with the state elections code before sending it to the county registrar

for certification.

She has maintained that -- under normal circumstances -- as long as the

signatures are validated, the City Council must set an election date.

But the Greenlight case is not normal, because the city attorney was

asked to review the petition after the city clerk had already accepted

it. Now the decision on whether to send the Greenlight proponents back to

the drawing board appears to be up to the City Council, which usually

would not have a say in the matter.

We ask, is that the way democracy should go?

When you look at the scales, shouldn’t the signatures of 6,800 Newport

Beach residents outweigh one attorney’s opinion?

We do understand the city’s caution. As we know, initiatives often end up

in court and the council could be held liable for sending a faulty

petition to the ballot box.

But what they shouldn’t forget is that it could easily go the other way.

Initiative proponents could and probably would sue the council for

rejecting a viable petition.

We trust that because the city clerk sent the petition to the registrar

in the first place, she was confident that -- although it was clearly not

perfect -- there was no fatal flaw.

We urge the council to stand behind her judgment and side with the

electorate.