Davis gives McGrath the what ‘for’ in first round

EDITOR’S NOTEBOOK

Let the battles begin. City Attorney candidates Ron Davis and

Jennifer McGrath have already gone toe to toe -- the first time

before a judge rather than voters.

Round one took place in a Santa Ana courtroom Tuesday when the

case of Davis vs. McGrath was heard by Judge James P. Gray.

As someone who was sitting ringside I’ll give you a blow by blow.

But first, let me take you back to Davis’ anger over McGrath’s

signs and literature, which read simply Jennifer McGrath City

Attorney.

Davis complained about the omission of the word “for” between her

name and city attorney. While he and candidate Benjamin Pugh each

used the phrase “for city attorney” (I’ve yet to see a sign for the

elusive candidate Alan Armstrong) she did not, thus giving the

impression to many, Davis said, that she was the incumbent.

He sent her a letter noting that it was misleading to voters and

asking that she add the word “for” to her signs and literature so as

not to violate election codes. Her response, said an enraged Davis,

was to plaster the city with the offending signs. So, as lawyers are

wont to do, he sued. And that should take us back to Monday’s

matchup.

Davis’ suit was based on an election code that states, “Every

person is guilty of a misdemeanor who, with intent to mislead the

voters in connection with his or her campaign ... does either of the

following acts: Assume, pretend, or imply, by his or her statements

or conduct, that he or she is the incumbent of a public office when

that is not the case.”

McGrath’s written legal argument began with a bit of mudslinging,

in which she brought up a past case brought to the courts by Davis.

Her defense was that it was common practice for signs to omit the

word “for.”

Judge Gray began his remarks by chiding her for bringing up “old

insignificant cases” and saying that he hoped if she were elected

city attorney she would demonstrate better judgment, adding that it

was “not well received.”

Well, I think that just set the tone for the proceedings.

McGrath was asked to voluntarily add the word “for” to any future

literature or signs. She argued, that it was common practice to not

use the word giving a list of 16 examples -- examples Gray shot down

saying that if elected Bill Leonard won’t be the Board of

Equalization. Don Hansen will not be the City Council. One is not a

school board or a U.S. Congress if elected. There were two examples

that were of the same ilk, William Simon, Governor and former

Huntington Beach Mayor Wes Bannister, State Insurance Commissioner.

And, Gray added, the likelihood of voters misunderstanding and

thinking Simon was governor was not quite as good as them not knowing

who the city attorney in Huntington Beach was.

Further, Davis interjected that he could not sue Simon. That would

be up to Gov. Gray Davis.

So, even taking into account this paper’s relationship with Davis,

at this point everyone in the courtroom including me could see what

way Gray was leaning. Well, maybe not all.

Gray asked McGrath again, he requested of her to voluntarily, in

all future literature, to put “for” between Jennifer McGrath and city

attorney and add the word “for” on the 28 “huge” banners that have

gone up around town.

This is a “yes I will, or no I will not” answer, he told her.

“No, I will not,” she replied.

Oh, wrong answer. She should have taken the loss of match rather

than suffer the full-blown knock out.

“I do find, based upon the information presented, that it is

deceptive -- that it is done knowing it would be deceptive to imply

that she is the city attorney,” Gray said, and promptly issued a

court order for what he had requested be done voluntarily.

Although the plethora of smaller signs were not ordered changed,

the big banner should read “for city attorney” by today.

Round one goes to Davis.

* DANETTE GOULET is the city editor. She can be reached at (714)

965-7170 or by e-mail at danette.goulet@latimes.com.