Zippi’s statement will stand

Alicia Robinson

Comments about the “good old boys” in the ballot statement of 70th

assembly district candidate Marianne Zippi will go out to voters.

The California appellate court on Friday rejected an emergency

petition to change Zippi’s ballot statement before sample ballots are

printed next week.

Attorney Bruce Peotter, representing plaintiff Scott Moody,

challenged Zippi’s ballot statement in December on the grounds that

it violates the state elections law prohibiting candidates from

mentioning their opponents in ballot statements.

Candidates for the state Legislature can purchase space for

250-word statements to be included in sample ballots distributed to

voters before an election.

In earlier interviews Peotter said Zippi’s references to “good old

boys,” “lawyers in politics,” and other comments were obvious

references to several of her Republican opponents in the March 2

primary.

Orange County Superior Court Commissioner Eleanor Palk denied a

motion to delete portions of the statement on Dec. 31, citing the

statute of limitations.

The Orange County Registrar of Voters had opposed the motion

because it wasn’t filed by a Dec. 16 deadline. Peotter said the

deadline should have been Dec. 18 to allow the full 10-day period for

public review of the ballot statement. He filed the motion on Dec.

17.

On Friday, Peotter filed an emergency writ petition so an appeal

would be handled before the deadline to print ballot materials. The

appellate court denied that petition the same day.

“It’s just that they didn’t want to deal with it on an expedited

basis,” Peotter said Tuesday. “We can still pursue the appeal ... but

it won’t affect the actual candidate statement.”

Peotter said there’s a 50% chance his client will pursue the

appeal. If he does, the goal will be a court ruling on the statute of

limitations, which would affect future ballot statement challenges,

Peotter said.

“It doesn’t change the fact that [Zippi] broke the law,” he said

of the appellate court’s denial of the emergency petition. “It’s just

unfortunate that we didn’t challenge it a day earlier so the statute

of limitations wouldn’t have been an issue.”

Zippi has said the ballot statement complies with the law, and she

called the filing an attempt to harass her and hurt her candidacy.

She said Tuesday she was pleased with the court’s decision and

added the situation may have benefited her by increasing her name

recognition.

“It’s taken some time ... but we’ve moved ahead as a result of

it,” she said. “We certainly have more voter recognition than before

we started.”