Column: Newport, Costa Mesa candidates spar over their ballot designations

Nothing is simple these days in Newport Beach or Costa Mesa politics, not even the usually routine practice of candidates submitting ballot statements.

In Newport, candidate Mike Glenn — running against incumbent Councilwoman Diane Dixon — and Joy Brenner — opposing Councilman Scott Peotter — were both notified by City Clerk Leilani Brown that their ballot statements weren’t acceptable as submitted.

Glenn debated the ruling in emails this week with Brown.

Glenn claims Brown took issue with a comma he used to describe his profession in his ballot designation: “Operator, SaveNewport.”

“ … commas are not allowed unless part of an elected title,” Brown wrote in an email to Glenn, which I reviewed.

When Glenn argued that the Election Code allows the comma, Brown took issue with using “SaveNewport,” the name of Glenn’s blog on his ballot designation. Instead she went with his alternate designation, “Small Business Owner,” on the ballot.

Glenn wasn’t happy with the outcome.

“It made no sense,” he told me. “It obviously wasn’t about the comma in the first place.”

Brenner’s ballot submission was also questioned. Brown sent her a letter stating that the following two parts of her candidate statement would be deleted:

“We must stop playing partisan politics, which have no place in city governance. Pushed by a political agenda and outside forces. They lead to backroom deals and obscure the public’s right to know.”

And there was this: “No more deals for political cronies, no more staff reorganization that diminish public service.”

Brown cited California Election Code section 13308.

“Any candidate’s statement submitted shall be limited to a recitation of the candidate’s own personal background and qualifications, and shall not in any way make reference to other candidates for that office or to another candidate’s qualifications, character, or activities,” the code states.

Indeed Brenner doesn’t confine the statement to her “personal background and qualifications,” but I don’t see where she actually makes direct reference to her opponent, Peotter, or links him to the behavior she talks about, so Brown’s decision here seems like a stretch.

Unless this ends up in court, Brown has the final say.

In Costa Mesa, Mayor Sandy Genis has her own ballot statement battle brewing.

On Aug. 15 City Clerk Brenda Green wrote to Genis: “(Councilwoman) Katrina Foley contacted me by phone late yesterday afternoon regarding your candidate statement. She also sent me the email below, which includes a letter from the City of Newport Beach City Clerk pertaining to one of their candidates.” (The letter Brown wrote to Brenner)

The email from Foley to which Green refers states: “The crony comments are nearly identical.”

Foley was referring to the line in Genis’ statement that “Costa Mesa residents have the right to clean open government and decisions free of cronyism. No backroom deals.”

But in the end, Green wrote to Genis, the phrases she was reviewing in her ballot statement were, “Only Mayoral Candidate,” “Only candidate to” and “Only Candidate.”

Genis said Green consulted with attorneys contracted by the city, who found nothing objectionable. Green contacted her and Foley again.

“My decision remains the same, and I will not seek a writ of mandate requesting material in the candidate statement to be amended or deleted, “ Green wrote Aug. 19.

A writ of mandate, in this context, is a court order to a government agency that directs it to correctly follow the law or reverse a decision that is out of compliance with the law.

That wasn’t the end of it.

Attorney Mark Rosen filed a writ of mandate petition in Orange County Superior Court on behalf of former Costa Mesa Councilwoman Wendy Leece on Aug. 20.

Let’s not forget that Leece and Genis were once friends and political allies.

“I am profoundly disappointed in Wendy Leece,” Genis said.

Leece doesn’t like the situation either but did what she thinks she had to do.

“This was not an easy decision because we’ve been friends for more than 30 years,” Leece said. “But in politics, even friends can disagree sometimes. My sister and I disagree sometimes. Words matter.”

The writ argues Genis’ candidate statement is “false, misleading, and inconsistent with the law of candidate statements” and cites, you guessed it, Election Code section 13308.

The writ takes exception with Genis’ claims that she “is the only mayoral candidate” to stand up against the Orange County Needle Exchange Program, vote to protect single-family neighborhoods from wholesale duplex conversion and vote no on high-density development in the 2015 general plan. It goes on from there.

The writ demands her “cronyism” line be deleted as well.

This is heading to court. Genis said it didn’t have to go that way.

She was open to changing a “word here and there” when she initially spoke to Green. But after Green found no objection to her ballot statement language, Genis figured the matter settled.

She said she used a very similar ballot statement the last time she ran without objection.

Genis finds the whole situation an attempt “to distract her and spend money on attorney fees that should be going to her campaign.”

She said her opposition is trying to “suppress her record on council.”

“It’s a little disgusting,” Genis said. “You don’t stab somebody in the back.”

Leece said she just wants the voters to have accurate information.

“I studied Sandy’s ballot statement and believe, according to election law, some of her statements are misleading and not accurate,” she said. “A voter would be confused. My concerns are legitimate as outlined in the writ. We’ll have to agree to disagree and let a judge decide.”

Agreeing to disagree is the order of the day in Newport-Costa Mesa politics.

Barbara Venezia is an opinion columnist writing political and social commentary since 2007. She can be reached at bvontv1@gmail.com