The campaign to elect Janet Reilly to District 2 Supervisor (Reilly pictured with the late Jim Rivaldo at the 2007 Progressive Convention) has filed a legal brief in support of City Attorney Dennis Herrera's appeal of a July 22 court ruling that cleared a path for termed-out Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier to run for a third term. File photo by Luke Thomas.
From the campaign to elect candidate for District 2 Supervisor Janet Reilly
August 11, 2010
District 2 Supervisor candidate Janet Reilly has filed an amicus brief with California’s court of appeals in the ongoing case of incumbent District 2 supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier’s effort to challenge the City’s term limit laws and run for a third term on the board.
The brief supports the City Attorney’s argument that any fair and logical reading of the City Charter indicates that Supervisor Alioto-Pier is termed out and therefore ineligible to run for reelection this year.
Voter-mandated term limits allow supervisors to hold office for two consecutive four-year terms. If allowed another term, Alioto-Pier will have held the seat for nearly 11 years. Reilly’s brief makes a strong case that the Superior Court judge erred in overturning a two-year-old City Attorney’s opinion denying Alioto-Pier access to the ballot. The brief provides convincing support for the argument that the City’s rounding-up rule (which calls for supervisors who complete more than two years of an unexpired term to be deemed to have served a full term) indeed covers Alito-Pier’s situation.
Reilly’s second argument offers a different legal angle. It details how Alioto-Pier’s late challenge to the City Attorney’s ruling and subsequent entry into the race “substantially interferes with the conduct of the election,” even though the election code obligates her to prove otherwise.
“The trial court’s 11th hour decision to allow an incumbent to run in this election has completely altered the landscape of the race, which for the past two-and-a-half years had been assumed to be for an open seat. The advantages of incumbency are nearly insurmountable.”
The brief cites a list of parties adversely affected by Alioto-Pier’s decision to wait 31 months before challenging the ruling, including candidates, endorsers, contributors, taxpayers and the public-at-large.
According to Reilly, “The purpose of an amicus brief is to provide a perspective on the case that has not already been established by the parties involved in the suit. As a candidate for this office, I believe that I offer a valuable third perspective. I have been campaigning for the open seat for more than a year, I’ve built an energized coalition of supporters and I’ve earned the endorsement of nearly every major elected official in San Francisco. The trial court’s ruling turns the entire process upside down.”
The Hunger Site
No Comments
Comments for Reilly Files Brief Supporting City Attorney Appeal
of Alioto-Pier Ruling are now closed.