Recall Update

The Registrar of Voters has 30 business days to find 9,393 valid signatures on the petition to recall Councilman Lance MacLean. Proponents of the recall turned in nearly 14,000 signatures on Mon., Aug. 24. The Registrar of Voters’ deadline to announce results should be Tues., Oct. 6.

With the RoV doing the counting, almost anything can happen – just ask the proponents of the 2005 effort to recall all seven Capo school district trustees. The number of days could be subject to interpretation, and whether registered voters count or not could become a matter of opinion. The RoV’s projected costs of a special election are already off the charts (approximately twice the cost of any other comparable election).

One subjective factor in counting signatures is whether or not the RoV will allow some voters to rescind their signatures without following the law. On July 22 – after signature gatherers had achieved a reasonable margin of safety to qualify the recall for the ballot – Councilwoman Trish Kelley began a campaign to get voters to revoke their signatures. Kelley’s email to her distribution made false claims, including a statement that proponents of the recall were using misinformation to persuade voters to sign the petition. In fact, signature gatherers quoted from public records (including MacLean’s council votes and his statements from the dais during council meetings).

Kelley erroneously advised in her July email that voters could remove their signatures from the recall petition by emailing the city clerk. Her exact quote: “You may simply email Karan Hamman, the City Clerk at:  khamman@cityofmissionviejo.org and state that you signed the petition and wish to have your signature removed from the petition.  You must include your address.” Misspellings and other errors are Kelley’s.

According to state election code, the legal process of rescission involves providing an original signature, which cannot be sent by email or fax. Recall proponents doubt that Kelley’s rescission campaign made much difference, as her fans wouldn’t have signed the petition to remove her council ally in the first place.

MacLean could still resign from the council to save himself the embarrassment of being recalled. However, if he and his backers were truly concerned about the cost of a special election, he should have resigned prior to Aug. 24 when recall proponents submitted the signatures. Once signatures are submitted, the clock begins. If the RoV determines that enough valid signatures were gathered, an election to replace MacLean must take place.

The RoV should not stretch out the counting process to the legal deadline or continue evaluating signatures after finding 9,393 valid ones among the 13,915 submitted on Aug. 24. The total of 13,915 is more than 25 percent above the minimum, a threshold enabling containment of costs by sampling instead going to a full count. Exaggerating costs and then running up the bill should be called what it is – fleecing the taxpayers.