The California Court of Appeal today ruled District 2 Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier is termed out and cannot run for a consecutive third term. Photo by Luke Thomas.
From the Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
August 24, 2010
The California Court of Appeal today unanimously reversed a trial court ruling that last month nullified a key provision of San Francisco’s voter-approved term limits law, and authorized an eleventh hour bid by incumbent Sup. Michela Alioto-Pier to seek another term. The 21-page decision by a three-judge panel strongly vindicates City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s office, which advised Alioto-Pier in a February 2008 legal opinion that she was ineligible to seek another term on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors due to the City Charter’s term limits provisions. More than two years later, Alioto-Pier sued to force Elections Department officials to place her name on the ballot. A San Francisco Superior Court judge granted the supervisor’s petition on July 22, holding that voters had implicitly rendered the 20-year-old term limits rule “ineffective” with subsequent Charter amendments.
Today’s appellate court ruling restores the legal effect of the voter-approved “rounding-up rule,” which provides that if an appointed incumbent serves more than two years of a term, it counts as a full four-year term for purposes of term limits. In so doing, the decision affirms Herrera’s original conclusion that Alioto-Pier is ineligible to seek another term on the Board. The unanimous ruling, authored by Associate Justice James A. Richman and joined by Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline and Associate Justice James R. Lambden concluded: “Twenty years ago the voters of San Francisco imposed term limits on their supervisors, so that ‘no person elected or appointed’ could serve ‘more than two successive four-year terms,’ and a person appointed to complete more than two years ‘would be deemed to have served one full term,’ with his or her service rounded up. Nothing in the ensuing years changed the two-term limit. Nothing changed the rounding up provision. And nothing changed the voter imposed mandate that no appointed supervisor could serve more than 10 consecutive years. Alioto-Pier has already served two consecutive terms. She may not seek a third.”
In response to today’s decision, City Attorney Dennis Herrera offered the following statement: “I am grateful to the Court of Appeal for recognizing the obvious intent of San Francisco voters, and for affirming the clear meaning of the law. This case has always been about the principle of upholding voters’ will, and I regret that some political pundits focused instead on personalities. I’ve consistently defended Sup. Alioto-Pier’s right to pursue this dispute in the courts, and I wish her and her family every success in their future endeavors. I know I join the vast majority of San Franciscans in expressing gratitude for her record of public service to the City we share.”
The case is Arntz v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, Case No. A129173. A complete copy of the appellate court ruling is available on the City Attorney’s Web site at http://www.sfcityattorney.org/.
The Hunger Site
August 26, 2010 at 9:32 am
h, at this point, I could care as much about bolstering the political ambitions of others as they could care about taking care of me or any other San Franciscan who is not a nonprofiteer or developer–which means I could care less.
-marc
August 26, 2010 at 8:51 am
marc,
I’m saying we should be forcing viable Prog candidates out there now. Face it, Adachi is running already. I’m guessing that as soon as he gets past the formality of being re-elected PD that we’ll see another catchy ballot measure with a broad base of support to parallel his run for Room 200. That’s a great thing but we need others. The Moderates will have Dufty and Yee and Leno for starts.
Again, you failed to answer my question. We know that you can insult people, Marc. Who are your candidates? This is the third time I’ve asked you. It’s not like you to duck a straight question.
h.
August 26, 2010 at 8:07 am
h, put down the pipe for a second and read what I wrote. Potential candidates are spooked by the uncertainty and are laying low until some stable ground emerges.
-marc
August 26, 2010 at 7:20 am
Marc,
You sound like him and the Guardian when you say it’s too soon to worry about next year’s mayoral contest. And, you evaded the question. Who are your favorites for Mayor next year? You’ve ripped pretty much every Progressive potential candidate. I’m guessing you’ve changed camps and will support Leland Yee.
h.
August 25, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Steven T. Jones is probably tripping brains out on the playa right about now, I don’t think I sound like him at all.
-marc
August 25, 2010 at 11:33 am
marc,
You sound like Steven T. Jones. You’re waiting? Actually, were that so it would be a good thing. Actually what you’ve been doing is trying weaken every single potential Progressive mayoral candidate.
Who’re your favorites for mayor next year, Marc?
Too soon to think?
h.
August 25, 2010 at 10:14 am
Everyone’s waiting to see how the possibility of an interim mayor and successor plays out. That involves the Lt. Governor’s race as well as all of those Supervisor races. Too many moving parts to predict and/or game right now, so everyone’s keeping their powder dry.
-marc
August 25, 2010 at 6:43 am
OK, OK,
Now, your next assignment in SF Fantasy Politics is to create a new supe team that includes Reilly in D-2 and perhaps, oh … Tony Kelly in D-10 and Rafael Mandelman in D-8?
Salivating? Don’t. SFBG has a story this morning lamenting the capitulation of ‘solidly’ Progressive supes Avalos and Campos plus others to the rich on the Golden Gate Park Arboretum entry fee. Oh, the ‘Progressives’ had no problem with Rec and Park letting in all the rich members of their society for free.
I remain the old mule watching the revolution at Animal Farm and the only one who realizes that nothing will change because power will corrupt the new leadership.
Solution?
Fall approaches and Progs still don’t have a single declared candidate for Mayor next year. Let’s prod Gonzalez and MIrkarimi and Campos into the contest.
h.
August 25, 2010 at 6:19 am
I remember my surprise when Superior Court judge Busch remarked that the City Charter provision on San Francisco’s voter-approved term limits law was ambiguous. What “ambiguity?” Seems to me the City Charter’s term limits provisions is quite clear. Kudos to Dennis Herrera for obtaining a no-brainer clarification from the court of appeals.
August 24, 2010 at 6:19 pm
YEAH!!!
August 24, 2010 at 5:27 pm
The look on her husbands face says it all. Priceless.
August 24, 2010 at 4:05 pm
HALLELUJAH !!!!
Occasionally justice does roll down like water and righteousness like a might stream, sweeping away all the flotsam and jetsam.
August 24, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Congratulations. That’s quite a scoop. SFGate doesn’t even have it yet. Though she will probably be appointed to some overpaid political hack position by Newsom or his cronies, it will be a true delight not to see that hypocritical, nasty, overentitled young woman in the Supervisors’ chambers anymore.
August 24, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Sutton loses!!!
-marc