Constant Readers,
Okay, so you know how Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier is fighting for the right to party run for re-election in District Two?
(If you are not up on this subject, you must be new to the site. In which case, Welcome! Go here and here for background.)
On June 3, the Director of the Department of Elections (John Arntz) wrote a letter to Alioto-Pier saying he would follow the law as stated in a February 6, 2008 legal opinion by the City Attorney - that memo says Alioto-Pier is not eligible to run for re-election.
Well, yesterday, Alioto-Pier sent a letter to Arntz asking that he reconsider his position because (a) the City Attorney is wrong, and (b) in November 2008 - after the legal opinion was written - voters rejected Proposition F, which would have made the City Attorney right. So, now he's double-wrong.
According to the letter, Arntz needs to listen to the people. The people have spoken! And also: Alioto-Pier is gonna file a lawsuit against the department unless she's allowed to run for Supervisor. Soon.
Of course, Arntz doesn't give a shit about Prop F and has no real authority to break with the City Attorney's prior advice and may write back saying so. This is Scenario 1.
Scenario 2 (which I prefer for its drama) has Arntz calling the City Attorney and tearfully lashing out: I hate being in the middle of y'all's fight! Look what she sent me? What am I supposed to do with this?
Then, the City Attorney can do one of two things (a) say, "you tell That Woman I said Ima stick by that February 2008 memo and I'll see her in court" or (b) re-visit the issue and say, "In light of the failure of Prop F, our mind is chang-ed. Here's new advice: Michela can run for office."
She's giving Arntz until 5:00 PM on June 15 to figure it out and respond.
Oh, you want to see the letter? Here is a PDF of it: Download Arntz - Request for Reconsideration[1]
INCIDENTALLY: my favorite part of all of this is the fact that we have Aaron Peskin to thank for the provision in Prop F that would have prohibited Alioto-Pier from running for re-election.
See, Prop F was initially just about holding elections in even-numbered years. Jake McGoldrick kept trying and trying to get that nonsense on the ballot but could never get 6 votes at the Board to do it. After like, three tries, Peskin - probably feeling sorry for McGoldrick - agreed to vote for the thing if McGoldrick put in the anti-Alioto-Pier provision.
McGoldrick did, and Peskin voted yes, and we got Prop F.
Why would Peskin do that? Well, Peskin was not a fan of Alioto-Pier and, as my dear friend once put it, "likes to dick at her." But hey, maybe there was some loftier purpose. (Yeah, no.)
So, when Prop F failed, Peskin might have inadvertently given Alioto-Pier just what she needs to make the City Attorney reverse his position and let her run for re-election.
Man, I love this town.
-Melissa
Recent Comments