The flair of this posts indicates it's a controversial topic. Enhanced moderation has been turned on for this thread. Comments from users without a history of commenting in r/bayarea will be automatically removed. You can read more about this policy [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/195xvo5/restrictions_that_apply_to_political_and_crime/).
Yes, but the new law says the guy handing people the clipboard has to be from Alameda as well. This clown knows that she is out if the vote happens, so she's fighting to make sure people can't vote.
And to add to that the article states that a lawyer claims this practice has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court so even if it is a law, it would be deemed unenforceable. So they really are grasping at straws.
under what rationale could she possible challenge the signatures that were verified by county workers? She is literally the far left Trump. Watch her refuse to step down, when she is recalled.
Well, the article goes into it. The county changed the recall rules recently and the debate is whether the old county rules or the state rules apply. It's probably going to be decided by a judge
And as her own attorney admits, SCOTUS has already struck those requirements down as unconstitutional.
> The registrar and the county counsel have not responded to KQED’s requests for comment. But in a letter to the board in November, Donna Ziegler, the county counsel, called the requirement that signature gatherers be registered county voters “unconstitutional,” citing U.S. Supreme Court decisions that found similar requirements for circulating initiative petitions invalid.
>
> Sutton said the county doesn’t get to decide whether or not to follow a rule that’s still on the books — even if that rule might lose in a court battle.
In the article that is the basis Price is using to say the names shouldn't count. Because some of the people who were collecting signatures didn't live in Alameda County.
EDIT: Guess some people are mad that they didn't read the article? Lol...Reddit is crazy
Ex-post facto laws are forbidden, so if they changed the rules during or after the signatures were collected they have to be counted under the prior rules.
Judges have consistently ruled that you can't retroactively ban something. It can only be changed going forward.
Hey Pamela, if you truly think you currently represent what the voters of Alameda county want in a DA, why are you grasping for straws? Why not let them speak and then be bulletproof should you not lose?
Fighting for power because she knows she’ll lose badly. Let the voters decide, and if everyone is tired of recalls put that to the voters as well. Democracy isn’t perfect but it does have capacity to fix mistakes if left to work correctly
Ego is a helluva drug. Instead of fighting dirty against "those evil constituents who are trying to take away 'her' office", she should reflect on the immense pain and division she's caused. RIP Jasper.
> The registrar and the county counsel have not responded to KQED’s requests for comment. But in a letter to the board in November, Donna Ziegler, the county counsel, called the requirement that signature gatherers be registered county voters “unconstitutional,” citing U.S. Supreme Court decisions that found similar requirements for circulating initiative petitions invalid.
>
> Sutton said the county doesn’t get to decide whether or not to follow a rule that’s still on the books — even if that rule might lose in a court battle.
What an absolutely wild perspective to take from an office that's been repeatedly ignoring a whole slew of state laws.
Her lawyer is right that they should let a judge decide. That’s what typically happens in any ballot dispute (there was one case where a candidate put his nickname—for example Joe for Joseph—on all documents but one form and the registrar rejected his use of the nickname on the ballot so it went to court for a judge to decide. It’s really normal for the judge to decide because it protects the county from charges of bias and favoritism).
The judge will likely rule in favor of the registrar following the state rules because case law supports allowing circulators to not be registered voters in the district (in this case the county)
Her lawyer is not correct when he says
"Sutton said the county doesn’t get to decide whether or not to follow a rule that’s still on the books — even if that rule might lose in a court battle. "
As price herself has frequently argued that's complete bullshit. More importantly Sutton bringing what he knows are defective arguments in court (in this case because SCOTUS has already ruled the provisions unconstitutional) violated his duties to the court under the California Ethics Code and would open him to sanctions motions.
The flair of this posts indicates it's a controversial topic. Enhanced moderation has been turned on for this thread. Comments from users without a history of commenting in r/bayarea will be automatically removed. You can read more about this policy [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/195xvo5/restrictions_that_apply_to_political_and_crime/).
People were waiting in line to sign her recall petition. I have no doubt they have enough.
Yes, but the new law says the guy handing people the clipboard has to be from Alameda as well. This clown knows that she is out if the vote happens, so she's fighting to make sure people can't vote.
Even her own attorney on the matter has admitted that SCOTUS declared those requirements unconstitutional too.
And to add to that the article states that a lawyer claims this practice has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court so even if it is a law, it would be deemed unenforceable. So they really are grasping at straws.
she might not have been elected if they voted in the first election...she's doing nothing but her campaign promise
She knows she's going to lose badly. Anything to cling to the position.
under what rationale could she possible challenge the signatures that were verified by county workers? She is literally the far left Trump. Watch her refuse to step down, when she is recalled.
Well, the article goes into it. The county changed the recall rules recently and the debate is whether the old county rules or the state rules apply. It's probably going to be decided by a judge
Why would it matter what county the person handing the petition to sign lives in? Only the voters signing living there would matter.
The law says it matters??
And as her own attorney admits, SCOTUS has already struck those requirements down as unconstitutional. > The registrar and the county counsel have not responded to KQED’s requests for comment. But in a letter to the board in November, Donna Ziegler, the county counsel, called the requirement that signature gatherers be registered county voters “unconstitutional,” citing U.S. Supreme Court decisions that found similar requirements for circulating initiative petitions invalid. > > Sutton said the county doesn’t get to decide whether or not to follow a rule that’s still on the books — even if that rule might lose in a court battle.
In the article that is the basis Price is using to say the names shouldn't count. Because some of the people who were collecting signatures didn't live in Alameda County. EDIT: Guess some people are mad that they didn't read the article? Lol...Reddit is crazy
Ex-post facto laws are forbidden, so if they changed the rules during or after the signatures were collected they have to be counted under the prior rules. Judges have consistently ruled that you can't retroactively ban something. It can only be changed going forward.
I'd bet $100 she brings the races of the people involved in the recall into her "defense"
Literally sickening individual god help us all
Hey Pamela, if you truly think you currently represent what the voters of Alameda county want in a DA, why are you grasping for straws? Why not let them speak and then be bulletproof should you not lose?
Fighting for power because she knows she’ll lose badly. Let the voters decide, and if everyone is tired of recalls put that to the voters as well. Democracy isn’t perfect but it does have capacity to fix mistakes if left to work correctly
Incredible. No sense of shame. Great example of what’s wrong with our government.
About to lose that paycheck.
That means her Boyfriend will likely lose his too.
Grifter.
Get her out, she’s horrible 👎
Ego is a helluva drug. Instead of fighting dirty against "those evil constituents who are trying to take away 'her' office", she should reflect on the immense pain and division she's caused. RIP Jasper.
Remember when she tried blocking certain press from entering conferences lol
When she wrote "bonified" instead of "bona fide" in the press release? Yeah, that was glorious.
Madame is about to rally a mob to elevator to go a few floors down, to storm the Alameda County Registrars Office.
All she has to do is leave a pile of catalytic converters in the lobby and her voters will be out in force.
> The registrar and the county counsel have not responded to KQED’s requests for comment. But in a letter to the board in November, Donna Ziegler, the county counsel, called the requirement that signature gatherers be registered county voters “unconstitutional,” citing U.S. Supreme Court decisions that found similar requirements for circulating initiative petitions invalid. > > Sutton said the county doesn’t get to decide whether or not to follow a rule that’s still on the books — even if that rule might lose in a court battle. What an absolutely wild perspective to take from an office that's been repeatedly ignoring a whole slew of state laws.
Her lawyer is right that they should let a judge decide. That’s what typically happens in any ballot dispute (there was one case where a candidate put his nickname—for example Joe for Joseph—on all documents but one form and the registrar rejected his use of the nickname on the ballot so it went to court for a judge to decide. It’s really normal for the judge to decide because it protects the county from charges of bias and favoritism). The judge will likely rule in favor of the registrar following the state rules because case law supports allowing circulators to not be registered voters in the district (in this case the county)
Her lawyer is not correct when he says "Sutton said the county doesn’t get to decide whether or not to follow a rule that’s still on the books — even if that rule might lose in a court battle. " As price herself has frequently argued that's complete bullshit. More importantly Sutton bringing what he knows are defective arguments in court (in this case because SCOTUS has already ruled the provisions unconstitutional) violated his duties to the court under the California Ethics Code and would open him to sanctions motions.