Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceA California Court of Appeals has affirmed deceased Superior Court Judge William McLafferty’s 2009 decision which upheld Doreen Farr’s victory to become Santa Barbara County’s 3rd District supervisor.
Farr, who defeated Steve Pappas in the election by 806 votes out of 35,524, was elated when she heard the news. “We were optimistic considering the strength of the ruling of Judge McLafferty,” she said. “Now that it’s confirmed, we’ve had four judges all say the same thing: there’s no fraud.”
Paul Wellman (file)
Steve Pappas
Pappas, who didn’t return a phone call and has now lost handily at every legal turn, can appeal to the California Supreme Court, but the state’s highest court does not have to take the case. Stanley Green, attorney for Pappas, also could not be reached for comment.
Pappas was alleging that, on technicalities, votes were counted that should not have been. He and his attorneys had argued there was a failure to return completed voter registration cards within a three day time limit, and that voter drive workers who helped fill out registration affidavits didn’t sign the affidavits. Pappas also said the County Election’s official failed to verify voter registration information.
McLafferty ruled that the allegations did not, as a matter of law, provide a basis for challenging the votes or the election results. The Court of Appeals agreed.
The panel still hasn’t returned a decision on whether Farr should be awarded attorney’s fees, a longshot considering legal precedent. The court has until the end of November to make its decision.
The way election code is written, calls for any legal action name the candidate — in this case Farr — as the defendant, rather than the county election’s office, meaning she herself had to defend the suit. As a result, Farr finds herself somewhere between $250,000 and $300,000 in the hole thanks to legal fees.
She said regardless of the Court of Appeals’ decision regarding the fees issue, she intends to go to the legislature to find someone who can carry a bill which would amend election code. “Now is an opportunity to correct it,” Farr said. “None of the causes of action had to do with me.”
She’s received a lot of support, she said, from people “really understanding the basic injustice of the situation.”
One person she hasn’t heard from: Steve Pappas. He has never conceded the election and the two haven’t spoken since the last public forum prior to election night.
Comments
At the very end of the ruling, it says, "...costs are awarded to respondent." I guess that means just the costs of responding to the appeal. At least that is something. Pappas should have to cough up the entire $250,000 of Farr's attorney fees as a message to others that frivolous lawsuits will not be tolerated. Hopefully this over now and Pappas will accept the fact that he lost the election. Also, Nancy Crawford-Hall should realize that her crusade against Farr is fruitless and go back to complaining about how put upon and victimized rich people are.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
October 16, 2010 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Since she's won twice, does that mean she gets to serve two terms?
sixdolphins (anonymous profile)
October 16, 2010 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Pappas was alleging that, on technicalities, votes were counted that should not have been. He and his attorneys had argued there was a failure to return completed voter registration cards within a three day time limit, and that voter drive workers who helped fill out registration affidavits didn’t sign the affidavits. "
This is such a transparently WRONG argument -- the law is intended to INCREASE voter participation, so no vote should be discounted just because of what some voter registration agency did. But Pappas is of a class of people (Republicans, right wingers) completely lacking in ethical scruples.
truth_machine (anonymous profile)
October 18, 2010 at 12:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How is it that the candidate is the named defendant in a case alleging voter registration/vote counting errors? This case should be brought against the county clerk, if anyone. What does the candidate have to do with any of this? By law she would not be allowed anywhere near any vote-counting activities. It's absurd that she has to bear the cost of defending her seat, when nothing is alleged against her.
Nitz (anonymous profile)
October 18, 2010 at 1:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's recap.
Pappas lost the 2004 primary election for Supervisor.
Pappas lost the 2008 election to Farr
Pappas lost at the trial about the 2008 election.
Pappas lost the appeal about the 2008 election.
Most of all, Pappas lost the respect of all of us by trying to take away the vote of thousands of people who followed the law when they registered and let someone turn in their registration.
Pappas, you should know by now that losing is nature's way of telling you something...loser.
Richard_Saunders (anonymous profile)
October 18, 2010 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok. I get it. Pappas should pay. But, to amend the code to have our taxpayer money pay for Sup. Farr's legal expenses since it is her, not the county election office being sued. Not cool either.
BeachFan (anonymous profile)
October 18, 2010 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps you've been in the sun too long, BeachFan. She's being sued for something that she had no control over, for actions not taken by her but rather by the county election office. By any concept of justice, she should not have to pay to defend herself against charges directed at another party. Suppose someone sued you for something I allegedly did, and you had to prove I didn't do it or else pay a penalty? Would that be "cool" by you?
truth_machine (anonymous profile)
October 22, 2010 at 2:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)