SAN JOSE — The California Sixth Appellate Court denied an appeal in a case claiming the City of Cupertino used improper procedures on a ballot question by the Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible Growth Initiative during the November 2016 election.
The initiative's measure on the ballot was intended to restore the Vallco Shopping Center and “promote sensible and sustainable growth" by establishing "clear citywide standards for development, including maximum heights, and building planes and required setbacks on major thoroughfares.”
The measure was approved and made public in April 2016, along with a window of 10 days for the public to review the measure.
But the Committee Supporting Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible Growth Initiative and three residents of the City of Cupertino, Steven Scharf, Xiangchen Xu and Govind Tatachar, claimed that the wording on the ballot question had been amended, including emphasizing raising the maximum height limits, and filed a complaint to the Santa Clara County Superior Court.
The plaintiffs requested an order prohibiting the City from placing the “unlawful ballot question on the ballot.” The City argued that the issue was time barred by the 10-day review window.
The trial court agreed that the claim was time barred, and further ruled that the language on the ballot measure was factually correct and not misleading.
In their appeal, the plaintiffs said that even though the election was over, the court should rule on their claims because they have raised “several statutory issues of great relevance to the initiative process for the benefit of initiative proponents and opponents, election officials, legal practitioners and courts.”
But the Oct. 9 Appellate Court decision said that the plaintiffs did not provide “clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent.”
“We see no need to revisit the issue on appeal, and Appellants provide no support or justification for doing so," the order said.
The court declined to exercise their discretion to resolve the issue, finding that the issue of which election code section had been applied was not an issue “of continuing public interest that is likely to recur.”
Judge Mary Greenwood wrote the court order, with Judges Franklin Elia and Nathan Mihara concurring.