I thought I recognized those names in the caption. The respondent (Zapf) is my city councilmember and the petitioner (Pease) is one of her opponents in the last election. Indeed, it's a case about that election, one in which I dutifully voted.
So I definitely have to read the thing, right?
I clearly need to read the local newspaper more, since it's about a dispute that I didn't even know existed. Basically, Lorie Zapf lives in a part of San Diego that got redistricted, so although she previously represented District 6, after redistricting, she represented District 2. Now she's running again for District 2, and in the most recent primary, was one of the "top two" candidates with the most votes, so she moves on.
Petitioner, Bryan Pease, was No. 3. So he's out.
Except for one thing. Pease says that Zapf is ineligible to run. Why, you might ask? Because, he says, she's termed out. She's already served two terms as a city councilmember, so this would be her third.
But Zapf has a pretty good response. She says that the relevant provision of the San Diego City Charter (approved by the voters in a prior election) says that "no person shall serve more than two consecutive four-year terms as
a Council member from any particular district." Sure, she served one previous term from District 2, but before that, she was in District 6. So only once from District 2, which is the "particular" district she's now running to (continue to) represent.
Now, normally, I gotta tell you, that seems obviously right. She was 6 before, but now she's 2. "From any particular district" has to mean something, and in this context, is clearly means that you're not termed out if you were in 6, then went to 2. That's still only one prior term "from any particular" district; e.g., the one (2) you're running for now.
But Pease ain't finished. He makes a pretty creative argument. One that I totally didn't even know about before reading the opinion. Apparently the San Diego City Charter provision said at the time of the prior redistricting that "Upon any
redistricting pursuant to the provisions of this Charter, incumbent Council members will
continue to represent the district in which they reside, unless as a result of such
redistricting more than one incumbent Council member resides within any one district, in
which case the City Council may determine by lot which Council member shall represent
each district." Which is weird, because I don't remember anything about drawing lots at the time, or saw that happen. Anyway, Pease says that since the City Charter says that the councilmember "continues to represent the district in which [she] reside[s]," and since immediately after redistricting Zapf now lived in District 2 (even though she now represented District 6), she "counts" as representing District 2. Hence 2 then, another 2 after, and this would be her third consecutive 2.
Did I mention that Pease is an attorney? Who represents himself (in part) in this petition.
Now, Zapf isn't finished either. Far from it. She's got a darn good rejoinder. Saying that if she was (after redistricting) really representing District 2 (where she lived), then that meant that there were two people representing 2 and no one representing 6, which makes no sense.
Which the Court of Appeal basically agrees with. She was representing 6, they shifted the boundaries, but regardless of what the City Charter says, she basically continued to represent 6 (despite the fact she was no longer living there) throughout the remainder of her term. End of story. So she's not termed out. Election can continue with the two highest vote-getters, including Zapf (and not Pease).
Which is probably how you'd want the thing to come out anyway. It'd really screw things up if we decided to switch things around after the primary election already took place. What are we supposed to do; just let Nos. 2 and 3 move on to the general election, making all the votes for No. 1 totally meaningless? Crazy. (I agree with the Court of Appeal that Pease isn't barred by laches by waiting until after the election to assert his challenge, since there's an express procedure that allows exactly that. But still; my gut tells me that the fact that we're tinkering with an election result -- and in a very messy way, at that -- if Pease's challenge is granted nonetheless has an effect on what we our predisposition is as to the hopeful outcome of the dispute.)
Now, admittedly, we should have probably thought about all of this when we wrote the term limits and the redistricting initiatives in the first place. Because, at least in retrospect, it was totally easy to foresee that something like this would happen -- a sitting councilmember getting her district moved, with the resulting term limit implications.
But hindsight's always 20/20.
Anyway, the case gets resolved. It's Lorie Zapf and her competitor, Dr. Jen Campbell, in the general election in November. One of 'em gets to represent the constituents of San Diego City Council District No 2. Whose members include, inter alia, at least one occasionally loquacious guy who reads a lot of appellate cases in California.
P.S. - Lorie lives just down the street from the University of San Diego, and (obviously) not too far from my residence. I met her competitor, Dr. Campbell, when she came door-to-door to my home one afternoon. Zapf may have to step it up a bit if she wants to continue to remain the incumbent.
