There are two reasons NOT to appeal the ruling overturning Measure T.
The first reason is that it was an invalid initiative on its face. The adoption of Measure T and its enforcement disregards preemptive state law, exceeds the initiative power, …. denies equal protection of the law….
- The initiative referred to as Measure T bans VHRs outside of the tourist core area of the City of South Lake Tahoe. That is exactly what renders it an invalid initiative. Measure T created areas where VHRs are and are not allowed.
ARTICLE II VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL [SECTION 1 – SEC. 20] SEC. 11. (a) Initiative and referendum powers may be exercised by the electors of each city or county under procedures that the Legislature shall provide. Except ….
(b) A city or county initiative measure may not include or exclude any part of the city or county from the application or effect of its provisions based upon approval or disapproval of the initiative measure*, or based upon the casting of a specified percentage of votes in favor of the measure, by the electors of the city or county or any part thereof. (Sec. 11 amended June 2, 1998, by Prop. 219. Res.Ch. 34, 1996.)
*Measure T specifically excludes areas of the city, making it a violation of the California Constitution and it is statutorily not a valid legislative act because South Lake Tahoe is not a Charter City.
Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments state that no one shall be
deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
The U.S. Constitution provides protection for private property owners when the
government intervenes through official regulations restricting an owner’s rights in land or housing. (See 1 EDWARD H. ZIEGLER, JR., RATHKOPF’S THE LAW OF
ZONING AND PLANNING). When the government acts through regulatory
intervention that restricts the private use of land and housing, the property rights of affected owners are protected under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (id) These provisions apply regardless of the personal status or income of the affected private owner. (PROPERTY RIGHTS, HOUSING, AND THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION: THE SOCIAL BENEFITS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION, GOVERNMENT INTERVENTIONS, AND THE EUROPEAN COURT ON HUMAN RIGHTS’ HUTTENCZAPSKA DECISION* Edward H. Ziegler** and Jan G. Laitos)
Second Home Owners ARE ALLOWED TO LEGALLY VOTE at THEIR South Lake Tahoe Residences - The second reason for not appealing Measure T is that Measure T would
have failed except that 1,400 households were illegally denied the right to vote
by the Registrar of Voters, Bill O’Neil, who unlawfully denied owners of second
residences the right to register and vote at their second homes. That amounts
to over 1,400 votes that would have opposed Measure T from being counted
when the initiative only passed by 58 votes. TWENTY-FOUR TIMES as many
votes as approved Measure T were prevented from being cast by Bill O’Neil’s
unlawful intimidation of voters. Under both State of California and Federal law, second homeowners were legally entitled to vote at their second residences since the passage of The Help America Vote Act signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 29, 2002.
This fact was not acknowledged until August 8, 2024…long after the
compromised vote on Measure T and the debate over Measure N.
BILL O’NEIL WAS IGNORING FEDERAL LAW THAT SUPERSEDED CALIFORNIA LAW THE NEW FEDERAL LAWS ON VOTER REGISTRATION APPLY TO ALL STATES The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Civil Rights Division | The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) (justice.gov) was signed into law by President George W. Bush On October 29, 2002. HAVA creates new mandatory minimum standards for states to follow. Civil Rights Division | Voting Section | United States Department of Justice In order to comply with the above Federal law, the California Secretary of State has enacted the following provisions regarding voter registration: The Help America Vote Act Standards for Proof of Residency or Identity When Proof Is Required by Help America Vote Act ( help-america-vote-act-hava-identification-standards-__-california-secretary-ofstate-1) does provide some legal information about what you can use to establish where you can vote. It lists a large number of specified forms of accepted proof that you can register to vote including among many others:
-Driver’s license
-utility bill;
-property tax statement issued by a governmental agency.
-vehicle registration issued by a governmental agency; or
– vehicle certificate of ownership (pink slip) issued by a governmental agency.
The El Dorado District Attorney’s office issued a new explanation of the voter registration laws that apply to voters with more than one residence who wish to register to vote at their South Lake Tahoe residence.
Deputy District Attorney Miles B. Perry’s August 8, 20224 letter provides a better and more accurate explanation which updates DA Vern Pierson’s 2011 Fallen Leaf letter. It also clarifies the requirements they are checking to just “Driver’s License and registration and Homeowner’s deduction”. This eliminates all the obsolete former confusing jargon about “domicile” that created controversy and confusion about the voter registration requirements and may have shifted the outcome of the vote on Measure T that prevailed by only 58 votes.
This time, the letter only states that “a voter who has more than one residence must choose the residence for which they claim a property tax exemption on their taxes (if any) as their primary residence for purposes of voting in an election. The election law further states that the primary residence is determined by the address used for your driver’s license and vehicle registration.”
In addition to the information provided in the new letter, voters should be aware that there is no requirement for anyone to take the Home-Owner’s tax deduction even if they qualify. The savings is only 1% of the $7,000.00 deduction, for about a $70.00 tax savings.
In August 2024, the District Attorney’s office finally began to correct the
misinformation being circulated by Bill O’Neil, however, that was after the vote
on Measure T where second home owners were falsely told they could not vote
at their South Lake Tahoe Residences.
See letters below.
–John Messina, South Lake Tahoe
