Judge Holds Up ‘Mistaken’ City Ballot Measure : Election: He postpones the printing of proposed charter amendment giving the council more power. Mayor Bradley said he had signed it in error.

A Los Angeles judge issued a temporary restraining order Tuesday postponing the printing of a controversial June ballot measure that Mayor Tom Bradley says he signed by mistake.

The decision by Superior Court Judge Ronald L. Sohigian came after a hearing requested by Bradley’s attorneys, who are seeking to prevent City Clerk Elias Martinez from carrying out the election.

Bradley has said that he had intended to veto the measure, a proposed City Charter amendment that would diminish his power by granting the City Council authority to review the decisions of numerous boards and commissions appointed by the mayor.

Sohigian scheduled a full hearing on the matter for May 13.

Bob Forgnone, an attorney for Martinez, argued that proofs of the proposed amendment have been produced and that delaying the printing of the ballot could cost the city from $400,000 to $600,000.

“This creates tremendous hardship for the city,” Forgnone said after the hearing. “The democratic process is enhanced by sending the voters their ballot materials as soon as possible.”

Printing of the ballot was scheduled to begin today, Forgnone said.

Forgnone said he would return to court today in an attempt to reverse the decision by presenting new evidence of the cost of removing the proposed amendment from the ballot.

The controversy began March 7 when the mayor mistakenly signed an order for the election, which had been placed on his desk with a number of other items, according to court documents.

The ballot measure had already been printed in the Los Angeles Daily Journal when Bradley realized his mistake. On March 12, the mayor asked the city clerk’s office to return the item for his veto.

The City Council refused to recognize the veto and on March 22 voted 10 to 2 to place the measure before voters.

Bradley called the move a “naked power grab.”

Assistant City Atty. Tony Alperin then sent Martinez a letter advising him that Bradley’s belated veto was still valid, and that the measure should be taken off the ballot. Martinez said he was obliged to follow the council’s order.

Martinez was represented by private attorneys at Tuesday’s hearing after the city attorney’s office declared that it had a conflict of interest in the case.

Much of the 90-minute hearing consisted of an arcane discussion about the mayor’s intent in signing the document and case law on similar mix-ups in otherwise routine legislative procedures.

Attorneys for Bradley argued that the City Charter requires both the mayor’s signature on the document and his approval of it. Attorney Bert H. Deixler argued that while the mayor signed the proposed ordinance, he had not approved it.

Sohigian then asked Deixler: “Does that mean that the city clerk and the City Council can never rely on the objective manifestation of the mayor’s signature? Do they have to call him up and ask him, ‘Do you really mean it?’ ”

A decision in the mayor’s favor could set a dangerous precedent, the judge said.

“There is certainly in this political arena (the possibility) that one may execute an order and then, because of the political backlash, say, ‘No, I didn’t mean that at all,’ ” Sohigian said.