Newport groups try to overturn Measure F

Jenifer Ragland and Jasmine Lee

NEWPORT BEACH -- The city and two Newport Beach pro-airport groups have

begun what many predict will be a long legal fight to overturn Measure F,

the anti-airport initiative Orange County voters passed overwhelmingly

Tuesday.

The Airport Working Group, Citizens for Jobs & the Economy, the city of

Newport Beach and two individuals filed the civil suit Friday in Superior

Court.

“Measure F is not just bad public policy, it is bad law,” said Bruce

Nestande, president of Citizens for Jobs & the Economy.

Opponents of Measure F -- which requires two-thirds of voters approve new

or expanded jails, landfills or airports proposed for residential areas

-- claim it is unconstitutional, unenforceable and invalid.

The measure’s backers said they had anticipated the lawsuit and did not

consider it a threat to their landslide victory. They said the

initiative, which has already proved itself in the court of public

opinion, would stand up in a court of law.

“If, for some reason, some judge were to overturn this initiative -- and

I can’t imagine why -- and that ruling stood up under appeal, I guess we

would just go back to our army of supporters and volunteers and pass

another initiative,” said Leonard Kranser, an anti-airport activist.

Although no Measure F support groups were named in the court papers,

Kranser said he predicts South County organizations will become involved

in the litigation.

He had not received a copy of the lawsuit and referred questions on legal

issues to Richard Jacobs, the attorney who drafted the measure.

Jacobs could not be reached for comment.

David Ellis, a consultant for the Airport Working Group, said the lawsuit

targets nine points of law in the measure.

The main arguments are:

* Measure F violates the state constitution because it requires an

“automatic” election each time the Orange County Board of Supervisors

approves an airport, jail or landfill project. According to the

constitution, only signatures or a legislative body can put measures on

the ballot.

* The two-thirds vote criteria for land-use projects is not allowable

under the state constitution. Existing law allows a two-thirds majority

only for taxation.

* Measure F violates the state’s “single subject” rule, which says

initiatives cannot deal with more than one separate issue.

Pro-airport forces challenged Measure F on the same grounds before the

initiative went to voters, but lost.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavas in November expressed

“grave doubts” about the measure’s validity, but would not stop the

measure from going before voters.

Ellis said it is common for courts to uphold initiatives before they

pass. He also said courts have overturned measures that garnered more

than 60% of the vote, as Measure F did Tuesday.

The city of Newport Beach, one of only two cities whose residents voted

the measure down Tuesday, is also a party to the lawsuit.

“Our citizenry overwhelmingly opposed it, so I don’t think there’s

anything inconsistent about us opposing it,” said Newport Beach

Councilman Gary Adams.

But Kranser said that is what is so outrageous about the lawsuit.

“The plaintiffs are all from the Newport Beach area and are attempting to

overthrow an initiative that would protect John Wayne Airport neighbors

from an expansion,” he said.