STOP and Voters for a Fair Arena Deal said they filed the lawsuit against Sacramento City Council, the Sacramento city clerk,  and the city of Sacramento city over a decision to disqualify thousands of petitions that would have put the issue to a public vote on the June 3 ballot — a move many describe as government tyranny.

Jan. 24, the Sacramento city clerk announced that she rejected the petitions, along with 34,000 signatures, on the grounds some of the petition versions did not comply with election code.

“This is not a small number of people,” said Craig Powell, representing Voters for a Fair Arena Deal. “This is a significant contingent of Sacramento voters who’ve said ‘Let us vote.'”

Almost immediately after the announcement of the lawsuit, local Sacramento media reported the lawsuit is “by the group that doesn’t want the arena built.”

STOP and Voters for a Fair Arena Deal have said throughout the battle with the city, they are not opposed to an arena, and in fact are supportive of refurbishing the existing arena, or building a new one; they want the public subsidy of the arena project to be decided on by the voters of the city of Sacramento.

The attorney for STOP and VFAD said the errors the city clerk cited weren’t substantial enough to warrant disregarding 23,000 signatures, KCRA reported. “Nobody can claim they didn’t know what they were signing,” STOP attorney Bradly Hertz said.

“It’s really five mistakes that were really technical by the city clerk’s own admission, and (it is) almost silly that the city would rely on that as their way of trying to disenfranchise their voters,” said Hertz.

STOP is asking a judge to order the City Council to either adopt their petition, or place it on the June 3 ballot, and is hoping the matter will be heard by the Sacramento Superior Court immediately.

However, Judge Michael Kenny, the judge first assigned to the case, excused himself before a hearing in the case started, after it was revealed he had signed the petition to put the arena up for a vote, KCRA reported. The case was turned over to Judge Timothy Frawley.

Petition ‘errors’

STOP and Voters for a Fair Arena Deal said the five errors that the city clerk originally cited are not “substantive” and were just technical errors. Members of STOP told me they had a top elections attorney in the state review the petitions, and were told they complied with the law.

“The4000, a group representing the new downtown arena plan, responded to Friday’s decision by saying, ‘For STOP, this has never been about a vote and democracy; it has always been about tricking voters and stalling the arena with a two-part vote designed to blow up the project,’” reported Fox 40 news recently

The4000 was created by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA player, and the lead proponent to build the new arena.

“We all support the clerk and the city’s efforts to protect the public interest, especially given what’s at stake,” Johnson said in a statement.

Read all of CalWatchdog stories on the Sacramento Kings’ arena deal HERE.

Last week, in the lawsuit targeting the arena deal orchestrated by Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Eugene Balonon had issued a tentative order on the depositions. But he said he would deliberate a little longer on the case law before issuing a final ruling.

The judge's order issued Tuesday supports petitioners’ requests that they be allowed to depose McCarty and Rhinehart.

The plaintiffs are a group of citizens known as STOP (Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork) who are fighting the arena subsidy deal. According to the lawsuit filed by STOP, the city subsidy is actually $338 million — not the $258 million the city claims.

STOP has tried to get the details of the arena deal and purchase of the Sacramento Kings to be made public.

'Undiscoverable, privileged' information?

The attorney for the defendants insisted in court and in legal filings that the information the petitioners seek from McCarty and Rhinehart is “undiscoverable, privileged information.”

“The court disagrees,” wrote Judge Balanon. “Defendants have not met their burden in asserting this privilege as to Councilman McCarty.”

An order protecting Rhinehart from being deposed was also denied by the judge.

Deposition notices were sent to city officials in September. But according to the plaintiff's attorney, Patrick Soluri, the mayor and city officials have engaged in various avoidance tactics, including filing numerous objections to deposition notices, rolling demurrers, and refusing to comply with a court order directing them to reschedule a further hearing. Soluri said these were stall tactics designed solely to delay the inevitable discovery until after the city’s expected formal approval of the arena in April.

“Defendants request for a stay of all discovery pending a ruling on another demur is DENIED,” the judge wrote in Tuesday's ruling.

Following the hearing last Thursday, Sacramento Bee columnist Marcos Breton ridiculed the lawsuit.

“Did you hear about the 'secret deal' between the city of Sacramento and the Kings? It’s supposedly a backroom, off-the-books, under-the-radar, 'sweetener' that was cooked up secretly between city officials and Kings owners. It would secretly provide hidden subsidies from the city to the Kings for the purpose of secretly making the Kings owners financially whole for 'overpaying' to buy one of the worst franchises in the NBA.”

essay to buyToday Breton may be eating crow for lunch. He's openly championed the arena deal and mocked anyone opposed to it.

Councilman McCarty has consistently opposed the arena deal. He sent a letter to City Manager John Shirey and the news media last February, challenging the use of public money for an arena, questioning whether the city would get a return on its investment and asking who would be accountable if revenues don't meet expenses.

Ballot initiative on subsidy

Beyond the legal challenge to the city’s deal, there is also a ballot initiative petition to require a public vote on any public subsidy for a professional sports franchise.  The petition signatures are currently being counted.

However, it appears Mayor Johnson and the City Council will attempt to moot the result of that vote by pushing up their approvals of the arena prior to the June vote that would thereafter require voter approval.  Approval of the deal and related bond sales were previously scheduled for summer or fall 2014.

See recent CalWatchdog stories covering the Sacramento arena deal here, here, here  and here.

And go here for all of the CalWatchdog stories on the arena deal.