The Nevada County Superior Court has declined to halt the printing of ballots for the November General Election based on a writ of mandate filed by Attorney Barry Pruett on behalf of his wife. The ruling comes one day before the deadline to submit the final ballot to the printer.
Per the ruling “Petitioner, Audrey D. Pruett, filed a petition for writ of mandate, protective and injunctive orders pertaining to Measure V.” Pruett contended the Ballot Label, Impartial Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement related to Measure V were untrue, partial, argumentative, prejudicial and or false. Pruett wanted a judicial determination that Measure V is a Special Tax and requested to have the Ballot Label, Impartial Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement amended.
Nevada County argued the petition was brought late, outside of the ten day period, but the court declined to agree with the reasoning.
Substantially, the court agreed with the county’s other arguments countering Pruett’s assertions, noting “Petitioner has failed to meet her burden of proof as to the alleged false and misleading allegations.”
- The Court finds that the Petitioner’s writ was filed in a timely manner.
- The Court finds that Measure V is a General Tax.
- The Ballot Label, Impartial Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement do not contain false or misleading statements.
- The Court finds that language in the Ballot Measure is argumentative. (somewhat)
- The Court does agree to strike the phrase “to save lives” from the ballot measure. [update to reflect the correction from “loss of life” to “save lives”]
- The Court concludes that the “¢” should be stricken from the Ballot Label and in its place the “%” should be used
- The Court denies the Petitioner’s request to issue an injunction order restraining Respondents from printing ballots or voter guides for the 2022 General Election.
The Court awarded attorney’s fees to Pruett.
The full ruling is available here. [thanks to Barry Pruett for the amended filing copy]