Metro's Measure M will still need approval from two-thirds of L.A. County voters in November, but the transportation sales tax got a little good news today. A superior court judge rejected a lawsuit filed by the cities of Carson, Commerce, Norwalk, Torrance, Santa Fe Springs, Ranchos Palos Verdes, and Signal Hill. The lawsuit alleged that Measure M's ballot summary language is incomplete and therefore misleading. These cities also claimed that Measure M would shortchange the southern portion of L.A. County.
According to City News Service (via My News L.A.) today:
A judge today rejected a petition filed on behalf of South Bay-area cities seeking significant changes in the ballot language for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's proposed half-cent county sales tax measure, saying there was no evidence the wording was confusing to voters.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mary H. Strobel said Measure M is not an initiative and therefore did not require the ballot language specifics sought in the action filed last week by the cities of Carson, Commerce, Norwalk, Torrance, Santa Fe Springs, Ranchos Palos Verdes and Signal Hill. The petition alleged that the ballot label for Measure M did not include the actual 1 percent total rate of the tax to be imposed. The petitioners also claimed the ballot label for Measure M does not state that the proposed tax would be permanent.
Carson Mayor Albert Robles said after the hearing that he and the other coalition members were disappointed with the ruling and are considering an appeal. He said Metro's argument that the coalition was required to seek help from the Legislature was not an option because it would have been too late to do so in time for the November election.
Yusef Robb of Yes on Measure M reacted to the victory with this statement:
Measure M is clear on what it will do: ease congestion and make transportation improvements Countywide and in each of L.A. County's 88 cities. The plaintiffs attempted to mislead the voters with a politically motivated lawsuit, but the court ruled today that there was no evidence the wording is confusing to voters. The plaintiffs should stop interfering with the voters' right to make their own judgment on Measure M.
