The hearing in the Larry Elder and voter Betty Tom Chu matters (my firm represents the latter) may be seen here:
2/ Judge opens hearing with a tenative ruling that the tax return disclosure requirement doesn't seem to apply to recall elections, and if it did, Larry Elder substantially complied with it.
3/ Elder's lawyer Steve Baric says even if the statute applied, Larry Elder's alleged sin was providing seven pages of COMPLETE documents to the SOS, but those documents were not in the pile of hundreds of pages of redacted documents. He complied with the statute.
4/ Elder provided over 300 pages of personal AND CORPORATE documents to the state. Also redaction portion of the statute is there to protect the CANDIDATE's privacy, why does the state care? Form over substance.
5/ Betty Tom Chu's lawyer, my colleague @MarkMeuser, says the court's tentative covers the matter, and he will respond if necessary. State's lawyer arguing now first trying to argue that recall election should be run the same way as other elections.
6/ SOS lawyer is claiming that the stacks of tax returns Elder provided -- one seven pages shorter than the other -- so the literal letter of the law is not met. SOS seems to be now saying if Elder resubmits the 7 pages, it will be fine.
7/ Judge pushes back on interpretation of Election Code Section 1189.2 -- Tax returns would have to have been filed weeks ago to meet the literal language of the statute the SOS claims applies -- it makes no sense and it isn't consistent with a recall election.
8/ SOS attorney Russell argues is SOS is trying to hold the recall election in as close as possible a way as a regular election. Counsel for Elder and Chu echo court comments and stand on their position that the tax returns are NOT required in a recall election anyway.
9/ Court rules the tax return obligation should not have been required. Thus the SOS is ordered to include Larry Elder on the ballot.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
