Fresno Bee coverage misstates Libertarian Party opposition to Measure C road tax
The Fresno Bee has misrepresented the Libertarian Party in their news coverage and opinion pieces published in the past few weeks in regards to the controversy surrounding Fresno County Measure C, which would impose a continuation of a half-cent sales tax to fund various transportation projects for an additional 30 years (ending in 2057).
Because of this misrepresentation, we feel your readers should know the rest of the story.
The Fresno Bee stated in its Sept. 1 coverage of the Measure C controversy, “Fresno County voters may not get a chance to consider a ‘strong’ opposition argument against Measure C on this fall’s ballot unless a stalemate is resolved between the county’s election chief and groups including the local Libertarian Party and a coalition of local leaders opposed to Measure C.” That statement is just not true.
After learning about the argument filed by individuals associated with the No on C 2022 organization, we worked with them and submitted their rebuttal, adding four of their original argument authors onto that rebuttal. That means their argument will be included on the sample ballot and the voters of Fresno County will see the “stronger” argument. Further, I took my name off of the rebuttal to allow an additional signer from their team to be an author.
We submitted 61 arguments in 12 counties throughout the state; of those, 57 will be printed in the sample ballots. In all but four of the arguments selected, we were the only organization that filed an argument against the measures. In all four where there were two arguments, and ours was selected, we worked with the authors of those arguments that weren’t accepted, including the individuals associated with the No on C 2022 organization.
All too often there is no argument against tax measures, and voters look at that and think, “if no one is against this it must be OK.” With inflation hitting voters’ wallets, we want to let them know they don’t have to continue giving money that never seems to solve the problems they are intended to solve.
We stand behind our initial argument, which The Bee erroneously characterized as “angry spam.” We contend our argument is relevant to the issue at hand, including the present controversy.
In our argument we state: “How is it then, that all these public officials, who you pay, combined, millions of dollars a year, have never (never means not once) put a local measure on the ballot that follows the law?
“The statutes regarding local measure elections apply to every county. How is it that every county, even Fresno, doesn’t follow every law, as written? Who benefits? Certainly not you.”
In Fresno County there will be 12 ballot measures put before the voters in November. California Elections Code section 9163 states in part, “Based on the time reasonably necessary to prepare and print the arguments . . . the county elections official shall fix and determine a reasonable date before the election after which no arguments for or against any county measure may be submitted.” So why is it that the posted argument deadlines for these 12 measures had varying dates ranging between July 18 and Aug. 29? And why was Measure C given the latest filing date for arguments?
Finally, it’s been reported that we agree with the lawsuit that is being filed against the registrar. Although we were initially supportive, it was because we were told it would be based on the “first in” reasoning for selection. However we strongly disagree with what the attorneys representing the two individual voters are asking of the courts. The selection of an argument should never be based on what is contained in the argument, as that would be a First Amendment violation and would amount to viewpoint discrimination.