News Subscribe to Our Newsletter Sign up for Email Updates CGF In the News Press Inquiries Past Articles Calendar			The Almanac July 28, 2004 Court hearings  on open space annexation of Coastside are baffling, at best Editorial, The Almanac Supporters of the plan to annex 220 square miles of the San Mateo County coast to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District have been more than a little perplexed and frustrated by two recent court hearings on the matter. The frustration is warranted.  The hearings were related to a lawsuit filed by Coastside activist Oscar Braun and the Half Moon Bay Coastside Foundation seeking to block the annexation, approved by voters in 1998 and given final governmental approval this spring. The plaintiffs were apparently unhappy over their failure to persuade 25 percent of voters living in the annexation area to sign protests against the annexation. Although annexation opponents turned in 5,340 protests, the county's elections office ruled that 1,757 were invalid. After further screening, only 3,443 petitions were ruled valid, and 4,071 were needed to put the question before voters -- which was the goal of annexation opponents.  The county reported that of the invalidated petitions, 542 were duplicate protests -- meaning petitioners signed more than one protest. Also, 376 had been altered after they were signed; 167 were from people living outside the annexation area; and 341 were from people not registered to vote. That left the valid protests 628 shy of the required number. In an action that left many observers scratching their heads, San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Mark Forcum at a July 13 court hearing issued a temporary restraining order blocking the annexation, asking the elections office to do more to verify signatures and addresses, and challenging the integrity of the process because one-third of the protests were found to be invalid. But testimony during the subsequent two days of hearings, on July 22 and 23, left annexation supporters wondering about the integrity of opponents' tactics -- particularly when one of the protest leaders, Terry Gossett, revealed under questioning that he signed duplicate protests, as did his wife. During the hearings, no one really challenged the tossing out of duplicate protests or petitions from nonresidents and nonvoters. The arguments centered on the 376 protests that had been altered, mostly by the addition of an address to petitions that had listed only a post office box number. That means that even if the elections office reversed itself and allowed every one of the most contested invalidations to be added to the protest count, the opponents would still be short more than 250 signatures.  At the end of the July 23 hearing, the presiding judge, Superior Court Judge Carl W. Holm, could have dismissed the temporary restraining order blocking the annexation. Instead, he continued the case, requiring more costly effort on the part of attorneys and other officials of public agencies involved in the legal skirmish. Given the many hours of testimony during these hearings, it appears that Judge Forcum's suspicions were misplaced when he challenged the performance of elections office staff rather than the dubious, at best, tactics of opponents. During the July 13 hearing, Judge Forcum asserted, "The right to vote is the most cherished right we have." It appears that the court has forgotten about the approximately 5,300 voters who exercised their cherished rights when they approved the annexation in 1998. Page last updated July 28, 2004 .