Thu. Jun 13th, 2024

Courtroom video courtesy of George Collins, Santa Ana Insight TV

Santa Ana Mayor Pro Tem Claudia Alvarez has joined Santa Ana Parks and Rec Commisioner Max Madrid’s lawsuit to compel the Santa Ana City Clerk to issue nomination papers to Alvarez, as “a party to the action.”

Adding Alvarez to the lawsuit dispenses with the issue of whether or not Madrid had standing to bring the lawsuit to the court.  Now he does, end of story.

An Ex Parte is scheduled for today, July 25, at 1:30 pm, at the Central Justice Center.  This is likely a meeting between the Judge and Madrid and Alvarez.  They have filed a Petition for Writ, which is a filing that a party makes in order to get a speedy review of an issue.

Madrid and Alvarez are arguing that the Santa Ana City Clerk should issue nomination papers to Alvarez on the grounds that Measure D reset the term limit clock, allowing Alvarez to run again in November.  As we disclosed yesterday, a legal brief filed by the California Secretary of State, Kamala Harris, supports this argument.

If the Judge agrees with Madrid and Alvarez, then you can bet that Alvarez will run again in November, and she will win.  Which means that SAUSD Trustee Roman Reyna will drop out of the race for Ward 5 and likely run for the SAUSD School Board again.

You can look up this case at this link.

By Editor

The New Santa Ana blog has been covering news, events and politics in Santa Ana since 2009.

12 thoughts on “Alvarez joins Madrid’s term limits lawsuit against the Santa Ana City Clerk”
  1. Looks like we will have to wait for the judge to make his ruling.

    Most of the doc’s in the case have not been made public and most likely with not be made public until after the ruling.

  2. So your telling us that a educated lawyer, a deputy district attorney in the County prosacutors office knew more about the law and stratigically executed a strategy better than a couple of high school graduate bloggers at the LOC?

    Chris Prevett a clerk with the county and Dan runs a “botique” PR firm (whatever that is) out of his converted garage. Yet, they think they can publish educated commentary and provide legal analysis, when in fact they are doing people a disservice.

    I believe this irresponsibility is EXACTLY what councilwoman Alverez was referring too when she lashed out recently.

    When we rely on people who win contests and call them “AWARDS” and roll around like Peter “Scoop” Brady, you can pretty much guess the kind of quality information you’ll recieve: POOR.

  3. Everyone has it wrong in this action and I hope that the judge will see it. I was gone file an Amicus brief on this issue but I do not support the term limits so I elected not to.

    The fact is that Alvarez was termed out in 2008 and only way she could run was as the consecutive third term.

    By doing so Alvarez confirm that she is running her lest consecutive third term.

    There is no need to go retroactive in this case because she couldn’t run in 2008 as her first term under the new ordinance because she was termed out and the new ordinance did not specifically invalidated her second term limit, therefore, she was running unlawfully in 2008.

    WHEREFORE: Alvarez committed premeditated fraud including the city which aided and abetted Alvarez to gave Alvarez papers in 2008.

    So if there is a young brilliant lawyer who wants to make name for him self he should sue all participants in the city for election fraud including but not limited to Walters and Pulido.

    1. Where?

      To jail?

      She boxed her self into a corner.

      If Alvarez will prevail in the court on her Writ she may have committed premeditated election fraud in 2008 and if her writ will be denied then her 2008 election was legal third and final term.

      1. For those of you who do not understand what is new in this case:

        Until Alvarez’s personal filing of her Writ everything was a OK.

        Her personal Writ filling is the new monkey wrench and the statute of limitation starts running after the courts decision which is at least one year maybe much more in the criminal court.

  4. I guess we are going to let the judge decide and then in Nov. the voter’s will get their chance to deside.

    1. “I guess we are going to let the judge decide”…… Hmmmmm

      You are not getting it cook!

      Judge is not gone decide if Alvarez was committing election fraud in 2008. Judge will decide if she can run now or not.

      Alvarez’s election fraud is totally separate case which is possible to charge her with [only] if Judge will rule in her favor to run.

      Whether or not someone will go after her later on is totally different issue.

  5. Art,Thank you for the great coverage and the awesome video!!! I’m going to check the other videos on that web site. If Sarmiento, Tinajero, Martinez, and Benavides are now a “majority” on the Council…why don’t they state which issues they disagree with Pulido/Alvarez on and vote to change them? Actions speak louder than words. Seems they don’t really want to make chages but rather want to make political hay. What say you?

    1. The Council alliances seem to shift daily. They aren’t as cohesive as you might think. Much will depend on this lawsuit. If Alvarez can run again that will restore some certainty.

      In general the culture at City Hall has always been to cover things up. I have worked very hard to uncover much of what goes on, dating back to my time at the OJ blog. That work continues…

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Verified by MonsterInsights