CC - Resolution No. 2005-460 •
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-46
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA RESCINDING ITS ADOPTION OF
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-45, REINSTATING AND READOPTING
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-33 REGARDING THE CALLING AND
NOTICING OF A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THE SUBMISSION OF
THE QUESTION OF THE RECALL OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AND
THE ELECTION OF CANDIDATES TO FILL THE VACANCY OR
VACANCIES IF THE RECALL PREVAILS, REINSTATING AND
READOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 2005-35 REGARDING THE
REQUEST OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON FEBRUARY 7,2006; AND
DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO RETAIN LEGAL COUNSEL TO
INTERVENE AND SEEK DECLARATORY RELIEF IN THE EVENT
THAT AN ACTION IS COMMENCED TO CHALLENGE THE
VALIDITY OF THE RECALL ELECTION OF COUNCILMEMBER
JAY IMPERIAL AND COUNCILMEMBER GARY TAYLOR
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2005, the City Council held a special meeting to
consider the impact of the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit's decision
in Padilla v. Lever as it related to the Consent Decree in the Voting Rights Act action
brought against the City and the February 7, 2006 recall election of Councilmember Jay
Imperial and Councilmember Gary Taylor;
WHEREAS, at its December 5, 2005 meeting, the City Council, by a vote of 3 to
2, adopted Resolution No. 2005-45, which rescinding Resolution Nos. 2005-33 and
Resolution 2005-35 that called for and gave notice of the February 7, 2006 recall election
of Councilmember Jay Imperial and Councilmember Gary Taylor and requested the
County of Los Angeles to provide specific services relating to this election;
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2005, Avner Shapiro of the United States
Department of Justice issued a letter indicating that the Department would not consider
the proposed recall election of Councilmember Jay Imperial and Councilmember Gary
Taylor a violation of the Consent Decree (a copy of said letter is attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit A);
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to rescind its adoption of Resolution No.
2005-45, and reinstate Resolution Nos. 2005-33 and 2005-35, subject to the amendments
thereto regarding the date of the recall election;
• •
WHEREAS, the City Council still wishes for a expeditious judicial determination
to be made regarding the validity of recall election in light of the Consent Decree and the
court decision of Padilla v. Lever;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That Resolution No. 2005-45 is hereby rescinded.
SECTION 2. That Resolution No. 2005-33 is hereby reinstated and readopted.
SECTION 3. That Resolution No. 2005-35 is hereby reinstated and readopted.
SECTION 4. In the event that litigation is commenced to determine the validity
of the recall election of Councilmember Jay Imperial and Councilmember Gary Taylor
the City Clerk is instructed to retain counsel and to intervene in such action and to seek
declaratory relief as respects the matter in controversy.
SECTION 5. That the City Clerk is directed to forward without delay to the
Board of Supervisors and to the County Election Department, each a certified copy of
this resolution.
SECTION 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON DECEMBER 16`h, 2005.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Exhibit A
December 13, 2005 letter from Avner Shapiro of the
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
DEC-13-20-15 15:14 QJ CRD VOTI1A 0 2023073951 P.02
U.S, Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Voting S¢Uion - imia.
950 Pennsyl-nio,lvenue, N K',
11,4shington. !X' :0330
December 13, 2005
V A 1"AC IMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Peter Wallin, Esq.
2800 28th Street
Suite 315
Santa Monica, California 90405
Dear Mr. Wallin:
I am writing to follow-up on our December 9t° telephone conversation concerning the
City of Rosemead's decision to rescind the special election for February 7, 2006, our Consent
Decree entered in ni ed States V.
Ninth Circuit's November 23, City ofRosemed, No. CV-OS-5131 (Sept. 8, 2005), and the
2005 Tulin
explained during that conversation g 1n Padilla v. Irever, 2005 WL 3116642 9'h
under these circumstances, the Department of Justice willriot
seek to enjoin the February recall election if it is reinstated.
The Consent Decree is a forward looking document designed to assure that all voters of
the City have access to election materials and information as required by federal law. We full
expect that in future elections petitions are handled in a manner that is consistent with the y
requirements of Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-Ia, and our Consent
Decree. We look forward to working with you and other City officials to ensure the
implementation of an effective language minority election program.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact either me at
(202) 305-1840 or my colleague, Alberto Ruisanchez, at (202) 305-1291.
Sincerely,
Avrter Shapiro
Trial Attorney
Voting Section
cc: Darryl Wold, Esq.
TOTAL P.02