L.A. Votes: Endorsements flow as Greuel and Garcetti seek edge

A new stream of endorsements emerged in Los Angeles' mayoral race Wednesday as Wendy Greuel and Eric Garcetti sought an edge in the May 21 runoff. The backing has two overarching goals – blunting criticism the two Democrats are facing about their ability to confront the most pressing financial problems in the city, and courting voters who supported candidates who did not survive the primary.

Greuel won the backing of former Republican Mayor Richard Riordan, who pledged he would serve as a senior advisor to her administration for a salary of $1 a year. This move, long sought by Greuel, comes as the city controller has faced increased heat about her support by the city’s labor unions and recent statements about her views on pension reductions for newly hired city employees. The latter prompted the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, which has backed Greuel, to call on the controller to explain her position on retirement benefits in person today.

L.A. ELECTIONS 2013: Sign up for our email newsletter

Greuel’s campaign hit back, with a co-chairman of her campaign, former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg, promising that Greuel would fight to cut retirement costs at City Hall, including by exploring raising retirement age for existing city employees, a hugely controversial proposal.

Greuel’s rival Garcetti, who edged her in the March 5 primary, also named new endorsements on Wednesday. He picked up the backing of Republican developer Steve Soboroff and an influential African American Democratic club, which could help Garcetti make inroads with two key groups he and Greuel are battling over: white GOP voters in the Valley and black Democrats in South Los Angeles.

FULL COVERAGE: L.A.'s race for mayor

In other city races, the candidates seeking to become Los Angeles’ next city attorney clashed in the first runoff debate, with incumbent Carmen Trutanich and challenger Mike Feuer showing they have starkly different visions of the role of the city’s top prosecutor. And the statement for two competing medical marijuana initiatives survived legal challenges to appear unchanged on the May ballot.

ALSO:

Bear spotted outside home in Glendale neighborhood

Hey, Jimmy Fallon -- Burbank isn't good enough for you?

Suspected cocaine trafficking fugitive arrested in Northridge

-- Seema Mehta

Comments, questions or tips on city elections? Tweet me at @LATSeema

Photo: Former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan. Credit: Mark Boster/Los Angeles Times

Backers of dueling medical pot measures tangle in court

A Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday that ballot arguments for two opposing Los Angeles medical marijuana measures do not violate the law and should appear as they were written in the city's official voter guide.

Attorneys for both measures had alleged the other side violated the city election code.

Lawyers for Proposition D, which is backed by the City Council and a labor union representing marijuana dispensary workers, sued the city first. They claimed the ballot argument in favor of the competing Measure F, which is supported by a separate coalition of dispensaries and other medical marijuana groups, was unfair because it refers to Proposition D as “a Trojan Horse” that “was slapped on the ballot at the last minute by the City Council.”

In court Wednesday, Proposition D attorney Bradley Hertz said a ballot argument in favor of a measure should explain why voters should vote for it, not why they shouldn't vote for the competition.

“If I were to ask someone, ‘Why do you like hamburgers?’ I don’t think a good answer would be: ‘Because they’re better than hot dogs,’” Hertz said.

But Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joanne O'Donnell ruled the language should stand. “It seems logical than an argument for one ballot measure may include statements regarding the insufficiency of another,” O'Donnell wrote in an opinion.

A separate challenge brought by the backers of Measure F was also dismissed by O'Donnell. In that case, Measure F attorneys argued that the ballot argument on behalf of Proposition D was unfair because it called itself "the only measure" that will raise taxes and control and regulate dispensaries.

Measure F, which was the first to qualify for the ballot, would allow an unlimited number of dispensaries so long as operators pay taxes, keep a certain distance from schools and each other and meet other requirements.

A third marijuana dispensary measure will appear on the ballot as Initiative Ordinance E, which would allow only older pot shops to continue operating. It initially was supported by the union of dispensary workers and a group of some of the city's original dispensaries, but those groups are now backing Proposition D.

Crafted by the council, Proposition D also would allow only the oldest dispensaries to continue operating, while raising taxes on medical marijuana sales.

ALSO:

L.A. repeals its ban on pot stores

L.A. voters could decide 3 pot measures on May ballot

L.A. City Council bans medical marijuana dispensaries

-- Kate Linthicum

twitter.com/katelinthicum

Photo: Medical marijuana at a Los Angeles dispensary. Credit: Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times

L.A. Votes: Runoff rivals dash for cash; Villaraigosa says budget not so bleak

The two candidates who earned a spot in the runoff to be Los Angeles’ next mayor have little time to savor their victory. Wendy Greuel and Eric Garcetti must immediately start raising money, because unlike in state and federal elections, they were prohibited for raising money for the general election during the primary.

And they weren’t allowed to reserve any of the millions of dollars they raised in the primary for the runoff, meaning the candidates started raising new funds within hours of the polls closing Tuesday. Garcetti sent off an email missive before he went to sleep that night, and also one targeting donors who had contributed the maximum of $1,300 in the primary. The morning after, Greuel launched a 72-hour grass-roots fundraising drive urging supporters to “be one of the first” to support the city controller in the general election.

But the independent committees backing their bids face no such restrictions, giving Greuel both a potential financial boost and a messaging problem. The main independent group supporting her is up-and-running, but largely backed by city employee unions, a connection that troubles some voters.

FULL COVERAGE: L.A.'s race for mayor

The termed-out mayor that Greuel and Garcetti are vying to replace, Antonio Villaraigosa has not weighed in on the contest, but said Thursday that he plans to take a “real close look” at both of the candidates.

Villaraigosa was a major proponent of a measure--rejected by voters--to increase the sales tax. Backers said the half-cent hike was vital to avoiding cuts to critical city services. On Thursday, two days after the measure's defeat, Villaraigosa said the city’s deficit didn’t look so bad after all.

The Times looked at where the sales-tax proposal, Proposition A, succeeded and where it failed among city voters. Ben Welsh, an editor with the Times Data Desk, broke down the split.

-- Seema Mehta

Comments, questions or tips on city elections? Tweet me at @LATSeema

Photo: Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Credit: Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times

In their words: L.A. mayor candidates answer The Times' questions

Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck has a good chance of keeping his job if any of the three most prominent candidates for mayor manages to win. But embattled Fire Chief Brian Cummings? Not so much.

When The Times posed a series of questions about major issues facing Los Angeles, those were among the views expressed by the eight candidates to replace termed-out Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. In late January, the candidates were given several days to mull what they would say before emailing comments back to the newspaper.

Their answers appear in full on The Times' "Where they stand" page. Readers will find that some are clear and emphatic, and some are carefully hedged. A couple of candidates left questions unanswered. But in a race where the competitors are scrambling to break away from the pack, voters can find a few revealing contrasts.

WHERE THEY STAND: Los Angeles mayoral candidates in their own words

After years of historically low crime rates, City Hall veterans Eric Garcetti, Wendy Greuel and Jan Perry say they would like to see Police Chief Beck serve a second term. Former talk-show host Kevin James flatly says “no,” without explaining why. (In answering another question about public safety, James, the only Republican in the race, takes issue with Beck’s decision to stop impounding the cars of unlicensed drivers, many of whom are illegal immigrants.)

Candidate Emanual Pleitez says he wants to talk with Beck before making any commitment. And Norton Sandler -- a member of the Socialist Workers Party -- advocates abolishing the LAPD altogether, calling it “an instrument of capitalist rule.”

Fire Chief Cummings, meanwhile, draws support only from Councilwoman Perry. She says Cummings “has been straightforward in his dealings with the city, and is doing a great job.” Garcetti, also a council member, and Greuel, the city controller, are less inclined to support the fire chief. Both cite the controversy surrounding his department’s failures to keep accurate emergency response-time data: “I believe confidence needs to be restored in the Fire Department’s management,” Garcetti says.

L.A. ELECTIONS 2013: Sign up for our email newsletter

Other highlights:

Should we keep building a so-called subway to the sea? The candidates deliver an almost unanimous yes.

Judge rules against Oakland in medical marijuana lawsuit

A U.S. magistrate judge on Thursday sided with federal prosecutors in dismissing a lawsuit by the city of Oakland that challenged as illegal federal attempts to shutter the nation’s largest medical marijuana dispensary.

In filing the suit last October, Oakland became the first city to take on federal enforcement actions that have led hundreds of dispensaries to close in recent years.

Attorney Cedric Chao, representing Oakland, had argued that the city has broad interests in ensuring Harborside Health Center remains open, as its closure would compel many of the dispensary’s 108,000 patients to turn to the illegal market, triggering a public health and safety crisis.

But U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James ruled there was no appropriate legal avenue for Oakland’s intervention.

Federal attorneys had moved to dismiss the suit against U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder and Melinda Haag, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California, on grounds that any party seeking to weigh in on an asset forfeiture must do so within a specified period of time, which had elapsed.

Chao had countered that since Oakland has no direct interest in the Harborside property, the city instead sought to litigate its concerns under the  Administrative Procedure Act, which  governs the way federal agencies propose and establish regulations.

Sparks fly as L.A. city attorney candidates clash at radio debate

Three of the four candidates on the March 5 ballot for Los Angeles city attorney squared off in a feisty, 30-minute debate Tuesday that broke little new ground but may have reached a high-water mark for vitriol.

Moderator Larry Mantle, host of KPCC-FM (89.3) radio’s AirTalk, which streamed the debate live, had to step in repeatedly as the three candidates sparred vigorously, often interrupting each other as they struggled for advantage.

Mantle put incumbent City Atty. Carmen Trutanich on the defensive right off the bat by making his first question about Trutanich’s 2009 pre-election pledge to serve two full terms as city attorney before seeking another office.  Trutanich famously broke that pledge to run for district attorney last year and, after failing to make the runoff, decided to seek reelection to the city post. How, Mantle wanted to know, could voters trust any other pledges he might make?

"I’m not pledging anything. I learned my lesson," Trutanich responded before repeating his concession that his race for D.A. "was a mistake."

His leading challenger, former state legislator Mike Feuer, talked briefly about his wide range of experience, including his authorship of some of the state’s strong gun controls, before  launching an attack on Trutanich’s "failed leadership."

Feuer said, for example, that Trutanich could have helped the city resolve its problems regulating medical marijuana dispensaries "years ago,"  instead of  belatedly asking voters to decide among two, and likely three, competing ballot measures to settle the matter.  He said Trutanich had insisted on a tough ordinance because he "wanted to get rid of" all the dispensaries.  "A balance should have been struck," Feuer said. Trutanich blamed Feuer, as a member of the Legislature, for failing to enact state laws that would have provided guidance to cities and counties struggling to grapple with the issue. (Voters approved a measure legalizing marijuana for medical purposes in 1996 but the federal government still considers any use of marijuana illegal.)

Yet it was possible during the discussion to get glimpses of the contrasting priorities of the three candidates who appeared, all attorneys with very different career backgrounds.

Some state justices signal support for marijuana-dispensary bans

Several members of the California Supreme Court appeared inclined Tuesday to uphold medical marijuana bans by cities and counties.

"The Legislature knows how to say ‘Thou Shall Not Ban Dispensaries,' " Justice Ming W. Chin said during oral arguments Tuesday. “They didn’t say that.”

The state high court is considering whether a Riverside city ban on dispensaries is barred by state laws that authorize cannabis for medical purposes. About 200 cities and counties have such bans and more are expected if the court rules for the local governments.

Medical marijuana advocates argue that the purpose of a 1996 medical marijuana ballot measure was to ensure the sick had access to the drug and contend the bans defeat the law’s stated intention. They say wide swaths of the state will lack dispensaries if the court upholds bans, forcing patients into the black market.

Local governments counter that the state constitution gives them authority over zoning for land use, including the right to ban dispensaries as a “nuisance.” They also contend that a 2004 medical marijuana law passed by the Legislature gave cities and counties the right to prohibit dispensaries altogether. The court’s decision is due within 90 days.

ALSO:

OCTA to increase fares starting Sunday

Teens in stable condition after fingers severed in tug-of-war

Steve Lopez: No one seemed to fall asleep at latest mayoral forum

-- Maura Dolan

California Supreme Court poised to rule on bans of pot dispensaries

The state's highest court is scheduled to hear oral arguments Tuesday in a case that will decide if cities and counties can ban cannabis dispensaries.  The Times will add the live stream from the hearing in San Francisco as soon as it becomes available. Arguments in the case of the City of Riverside vs. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness is set to start at 10 a.m. PST. 

The long-awaited ruling by the California Supreme Court follows years of contradictory decisions by the lower courts operating in a void because the state Legislature has yet to define the law or pass detailed regulations. California voters approved the use of medical marijuana in 1996.

If the court upholds bans passed by more than 200 local governments, as some legal analysts expect, more such measures are likely to be adopted.

LIVE VIDEO: Watch the California Supreme Court hearing

The court also could clarify other parts of the state's medical marijuana law, though no one expects its pronouncement to end the confusion.

"This is a subject matter that requires detailed regulations, and the California Legislature hasn't done the job," said Alex Kreit, a law professor who has advised San Diego on medical marijuana law.

San Diego officials promise to consider a pot ordinance

After a closed-door session Tuesday of the San Diego City Council, the city attorney, council president and newly elected mayor emerged to promise that the council will soon discuss a proposal aimed at allowing marijuana dispensaries to operate in the city.

Mayor Bob Filner said he wants a zoning law that will allow "those who legitimately need medical marijuana for the relief of pain to have access to it legally."

Under current city zoning regulations, there are no legal areas for pot dispensaries to operate in the city. The council adopted an ordinance but dropped it in July 2011 in the face of opposition by pro-marijuana activists who said it was too restrictive and vowed to seek a public referendum.

On Jan. 9, Filner sent a memo to City Atty. Jan Goldsmith ordering him to drop pending litigation seeking to force dispensaries to close. 

But after the closed-door meeting, Filner, Goldsmith and Council President Todd Gloria issued a joint statement saying that the council, with the mayor's agreement, has asked Goldsmith not to dismiss pending cases.

Even if the council adopts a zoning ordinance to allow marijuana dispensaries, U.S. Atty. Laura Duffy is independent of any council action.

Since Oct. 2011, the U.S. attorney and the Drug Enforcement Administration have sent "cease and desist" letters to 253 marijuana dispensaries in the region. All but a dozen have closed, Duffy said.

-- Tony Perry in San Diego

Photo: A marijuana plant. Credit: Associated Press  

Third medical pot measure heading for L.A. ballot

Despite strong opposition from several Los Angeles City Council members, a third medical marijuana ordinance is heading for the May ballot.

On Tuesday, the Council preliminarily agreed to put an ordinance before voters to raise taxes on medical marijuana sales and limit the number of dispensaries to only those that opened before a city moratorium was passed in 2007.

The ordinance is the city’s response to two other initiatives seeking to regulate dispensaries that qualified for the ballot after supporters gathered enough signatures. Several council members said those ordinances would allow too many pot shops to proliferate and said it was the city's responsibility to give voters a more restrictive alternative. 

But Councilman Bernard C. Parks said the city should refrain from making any laws that govern the distribution of marijuana until the federal government reclassifies it as a medicine.

“I don’t think you can tax contraband,” he said.

Parks, a former police chief, said he opposes all three of the ballot measures and plans to build an opposition campaign against them in his South Los Angeles district.

Community groups and others who oppose the ballot measures that would set up regulatory schemes for dispensaries have a battle ahead.