Judge Has Last Words on Sample Ballot for Measure O

A Ventura County Superior Court judge Wednesday struck down key statements appearing on the sample Measure O ballot, calling them false and misleading while leaving others intact.

Judge Henry Walsh issued three separate rulings on the sample ballot. He considered the truthfulness of the arguments from both sides as well as the impartial analysis on the ballot.

The judge inserted the word “health care” in the analysis and changed other words such as “transfer” to “appropriate” and “forever” to “now and in the future.”

Both sides declared victory in the battle over semantics and believe it will help voters better understand their position when votes are cast in November.

Measure O, written by Community Memorial Hospital, would give $260 million in tobacco settlement money headed for the county to Community Memorial and seven local hospitals instead.

Both sides say they will use the money for health care, though when the ballot analysis was prepared by the county, the words “health care” were never used in describing Measure O. Attorneys for Community Memorial accused the county of deliberately leaving the words out to skew the meaning of the initiative.

In court last week, Community Memorial attorneys challenged the fairness of what is supposed to be impartial wording on the ballot statement. At the same time, both parties contended that each other’s arguments, as they appear on the sample ballot, are untrue, so each side filed suits over the issue for a total of three petitions.

Considering the ballot statement, Walsh refused a request from the hospital’s lawyers to change wording that stated if Measure O passed the county would have to reduce spending by $18.4 million.

The judge also let stand a statement declaring if the measure passed there would be no way to monitor how Community Memorial and the other hospitals spend the money.

On the other hand, Walsh said the word “forever” as it is used in the analysis “may suggest that the ordinance is not subject to revision or repeal by the electorate in future years.”

In his ruling, Walsh rejected the county’s claim that Steve Merksamer, a lawyer for Community Memorial who also represented tobacco companies in past years, has ties to big tobacco.

The jurist did not change a statement that Ventura County Medical Center treats 83% of the county’s uninsured. Without some evidence or hearings, Walsh said, it was impossible to prove the accuracy of such statements.

The rulings had both sides claiming victory.

Mark Barnhill, spokesman for Community Memorial, said the most important thing was not the partisan arguments but the changes Walsh made to the impartial analysis.

“The judge agreed that this is about health care and health-care programs,” Barnhill said. “The fact that he agreed on that is a victory for us and the voters of Ventura County. That’s huge.”

Ventura County Counsel Jim McBride said many of the small language changes didn’t amount to much more than clarity. He said the fact that Walsh did not remove the statement on the county losing $18.4 million if the measure passed is significant.

“He said the fiscal impact statement was accurate,” McBride said.

Fred Woocher, an attorney representing members of a coalition against Measure O, said he thought the ballot now offers voters an accurate portrayal of the issues.

“I think he tried to give everyone something,” Woocher said.