Judge Daniel Ottolia Friday denied a petition filed by supervisor candidates Lisa Matus and Eric Stalter alleging the Riverside County Registrar of Voters (ROV) violated election code by disqualifying them from appearing on the June 2 primary ballot in the District 5 race.
“Candidate eligibility requirements and filing deadlines are set by state law to ensure fair elections, and adequate time for printing and mailing of elections materials,” the county said in a statement to The Riverside Record. “The Registrar of Voters ensures that these requirements are followed and the deadlines are met. We appreciate the court’s review of this matter and the affirmation of our process as we prepare for the upcoming elections.”
The ROV disqualified Stalter from appearing on the ballot because he failed to include the required declaration of candidacy in his application packet, according to court documents. According to the ROV, Stalter was given the oath of office and signed the oath on the declaration of candidacy form.
That form was then returned to him with instructions to complete the remaining sections and then return it back to the ROV no later than 5 p.m. on March 6.
“Based on this evidence, Stalter failed to submit the declaration of candidacy, which was required to be submitted on March 6,” the court said in a minute order. “Election code specifically states that Stalter’s name cannot be printed on the ballot due to this failure. Petition is denied.”
In an interview with The Riverside Record, Stalter said that he told the judge he might be “the stupidest man on the planet,” but that it didn’t change his feeling that the ROV was negligent in its responsibilities.
“The system failed us,” he said. “The system failed the people, and neither the county, the ROV, the counsel or the court took that into consideration in my opinion.”
The ROV disqualified Matus from appearing on the ballot because she failed to obtain enough qualified signatures. She contended that the deficiencies identified in her application were minimal, she was not provided with a meaningful opportunity to cure, or fix, the deficiencies and was not notified in a timely manner.
Stay up to date with the latest from The Record. Subscribe to our weekly newsletter today!
The ROV said Matus submitted her application just 36 minutes before the deadline with 24 signatures on her nominating papers, according to court documents. Of the 24 signatures, the ROV said 10 were defective, putting her under the required 20 signatures.
Three of the signatures were from individuals who were not registered to vote, three provided addresses that did not match the address attached to their voter registration and four did not match the signatures on the signatories’ voter registration.
Matus said the ROV refused to provide copies of the defective signatures, which election code prevents the ROV from doing, though the ROV said it informed Matus that she could come into the office to review the defective signatures, which the ROV said she did not do.
The ROV also said in court documents that candidates were only allowed to correct deficiencies if the deadline has not passed, and since Matus turned her application in so late, ROV staff was unable to assess the signatures’ validity until the deadline, which meant that the ROV was not required to provide her with an opportunity to fix the issue.
“Since [Matus has] failed to establish any abuse of discretion in [the ROV’s] ministerial duties or any error, omission, or neglect, the petition is denied as to Matus,” the court said in a minute order.
Matus said she was disappointed by the judge’s decision and felt that he didn’t have enough experience with cases involving elections to fully understand the intricacies of the petition.
After the ruling, the two also took issue with the way the case was handled, noting that neither would have known a tentative ruling had been issued the day before the case was set to be heard if an attorney for the ROV hadn’t shared it with them.
The judge affirmed the tentative ruling in its entirety at the Friday hearing after Stalter and Matus gave their oral arguments.
“We can’t give up,” Stalter said. “There’s an injustice here, and from my perspective, the judge did not give us a fair opportunity to sufficiently respond or defend ourselves, because the decision was already made.”
Stalter and Matus said they planned to file an appeal and would also be filing to be write-in candidates.
“It’s about more than our case,” Matus said. “This is about ballot access and the voters and people who supported us whose voices are not being heard.”
The Riverside Record is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news outlet providing Riverside County with high-quality journalism free of charge. We’re able to do this because of the generous donations of supporters like you!