Pubdate: Mon, 19 May 2003
Source: Arcata Eye (US CA)
Copyright: 2003, Arcata Eye
Contact:  http://www.arcataeye.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1210
Author: Daniel Mintz, Eye Reporter

GALLEGOS RECALL PETITION APPROVED

The committee that seeks to oust District Attorney Paul Gallegos can start 
circulating recall petitions, as its proposed signature form has been 
approved by the county's Election Department.

Elections Manager Lindsay McWilliams said the Committee to Recall Paul 
Gallegos submitted its petition form last week, but had to make corrections 
on it. A revised form was handed in on May 15 and approved the next day.

Now the recall proponents are working under a deadline - they must gather 
11,138 valid signatures representing 15 percent of the county's registered 
voters and submit them to the elections office by 5 p.m. on October 22.

McWilliams said that submission of the forms by that date would trigger a 
special election after the March presidential primaries. He said that would 
be "fairly awkward timing" for the county.

"I'm not trying to take a side, but it would be most economical for the 
county if [a recall election] coincided with the March election," 
McWilliams continued.

That could happen if forms are returned by October 1. It's also possible 
that the recall vote could be done during this November's election, but 
recall supporters would have to work quickly to accomplish that.

It's not an easy task under any timeframe - McWilliams called it "the 
largest petition drive in our collective elections memory" and ventured 
that "the recall proponents have a difficult task before them."

A special election would cost the county at least $100,000, said 
McWilliams, and Gallegos supporters are calling attention to that. But 
county costs would be negligible if a recall vote is held during a regular 
election cycle.

'Unfit To Serve'

The recall petition includes a statement outlining the reasons for seeking 
Gallegos' removal and the D.A.'s response.

Riding a political upswell triggered by Gallegos' filing of a fraud lawsuit 
against Pacific Lumber Company (PL) last February, recall supporters 
mention the suit but focus on crime in their petition argument.

"Humboldt County Citizens deserve safe communities," the statement begins. 
"District Attorney Paul Gallegos, however, doesn't seem to agree."

Gallegos' failure to "file all appropriate charges" and accepting a 
one-count plea bargain in a high-profile Eureka drive-by shooting case is 
cited as proof. Recall advocates also say that Gallegos "initially offered 
probation in a sexual assault case until outraged police officials forced 
him to file felony charges."

An "astonishing 1,000 percent" increase in the county's medical marijuana 
cultivation limits is also presented as evidence of the D.A.'s looseness. 
The statement frames the word "medical" in quotation marks.

Finally, the PL suit is portrayed as a "specious" effort that will flop in 
court.

"State and federal resource agencies have informed [Gallegos] that he 
doesn't have his facts straight, and California's Attorney General is 
defending the state's approval of the very document Gallegos is attacking."

The recall argument also criticizes Gallegos' attempt to gain county 
approval to contract with an outside law firm for the case's prosecution.

Finally, it characterizes Gallegos as incompetent. "Paul Gallegos is unfit 
to serve our community," the statement concludes. "Law enforcement 
officials lack confidence in him. His unprofessional conduct will hurt 
Humboldt County and fully justifies his removal from office."

'Truly Frightening'

In his response, Gallegos highlights the recall effort's lever - the PL 
lawsuit.

"Nobody is above the law," he proclaims in his retort's single-sentence opener.

The D.A. insists that the real reason he's being targeted is because he's 
applying the law to previously-untouchable white collar quarters.

"Shady political operatives are attacking me because I am tough on crime," 
he insists. "They want a D.A. who is soft on crime - especially corporate 
crime. It is truly frightening to see a tiny group telling lies in a recall 
campaign designed to thwart our prosecution of Pacific Lumber."

Using language economically, Gallegos asserts that the outside firm he 
sought would have cost the county nothing and that he wanted a seven-year 
prison sentence for the man charged in the Eureka shooting case (in which 
shots were fired at houses), "a tough sentence by any measurement."

The D.A. also insists that he demanded the juvenile accused in the sexual 
assault case be tried as an adult. On the medical limits, Gallegos claims 
that former D.A. Terry Farmer's 10-plant limit would have allowed a patient 
to have as many fully-grown plants and his own guidelines wouldn't.

Gallegos increased the plant limit to 99 but also set forth a growing space 
limit of 100 square feet, or a 10- by 10-foot area.

He concludes his response by portraying himself as a people's district 
attorney.

"I wasn't the candidate predicted to win the election. I didn't have nearly 
as much money as my opponent had. I wasn't 'connected' like my opponent 
was. And yet you, the people of Humboldt County elected me."

Gallegos asks for support from the same source, "because nobody is above 
the law."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth