Homeless man loses lawsuit to get on Salinas ballot.

A homeless man who sued to get on the Nov. 8 ballot for Salinas City Council lost his case. In a decision released Oct. 17, Monterey County Superior Court Judge Marla Anderson denied Wes White’s petition against the city of Salinas and Monterey County Elections Department.

White filed paperwork to run for District 4 City Council on Aug. 12. He used 30 Soledad St., the address of Dorothy’s Place—a homeless service provider in Chinatown—as his physical address. The city clerk rejected his candidacy papers based on her interpretation that while they did prove a mailing address, they failed to prove residency.

White, along with four other homeless Salinas residents who are registered to vote, sued the city and the Monterey County Registrar of Voters on Oct. 4. He argued that because he is registered to vote at Dorothy’s Place, that he should be eligible to be on the ballot, even though he doesn’t physically live there.

(Councilwoman Gloria De La Rosa, who represents District 4, stretching from Alisal Street to Alvin Drive, is up for re-election, and faces challenger Virginia Mendoza.)

Anderson denied White’s claim based on procedural issues and the proximity of the Nov. 8 election.

“Granting the requested writ at this late date would cause chaos,” Anderson wrote.

“The county would be required to print and distribute new ballots and ballot materials to voters who have already received ballots and ballot materials. It is not clear that there is sufficient time to accomplish this task, and even if there is, doing so would lead to significant confusion among voters, and come at some cost to the county.”

While Anderson did not rule on substantive claims made by White and his attorney, Anthony Prince, she did address them in a footnote in her ruling.

“The court is sympathetic to [White’s] dilemma,” Anderson wrote. “Establishing ‘domicile’ requires a fixed habitation, which presents problems for the homeless.”

She goes on to cite the city’s recent ordinances cracking down on homeless encampments.

“Taken together, these laws present a formidable impediment to the exercise of the homeless’ right to seek public office,” Anderson wrote. “This is troubling. The right to hold public office is a fundamental right for citizenship that can be curtailed only if the law clearly so provides.”

In a statement, Prince acknowledged certain procedural shortcomings and the time-sensitive nature of the complaint, but said he and his clients intend to continue pressing the issue.

City Attorney Chris Callihan’s take is that Anderson’s ruling does address issues within the city’s jurisdiction.

“I feel she did resolve the issue, even though that’s not on the basis of her decision,” he says. As far as the bigger policy question of the definition of “domicile” in California elections code, Callihan adds, “That needs to be resolved at the state level.”