Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Yes on L lawn sign impropriety on Election Day

Yes-on-L-signThe sign to the left greeted me this morning as I went to vote at my polling place at the VMC.  It is, in my opinion, an example of improper electioneering.

Electioneering is not permitted within 100 feet of a polling place. Electioneering is defined by the California Election Code Section 319.5 as “the visible display or audible dissemination of information that advocates for or against any candidate or measure on the ballot within 100 feet of a polling place, an elections official’s office, or a satellite location.”

Although someone cut the "Yes" part of the sign out, it's clear that this sign is advocating for the WDAAC project and is thus prohibited.

You have to wonder about the real merits of a project when its proponents will stoop this low to promote it.

Posted by

Roberta Millstein

on

in

, ,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

7 responses to “Yes on L lawn sign impropriety on Election Day”

  1. Eileen Samitz

    After seeing this photo the obvious question to me was: Why would the “Yes on L” campaign put up a sign with the “Yes” cut out? So, it doesn’t make much sense that the Yes side would do this.
    Further, since I have worked on a number of campaigns helping with various tasks including place lawn signs up, I am the first to complain about illegal placement of signs since everyone should play by the rules in any campaign. Since I am voting Yes on Measure L (for the reasons stated in my letter published the Enterprise last Wednesday) it would be disappointing if the “Yes” campaign was responsible for this. So, I just made an inquiry about it and confirmed that the “Yes” in Measure L campaign did not put this sign up which seems to make sense particularly since the “Yes” was cut out of the sign.
    So it would seem like this was some kind of prank (that is not very funny) but the record needs to be set straight that this improper sign placement was not done by the “Yes” campaign. Further, a number of “Yes” signs have apparently been stolen so it was not hard for the prankster to get hold of one to pull off this shenanigan.

    Reply
  2. Roberta Millstein

    It seems to me more likely that 1) the Yes was cut out to try to circumvent the electioneering rules, or 2) the sign was put up and someone else cut out the “Yes.”
    Every year this happens. With Nishi, there were likewise signs placed inappropriately close to election locations.
    I am not saying that the developers did this. But I do think that a proponent did it. Do I have evidence? No, I don’t. But I don’t think a “No” person would do it. It doesn’t convey “no”.

    Reply
  3. Eileen Samitz

    Roberta,
    I guess we would have to agree to disagree on this since without the “YES” on the sign it does not seem to make sense to put up the sign by even a proponent.
    It would more likely seem to be a prankster who thinks this is amusing.

    Reply
  4. Dave Taormino

    Yes, you have to wonder about the opposition to Measure L that would stoop this low to accuse the positive L campaign of acting like they have. No one associated with the Yes campaign did this and the writer of the above statement surely knows that.

    Reply
  5. Roberta Millstein

    Interesting comment, Dave, but I am not part of the no campaign.

    Reply
  6. Rik Keller

    It doesn’t strike me as credible that someone against Measure L would both put up a sign in a location to try to get the campaign in trouble AND remove the “Yes” portion of it.
    Since Dave Taormino is here, perhaps he can comment on whether his campaign put out new signs last night/early this morning. One person contacted me saying they had an unwanted Yes on L sign appear on their lawn early this morning.

    Reply
  7. Rik Keller

    Dave Taormino: since you are here, perhaps you can explain why your campaign has continued to use the offensive “Taking Care Of Our Own” motto that you apologized for and pledged not to use weeks ago? It has appeared in multiple campaign materials, including Facebook event posts for this week and last.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Eileen Samitz Cancel reply