City Attorney Dennis Herrera said Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier’s legal argument that she should be allowed to run for re-election “fails for five reasons,” according to his legal argument filed Thursday in San Francisco Superior Court.
It is the latest development in Alioto-Pier’s legal effort to try and run for re-election even though Herrera has said she is termed out of office according to the City Charter.
Alioto-Pier “cannot gain another term in office by sweeping away the voters’ words or ignoring their intent,” Herrera said in his argument. “The people of San Francisco chose to impose term limits on members of the board.”
Everyone agrees supervisors can only service two consecutive four-year terms. The charter states if someone is appointed to fill the remainder of more than two years of a term, then it should be considered a four-year term.
“[Alioto-Pier] is a seven-year incumbent seeking another four year term — and the voters prohibited that,” Herrera said. “In fact, [Alioto-Pier] enjoys the very benefits of entrenched incumbency that the voters sought to minimize.”
Herrea’s legal argument is in response to Alioto-Pier’s.
The basic outline of what’s under argument follows:
Alioto-Pier served at the post for less than one year before running for election, which she won and served out the remainder of what would have been Newsom’s last two years in office. She ran for re-election to serve the current four-year term she is in. The charter says a person appointed to serve “in excess of two years of a four year term” would be considered to have served a four-year term. Herrera’s opinion is that Alioto-Pier’s appointment was for more than two years even though she ran for election, while Alioto-Pier is arguing that her election means that she was appointed to serve less than a two-year term.
Superior Court Judge Charlotte Woolard is scheduled to hear the legal arguments July 15 at 9:30 a.m.