(Photo by Jasmyne Cannick)
Packed City Council meeting (Photo by Jasmyne Cannick)
An unforeseen development recently occurred in the city of Inglewood arising out of the results of the recent primary election to fill the vacant mayor’s post
By Yussuf J. Simmonds
Managing Editor
and Francis Taylor
Sentinel Contributing Reporter
Last Tuesday evening, in a crowded city council chamber, the Inglewood City Council voted unanimously (3 to 0) to allow Council-woman Judy Dunlap to run against Councilman Danny Tabor on August 31, in a special run-off election to be Mayor. The run-off was previously scheduled for August 17; Butts was present but Dunlap was absent.
The City Clerk Yvonne Horton and others spoke passionately on three separate occasions stating that if Butts would sign an affidavit, under the penalty of perjury, that his residency requirements were filed on time, he would be allowed to continue his candidacy. He refused and said, “Nothing good can come of my signing an affidavit, so I do not want to sign.” And his attorney remarked that his client had been denied his due-process.
According to the County Registrar’s certified statement for the recent special Mayoral election primary, Tabor received the highest number of votes and James T. Butts, Jr. received the second highest number. However, a question had arisen regarding candidate Butts and his eligibility relative to residency requirements.
The office of the City Clerk of the city of Inglewood had issued a memo to the Inglewood City Council regarding the “June 8, 2010, Mayoral Special Election,” which stated, in part: ‘I am submitting the following report to accompany the certified statement of results for the June 8, 2010, special election for Mayor, and to inform the City Council of the actions and proposals of the City Clerk’s office with respect to a dispute that has risen regarding the eligibility of one of the candidates in that election, James T. Butts, Jr.’
Prior to the council meeting, the “Sentinel” spoke to Councilman/candidate Tabor, who said, “What the council will decide has more to do with upholding the city charter than with the outcome of the election. Because of some irregularities on the part of Mr. Butts, the council has moved to disqualify him and since Councilwoman Judy Dunlap came in third in the primary, the council wants to make sure that it is in compliance with the city charter, if it decides to make her a viable candidate.”
Tabor went on to say, “He (Butts) was given an opportunity by the city clerk to rectify the discrepancy by providing an affidavit; but as of 4:30 p.m. today, he had not done so. I am more interested in providing a vision for the city and my leadership and record speaks for itself.”
Speaking about why Butts was disqualified, City Clerk Yvonne Horton said, “When he first filed his documents, the city clerk’s job was to call and verify that he lived in the city of Inglewood and when was he registered. We did that; the county (registrar) gave us a December 29, 2006, so that date didn’t bother us; we thought … he qualifies.”
However, the clerk’s office received a complaint and as a result did some further checking which revealed that the registrar’s office was incorrect. The registration for Butts dated December 29, 2006 was for his registration in the city of Los Angeles not the city of Inglewood. “In August 2006, he was registered in Inglewood,” Horton continued, “but in December 2006, he went back to L.A. Then in February 2010, he went back to Inglewood.”
What happened next seemed to be the most crucial element. “He then did a handwritten change-of-address with the county but it was dated for the sixth (of February), which was a Saturday and the county (registrar) is not opened on a Saturday,” she said. And since it did not have an official county stamp, there was no way to tell when it was actually filed with the county.
Horton further commented that had he signed an affidavit, that would have been acceptable, but according to her, ” I asked him and by law, if he had signed an affidavit under the penalty of perjury, I would have accepted that but he refused to do that.” In addition, as a former police chief, he would have had a certain amount of credibility and an affidavit would have been satisfactory.
Finally, the city, in compliance with its charter and in conjunction with legal counsel, made their decision last Tuesday evening so that the majority of the voters who participated in the June-8 primary election would not be disenfranchised by having the election invalidated. Futhermore, the city council took the position that the election was valid; one of the candidates was not.