INGLEWOOD — In a decision that had a packed chamber sharply divided, the City Council Tuesday night voted 3-0 to disqualify former Inglewood deputy police chief James T. Butts from the Aug. 17 mayoral runoff ballot, replacing him with Councilwoman Judy Dunlap, who finished third in the June 8 primary.
The council also voted 3-0 to move the runoff election from Aug. 17 to Aug. 31.
Despite the fact that both council members Danny Tabor and Ralph Franklin were both candidates in the primary election — Tabor being the other finalist in the runoff — City Attorney Cal Saunders ruled beforehand that “there was no conflict of interest” in their casting two of the three votes on both actions.
Dunlap left the dais before the vote and didn’t return.
The surprising development was signaled by Butts at a July 15 candidates’ forum at Faithful Central Bible Church, where he clashed with Tabor on a number of issues.
In his closing statement, Butts he revealed that the council was “retroactively challenging the eligibility of his candidacy.”
Inglewood’s Municipal Code Section 2-248. A calls for all candidates nominated for any citywide office to be a resident and a registered voter in the city for a period of not less than 30 days preceding such date of filing.
For the June 8 primary, the nomination period ended March 10, meaning any eligible candidate would have had to have filed their papers with the city clerk’s office by Feb. 8.
According to a report on the July 15 city council agenda, City Clerk Yvonne Horton outlines an investigation into Butts’ nomination process after receiving a complaint from one of the other candidates alleging that he was “not in fact eligible to be nominated for the office of Mayor.”
“In order to investigate the complaint, my office retrieved the registration records pertaining to Mr. butts from the County Registrar’s office,” read Horton’s report.
“Those records revealed that the information originally provided to our office telephonically by the County Registrar’s staff had been incorrect, and that the affidavit registration for Mr. Butts dated December 29, 2006, was for his registration at 582 Shenandoah Avenue in the City of Los Angeles, not in the City of Inglewood.
“The County’s records further show that an address change was recorded for Mr. Butts on February 12, 2010, from the Shenandoah Avenue address in the City of Los Angeles to 2512 W. 102nd St. in the City of Inglewood.
“This address change was recorded in response to a change of address notice that had been submitted to the County Registrar’s office, executed by Mr. Butts and bearing the handwritten date of 2-6-10.”
Horton told Wave that because Feb. 6 fell on a Saturday, and that the registrar’s office was closed that day, she wrote a June 23 letter to County Registrar of Voters Dean Logan seeking further clarification.
“My staff has conducted a review of this matter,” he replied. “As shown by the abstracts previously provided, the voter registration records show that Mr. James Thurman Butts is a registered voter in Los Angeles County.
“Current registered address on file is 2512 102nd St., in the City of Inglewood, effective February 12, 2010. Mr. Butts’ previous registration address was Shenandoah Avenue in Los Angeles, effective January 8, 2007.”
Horton further revealed that she met with Butts June 30, explaining a question that had risen regarding the effective date of his registration in the city and requested a sworn declaration of how he submitted his change of address notice to the county.
“At that point I told him legally that by law I can accept an affidavit from him that said he did live there, was registered to vote and it was 30 days prior to filing his nomination,” said Horton in an interview Monday.
“But he didn’t want to, and with all due respect he doesn’t have to. He has the option of running in November [when another mayoral election will be held] and he will qualify.”
Speaking minutes after the decision on Tuesday night, Butts said he was disappointed, but still encouraged by the fact that close to 2,500 people voted for him in the election and he would be back in November “campaigning harder than ever.”
“There will be no doubt about the issue of my registration being timely — it was timely now. Of course, I don’t think this was the right decision,” he said. “I filed in a timely manner, the county registrar had my paperwork … the fact that they failed to date stamp it was not my fault, and to make the assumption that because it’s just some input test and at a certain time that’s when it was received, was an erroneous conclusion.”
As for not signing an affidavit, he added: “I had no confidence when I was told that the verification was done based on a Los Angeles voter registration card from the file.
“So, I was guarded and suspicious and felt I was involved in a process where people were retrospectively manipulating the facts or at least providing me with justifications that were inconsistent and impossible,” he said.
“While I like the City Clerk and have known her a long time, I wasn’t just going to pony up an affidavit on my own. I talked to an attorney, gave him my recitation and he felt it was a fishing expedition for facts to maybe make more retrospective changes in recollections and testimony.”
In an interview, City Treasurer Wanda Brown, who was one of the eight candidates in the primary, claimed that another candidate had actually filed the complaint.
However, she did acknowledge writing a letter asking for “clarification” of Butts’ residential status. Brown, though, stressed that the bulk of her letter asked Horton to investigate claims that Dunlap does not reside in the city.
“Only one paragraph was to do with Butts, the rest was about Dunlap,” said Brown. “The city clerk said that it was beyond the scope of her office to prove whether Ms. Dunlap lives in the house she claims to. I’m surprised the council is not making an effort to look at that; after all, utility records would give evidence of that.
“Of course, it’s a complete conflict. Three of the sitting council members were candidates in the election and now they’re gonna vote to basically disenfranchise him [Butts].”
Referring to the affidavit question, Brown added: “I hope he does provide it and compete in the election. But that will be [up] to himself.”
Council members Dunlap, Franklin, Eloy Morales Jr. and Johnson did not return calls at press time.
However, Logan took a different view of what some have characterized as mistakes made by his office. “I just want to be clear,” he said.
“With regard to the role of my office, it is simply as the registrar of voters for the county, so I can speak on that element. … As far as the recommendations that the city clerk is making to the city council, that’s a separate issue and that’s in her role as the chief election officer for that city, so I wouldn’t have a comment on that.”
Logan continued: “As the city clerk, it’s her role and authority to confirm the eligibility of candidates who appear on the ballot, that’s her jurisdiction.
She has indicated she attempted to phone our office. Now, I don’t believe that she, nor we, have any documentation of that.”
Thus, according to Logan, he cannot determine what was asked and what information was given.
“Well, she contacted us after the election when someone questioned his eligibility and we provided a copy of our records that indicated the effectiveness of the address change was Feb. 12, 2010.
“It is true that the source document has a handwritten date of Feb. 6, 2010, but there’s no record of when that was physically received in our office. When no record exists, it defaults to the date of entry.”
During Tuesday’s city council meeting, Tabor also sought to “be clear as possible.”
“My understanding from the staff report is that the clerk alerted Mr. Butts and asked him to provide her with documentation and he hasn’t done that,” Tabor said.
“I have no ax to grind, but my responsibility is to the council and to uphold the charter and the municipal code. I think people want their candidates to follow the rules at the end of the day and abide by the law.”
RSS Feeds 
You have indicated this comment should be removed.
The comment has been submitted for review. Thank you .