In a recent Voice of San Diego podcast, City Council District 1 representative Joe LaCava stated that his support for the city’s lawsuit against the Local Agency Formation Commission regarding the creation of an autonomous city of La Jolla was due to the city of San Diego’s prior support for the county registrar of voters in the case of San Diego Public Library Foundation v. Fuentes.

While legal consistency in support of the registrar of voters office is understandable, that lawsuit had been settled against the ROV by the California Court of Appeals several weeks before the city filed its lawsuit against LAFCO.

The ROV lost in the appeals court due to the ROV’s “arbitrary and capricious” methodology to reject petition signers for minor errors in how they spelled their street name or for using certain street suffix abbreviations.

Ironically, this is exactly the city’s allegation against LAFCO’s executive officer, Keene Simonds, who has the authority in state code to determine criteria for signature validity on LAFCO-related petitions. He is also supported by court precedent allowing agencies to determine how to interpret statutes that govern their authority.

So why did the city double down on a losing decision, especially since the ROV has recently changed how it is treating street name misspellings and street suffix abbreviations in response to the court’s findings?

After LAFCO countered the original complaint that the city had no standing in the issue, the city then scrambled for another reason to keep the complaint alive. When that failed, the city tried for a third time to reframe how it is harmed by residents of La Jolla asking a question about the viability of cityhood.

Why continue to fish for any potential reason to pursue legal action? Did the City Council and the mayor get poor legal advice from the city attorney? Or is the city trying to stifle the Association for the City of La Jolla’s constitutional rights of free speech and petition? This should be concerning to every San Diego resident.

To be clear, there are no grounds for the city’s legal action. Pursuit of a meritless lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer dollars, while continued legal bickering constitutes harassment. That is why the Association for the City of La Jolla filed an “anti-SLAPP” motion to have the case dismissed as soon as possible and to let the LAFCO process move forward. If ACLJ prevails, the city will be required to reimburse its legal fees, adding to the city’s budget woes.

In an ex parte hearing this week, Superior Court Judge Judy Bae recommended that all parties explore settlement in advance of the Oct. 24 anti-SLAPP hearing.

U.S. Rep. Scott Peters of La Jolla has publicly stated that although he remains neutral, the city should allow the LAFCO process to play out. We ask that others in the wider community join him and send a hearty message to our city leaders: Drop the lawsuit and allow democracy to prevail.

Diane Kane is president of the Association for the City of La Jolla. ♦