Store
by Victory for Oakland
Oakland — Allyssa is legally qualified for the ballot based on the filings already submitted to the Oakland City Clerk’s Office and must be placed on the November ballot immediately.
Allyssa submitted 100 nomination petition signatures and 11 endorser signatures at the time of her filing. The Clerk’s Office deemed Allyssa’s 50 required nomination petition signatures sufficient. Nomination signatures are explained at O.M.C. section 3.08.040: “For city-wide offices, nomination petitions shall bear the signatures of not less than fifty (50) nor more than one hundred (100) registered voters who are residents of the city.”
However, the signatures identified as “insufficient” were endorser signatures.
The Clerk’s Office deemed the endorser signatures insufficient because fewer than 10 were verified as registered voters. However, the endorser signatures are only required by O.M.C section 3.08.080: “Such statement shall also contain the signatures and addresses of not less than ten (10) nor more than twenty (20) residents of the city sponsoring such candidate, who need not have signed such candidate’s nomination petition.” Nowhere does the City code require that the endorser signatures be registered to vote, verify as Oakland voters by the Registrar, or use the address that the signer registered to vote with.
The signatures were collected on a separate form requiring no affidavit of the circulator as nomination petitions do and the document title directs candidates to collect signatures of “residents of the City of Oakland sponsoring my candidacy.” Allyssa met the requirement in filing 11 endorser signatures who each provided their signature and Oakland residence. Verified endorser signatures is not supported by the city code. Requiring verification also violates the public policy of the distinction in signature types and deprives non-voting residents from the opportunity to be represented as sponsors of candidates.
Allyssa’s filings cannot be disqualified for failure to meet a requirement not actually required by law.
The City has now delayed over a week, further prejudicing Allyssa who has paused full campaigning while she ensures that she will appear on the ballot. The City Attorney’s Office acknowledged Allyssa’s urgent written request submitted Tuesday, Aug. 16, 2022, but has since refused to provide a complete response and has attempted to shirk responsibility by claiming that it has no authority over its elections or our municipal code.
Allyssa’s filings cannot be disqualified for failure to meet a requirement not actually required by law.
The City Attorney’s Office has wholly refused to even respond with a decision on her ballot name despite the the City Clerk’s office having required that Allyssa submit an additional affidavit for a decision by the City Attorney’s Office.
On Aug. 23, 2022, Allyssa filed an elections complaint with the Secretary of State’s Office seeking review of all issues she has attempted to reasonably resolve with the City. The City’s lack of leadership and accountability is on full display and we are seeking a just and fair election which requires Victory be on the ballot.
Sign up at VictoryforOakland.com to stay informed and get involved as we continue this fight for victory in Oakland.
Advice from Allyssa: If anyone wishes to contact us with additional insight on this issue, I remind our City staff that they are protected from retaliation if they are reporting suspected or actual misconduct as well as participating in investigations.
Oaklandside reports
As more candidates come forward about the City’s misconduct and misrepresentations, more elected officials have joined us in demanding an official response and a remedy to repair candidates harmed. On Monday, Allyssa spoke with press at Oaklandside news who published an article on her and other candidates’ experiences with the clerk’s errors.
Contact the Victory for Oakland campaign at Oakland2022victory@gmail.com.
