Opinion ID: 2383493
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: court of appeals factual findings

Text: In order to grant affirmative relief by way of a permanent injunction, the majority had to have made specific findings of fact that were antithetic to the findings of the trial judge who denied the injunction. The majority begins by recognizing that if at least 2,500 signers wished to withdraw their names from the petition the petition should not be filed. They state that signers have a right to withdraw their names from a petition if they no longer support it, [but] the number of persons withdrawing must bring the number of signatures to less than 10,000 in order to prevent the petition from being filed. Majority Op. at 634. In issuing an injunction, the majority not only ignores the trial judge's decision, but also makes its own factual findings that are unsupported by, if not clearly contradicted by, the record. The trial judge accepted Denny's representation that a great number of signers (Denny argued well over 3,000) favored substituting the County Council amendment and, in effect, desired to withdraw their names. The majority makes its own contrary finding and states there was no evidence in this case that the number of signers desiring to withdraw approached 2,500 people. Since the number of signers who wished to withdraw did not bring the total number of signers below 10,000, FIT and its Chairman were required ... to file the petition.... Majority Op. at 634-635. To hold that Ficker had met his burden of proof and to find as a fact that the number of people who wished to withdraw did not bring the total number of signers below 10,000, would require ignoring the trial judge, the record, and the uncontroverted affidavits filed in this case. According to Denny's affidavits, after determining that the Council amendment would be on the ballot, Denny surveyed many of the approximately 20 organizations that comprised the membership of FIT. All were unanimous that the petition should be withdrawn. Many workers who circulated the petition were contacted and all were unanimous in favoring withdrawal. Many signers were contacted and all were unanimous in favoring withdrawal. Denny received no objection from any signers after the published announcement that the petition would not be filed. Immediately after Judge Mitchell denied Ficker's request for a preliminary injunction, Denny and FIT sent letters to all 12,500 petition signers. These letters advocated support for the Council amendment and advised the signers that they would not be filing the FIT petition. The letters did not solicit comment on the decision. After the letters were sent, within five days (by August 24, 1990) seventy-seven unsolicited responses were received. Seventy-six of the unsolicited responses favored not filing the petition and only one requested that the petition be filed. If these unsolicited comments are at all indicative of the ratio of petition signers who favored not filing to those who favored filing, 162 would be in favor of filing and 12,338 would agree with Denny that the petition should not be filed. The majority states, [i]n an affidavit, Mr. Denny attached only eleven letters from signers who stated that they wanted their names withdrawn from the FIT petition. Majority Op. at 631. What this statement omits is that these letters were all dated July 27 through July 30 and were sent to Denny apparently as the result of publicity about the Ficker suit. All of the letters, generated by the initial publicity about the suit, unanimously supported Denny's position  none urged that the petition be filed and there was no objection from any signer when FIT publicized that the petitions would not be filed. It seems clear to me that there was substantial evidence justifying a conclusion that at least one-fifth of the 12,500 signers wished to withdraw. I might note that the majority places some reliance on the pledge FIT made in its instructions that [w]ith enough signatures, the proposed Charter Amendment will be submitted to the voters in the November elections. Majority Op. at 630. This pledge, however, was not made to or given to the signers of the petition  it was contained in the instructions given to the members of FIT and its component organizations who circulated the petition. Those people do not want this pledge enforced. Denny's affidavit makes it clear that FIT, its steering committee, the component organizations, and the circulators of the petition who were surveyed by Denny were unanimous in not wanting the FIT amendment placed on the ballot once the Council decided to place the Council amendment on the ballot. Denny implored this Court that, if there is any doubt about the wishes of the signers, he should be given a brief opportunity to secure the evidence in his defense  if it was deemed necessary, he could easily secure written withdrawals from well over 2,500 signers. The Court should have given him that opportunity  but did not.