BYRON DE ARAKAL - Between The Lines

Political battles are never waged in gray. They are without nuance.

It’s all elbows. A knee to the groin. A thumb in the eye. There is no

middle ground to be conquered. Victory is total or destruction complete.

Politics is the clash of absolutes. A campaign for ideological supremacy.

And so therefore anything goes.

Witness what we have unfolding in the political and legal misfortunes

of Costa Mesa Councilman Chris Steel. Swept into office in November with

more than 10,000 votes -- more than any other candidate in the field --

Steel now stands perched on the gulch of what might be called a political

court-martial.

Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas has charged Steel with two

felony counts of fraud in violation of the California Elections Code

governing the collection and submission of voter signatures for

nomination papers. In one instance, Rackauckas charges that Steel

permitted Costa Mesa resident Richard Noack to sign the name of Noack’s

wife on his ballot nomination petition for the 2000 municipal election.

In the second count, Steel is charged with forging the name of another

Costa Mesa resident, Alice Billioux, on his ballot nomination forms for

the 1998 municipal election.

Both alleged actions, according to the district attorney’s complaint,

run afoul of Section 18200 of the California Elections Code. It states:

“Every person who subscribes to any nomination petition a fictitious

name, or who intentionally subscribes thereto the name of another, who

causes another to subscribe to a fictitious name to a nomination

petition, is guilty of a felony and is punishable by imprisonment in the

state prison for 16 months or two or three years.”

Now if Steel is the shiftless felon the district attorney seems to

think he is, then he is an abysmal failure at it. I mean, hardhearted

felons who willfully, knowingly and with intent violate the law aren’t in

the habit of voluntarily coming forward with the truth. Steel, on the

other hand, has said on the record that he permitted Noack to sign his

wife’s name to Steel’s nomination petition for the 2000 election. In the

case of Billioux -- who Steel says was blind -- he recalls that he wrote

her name next to an “X” she signed on his 1998 petition form. And

according to Section 1-16 of the California Government Code, a mark is a

legally valid signature for those who are unable to write, but only if

that mark is witnessed by two others.

Apparently, there were no witnesses to Billioux’s “X” signature except

Steel.

All of which raises a few questions about knowledge and intent. Did

Steel know it was illegal for Noack to sign his wife’s name? If he did,

and he still allowed it, why would he admit to it without presence of

counsel if he were attempting to perpetrate a fraud on the election

franchise? Particularly when that admission might mean removal from

office and perhaps some time in the pokey. And was he aware that two

witnesses were required when Billioux penned her “X” to his 1998

nomination papers?

There is no irony that the hue and cry for Steel’s prosecution and

removal from office is mostly heard spilling from the mouths of his

political opponents. Taken with the hard-boiled letter of the law, they

say, Steel’s forthright (some might say fender-headed) disclosure of the

events surrounding these two incidents is merely proof that he committed

a felony against the “election franchise” of the people of Costa Mesa and

the state of California.

Except in every other arena of our society, the administration of

justice in this land is rarely an exercise in vindicating the letter of

the law in a vacuum. District attorneys are always exercising

prosecutorial discretion, making judgments about whether a case should be

brought to trial or a particular penalty sought. Establishing motive and

proving intent, criminal or otherwise, are regular tenets of ascribing

criminality to conduct.

But when we’re out to gore political oxen, suddenly the law becomes

black and white. Intent and knowledge and willfulness become irrelevant.

Nuance and circumstance and some deliberation as to whether the spirit of

the law was breached have no quarter. Such a delicate weighing of justice

could well thwart total victory on the political battleground.

Which brings me back to Rackauckas and why he’s nipping at Steel’s

hind end. During his 1998 campaign for district attorney, Rackauckas said

he thought too much of the county’s resources were being pumped into

political prosecutions instead of more serious crimes. And yet when he

could have shipped Steel’s case to the state’s Fair Political Practices

Commission, he didn’t. When he could have offered a plea without

demanding resignation -- something Tori Richards, spokeswoman for the

district attorney’s office, says he has the discretion to do -- he

didn’t, according to Steel’s attorney, Ron Cordova.

So why does Rackauckas want Steel out of office? Because he committed

a heinous felony against the election franchise of Costa Mesa? I suspect

few in Costa Mesa honestly think that, particularly the 10,000 folks who voted for the man. Rather, Rackauckas is a political animal with

political constituencies.

And Steel is an unpopular guy with most of them.

* BYRON DE ARAKAL is a writer and communications consultant. He lives

in Costa Mesa. His column runs Wednesdays. Readers may reach him with

news tips and comments via e-mail at [email protected].