Two of three ballot items fail, but suit still goes on

Complaint had called on elections officials to invalidate questions.

PALM BEACH GARDENS — Now that three city ballot questions have been decided, what happens with the lawsuit challenging them?

Days before the election, Palm Beach Gardens resident Sid Dinerstein — former chairman of the Florida Republican Party — sued the city, the Voters in Control political committee and Supervisor of Elections Susan Bucher to stop what he called “false and deceptive advertising” and to block the questions from counting. Voters struck down two of the three questions Tuesday.

The outstanding issue is whether the city improperly spent money on a public information campaign that advocated for the ballot questions rather than simply educated voters, as the suit alleged.

The original complaint also alleged Voters in Control “dubiously works in conjunction” with the city to promote the passage of the ballot questions.

Now that blocking the questions and stopping the advertisements is moot, Dinerstein’s attorney James D’Loughy has 20 days to file an amended complaint that narrows the issue to the propriety of the city’s spending. The city and Voters in Control will have 30 days to respond.

The city has said it did not coordinate with any outside groups and that the claims laid out in the lawsuit are “completely speculative and not based in fact.”

“This lawsuit is an attempt to contaminate the political process by confusing voters and bullying the city,” the city said in a statement last week.

Florida law allows public entities to spend money to educate voters on ballot questions, as long as the materials do not advocate for or against a position. The city agreed to pay Cornerstone Solutions up to $65,000 to run the public education campaign.

An elections attorney reviewed and approved all communications to make sure they complied with the law, the city said.

Voters in Control previously said the allegations are a publicity stunt and inaccurate. The claim of false advertising related to Voters in Control signs that were printed with the words “Vote Yes: Keep Term Limits.” None of the questions on the ballot asked voters to keep or toss term limits.

Voting yes on the defeated first question would have loosened the term limits by allowing City Council members to serve three terms in a row instead of the current two before they must sit out. The other question would have eliminated a charter requirement that the city manager be a resident within a year of taking the job.

The question failed, so the residency requirement stands.

Voters approved another question, which asked if the outdated city charter should be updated to comply with state law.

Dinerstein’s attorney has 20 days to file an amended complaint that narrows the issue to the propriety of the city’s spending. The city will have 30 days to respond.