Desiree Lynch’s name will remain on the November ballot for Stockton City Council’s District 5 despite her attempts to withdrawal from the race after a judge Wednesday denied an emergency request to remove her before ballots are printed this week.
Over the last two weeks, Lynch has flip-flopped multiple times on whether she would end her campaign, after facing scrutiny of where she lives and her recent arrest related to felony election fraud charges.
Both her requests to the Stockton City Clerk to be removed from the November ballot made in separate instances this month just weeks apart, the most recent of which was announced Monday, have been denied due to timing requirements mandated by state election law.
Only, it wasn’t Lynch who had asked for the court to have her name removed.
Shakeel “Sam” Carpenter, a District 5 voter and former write-in candidate for the seat, brought the issue before a judge this week, asking the city of Stockton and San Joaquin County Registrar of Voters be ordered to remove Lynch’s name. He argued that keeping her on the ballot, after she formally withdrew, would mislead voters into believing they still had two candidates seeking the office.
San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Robert T. Waters ultimately disagreed, finding that Lynch qualified for the general election through the June primary and that Carpenter had not established the type of ballot error that would allow the court to intervene.
“I cannot disenfranchise the voters that voted for her,” Waters said.
Waters’ ruling means election officials will move forward with ballots listing Lynch, who was a no-show at the hearing, and incumbent Councilmember Brando Villapudua as the two candidates for the south-central Stockton seat.
Ballots are scheduled to be printed Thursday.
But if Lynch had been in court Wednesday, the now-unwilling council candidate may have gotten what she wanted.
Judge declines to intervene
Carpenter brought the case under California Elections Code, which allows a voter to seek court intervention when an error or omission has occurred or is about to occur in the printing of ballots or other election materials.
His attorney, Andi Burisse, argued that circumstances had changed since Lynch qualified for the general election.
Lynch has publicly said she is no longer campaigning, formally notified the city of her withdrawal, and previously told city officials she intended to relocate outside District 5 because of safety concerns involving herself and her daughter, according to Carpenter’s petition.
New information concerning Lynch’s residency had also surfaced, Burisse argued, including a grant deed connected to property in Lodi. Waters cautioned against using property ownership alone to determine where someone lives.
“Just because someone has a deed doesn’t mean that’s their residence,” Waters said.
Lynch’s residency is also at the center of a separate criminal case filed by the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office. Prosecutors allege she falsely claimed to live at Stockton addresses within District 5 on her voter registration and candidate paperwork to qualify to run for City Council.
Lynch was arrested on election fraud charges last week and later released on bond while her case is pending.
“It’s not for me to decide if she’s qualified now,” Waters said.
However, Burrise argued the question before the court in this case as something different, posing whether ballots should list a candidate who has said they no longer intend to seek the office. Leaving Lynch’s name on the ballot would lead voters to believe they still had “two viable candidates,” Burrise said.
Waters repeatedly expressed reluctance to interfere with an election after voters had already selected Lynch as one of two candidates advancing from the primary.
“I don’t want to stick my nose in an open and fair election,” he said.
Lynch received 1,054 votes, or about 31% of ballots cast, in the June 2 primary, finishing second behind Villapudua, who received 1,173 votes, or about 34%. Because no candidate received a majority, the two advanced to the general election in November.
Lynch’s absence from Wednesday’s hearing also concerned Waters. He had wanted to hear directly from Lynch that she did not intend to run or remain a District 5 resident, Water’s said, adding that he would have been more likely to grant the request if she had been present.
The council candidate had been served with the court documents Tuesday at her doorstep and electronically, Burisse told the court. Lynch communicated that she would be choosing not to participate in the proceeding, according to Burrise.
Tom Keeling, representing the city of Stockton and the city clerk, also raised concerns about proceeding without Lynch, whom he described as the actual party of interest in the case, not the city or county. Jonathan King, chief deputy county counsel for San Joaquin County, argued that the county had done nothing wrong.
With ballot printing imminent, Waters said there was little time for the court to act.
“Time is not our friend,” he said.
Waters ultimately denied Carpenter’s request, finding that the papers before him did not establish that a ballot error had occurred or was about to occur.
Carpenter has challenged for ballot access before
Wednesday was not Carpenter’s first attempt this year to get a judge to intervene in the District 5 election. He sued Stockton and San Joaquin County election officials in March after he was disqualified from appearing as a printed candidate in the June primary.
Carpenter argued that he submitted his nomination paperwork before the filing deadline but was not given enough time to correct problems with signatures on his nomination petition.
A judge denied his request to be added to the primary ballot, finding that ordering election officials to add him so close to the printing deadline would substantially interfere with the election.
Carpenter later ran as a qualified write-in candidate and received 22 votes, less than 1% of the District 5 primary vote.
His latest case again reached the court shortly before a ballot-printing deadline — this time with Carpenter asking for a candidate’s name to be removed rather than his own added.
He filed the original petition Aug. 18, seeking to stop the printing of District 5 ballots until a court had the opportunity to decide whether Lynch should remain on them as a candidate. The lawsuit named Stockton, San Joaquin County, City Clerk Katherine Roland and Registrar of Voters Olivia Hale as respondents and Lynch as the party of in interest.
Carpenter argued that printing Lynch’s name after she renounced her candidacy would mislead voters and “distort the outcome of the only contested choice actually before the voters.”
Two turbulent weeks
Questions about Lynch’s place on the ballot began Aug. 14, when she first announced she would stop campaigning amid increasingly public scrutiny over where she lived.
Former Stockton Mayor Anthony Silva and former Vice Mayor Ralph Lee White publicly questioned whether Lynch lived at an East Oak Street apartment listed on her campaign paperwork in the weeks leading up to her arrest earlier this month for election fraud related to her residency. Lynch later sought civil harassment restraining orders against Silva and White, accusing them of unlawfully entering the Oak Street apartment she listed in her candidate filings as her home, recording video and publicizing the address.
Lynch has said the incident left her and her daughter feeling unsafe.
Stocktonia reviewed candidate paperwork listing the East Oak Street apartment as Lynch’s residence but has not independently verified where she lived during the period in which she qualified to run.
The Aug. 14 announcement did not remove Lynch from the ballot. Under California Elections Code, a municipal candidate may withdraw nomination papers only until the 88th day before an election, and that deadline had already passed, leaving her name set to appear in the November runoff.
Four days later, Lynch reversed course, telling Stockton Deputy City Clerk Gabriel Searcy in an email that she had changed her mind.
“After further consideration, I have decided to remain in the race for Stockton City Council District 5,” Lynch wrote.
That evening, she told Stocktonia the campaign was “bigger than her” and would not be intimidated out of the race.
The following morning, Lynch was arrested following a six-week investigation by the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office.
She faces three felony counts of perjury, one count involving an alleged voter registration violation and one count of filing a false nomination or declaration of candidacy. She was released on $100,000 bond later that day.
Prosecutors allege Lynch registered to vote and filed candidate paperwork using Stockton addresses where she did not live. Investigators allege she instead resided in Lodi and north Stockton, the latter of which is within City Council District 1.
A day after her arrest, Lynch failed to appear for hearings on the civil harassment restraining orders she sought against Silva and White. Both cases were dismissed without prejudice due to her absence, meaning she could potentially refile in the future.
Then, on Monday, Lynch withdrew from the race for a second time.
This time, Lynch submitted a signed letter to the Stockton city clerk withdrawing her candidacy effective immediately and asking that her name be removed from consideration “as permitted by law.”
Her attorney, Allen Sawyer, told Stocktonia Monday that Lynch would focus on her family and the criminal case.
“In light of the legal process she is facing, there will be no other comment on this matter,” Sawyer said. “Ms. Lynch is focused on taking care of her daughter and will devote 100% of her attention to her family responsibilities.”
Sawyer did not immediately respond Wednesday to a request for comment on Waters’ ruling or whether Lynch intends to take further action to remove her name from the ballot.
With the voluntary withdrawal deadline already passed, Carpenter sought a court order to change the ballot, which Waters shot down Wednesday.
Waters’ ruling clears the way for District 5 ballots to be printed with both Villapudua and Lynch listed. It’s unclear what will happen if Lynch wins the election in November.
Villapudua did not immediately respond Wednesday to a request for comment on the ruling.
Lynch is scheduled to be arraigned at 1:30 p.m. Sept. 2 in San Joaquin County Superior Court in her criminal case. If convicted on all five felony counts, she faces a maximum sentence of six years and eight months in prison, according to the District Attorney’s Office.