NEWS RELEASE:
Contact: Naomi Seligman, 310.392.0522 xt. 318, or Doug Heller, xt. 309
Battle Over Prop 17 Language: Court Hearing and News Conf. at Sacramento Superior Court, this Friday, March 12th @1 p.m.
Stop Prop 17 Submits New 14-page Brief Tearing Apart Mercury’s Lies
A battle over the Proposition 17 ballot pamphlet language will come to a head this Friday, March 12, when a Sacramento Superior Court judge hears arguments in a series of cases related to the Mercury Insurance-sponsored measure. Prop 17, on the June ballot, would allow insurance companies to raise premiums on California drivers based on their history of prior auto insurance coverage, a practice that has been outlawed since voters enacted Proposition 103 in 1988.
Mercury Insurance and its surrogates filed a lawsuit last month seeking to rewrite both the No on 17 ballot argument (authored by Consumer Watchdog, Consumers Union and VoteVets.org) and the Rebuttal to the supporters’ argument (authored by former California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi and former Attorney General John Van de Kamp). Consumer advocate Harvey Rosenfield has filed a cross-petition challenging false and misleading information that Mercury Insurance and its ballot signers have attempted to include in the ballot arguments in favor of Prop 17.
The Attorney General will also appear before the Court to ask that the Court allow the Secretary of State to strengthen and clarify the ballot title and summary, to correct a filing error by the Attorney General’s office. Mercury Insurance will ask the Court to rewrite the Attorney General’s summary arguing that the ballot pamphlet should only describe discounts and ignore the insurance surcharge that Prop 17 creates.
Today, Stop Prop 17 posted its newly-submitted 14-page brief explaining why Mercury’s arguments are “just poppycock.” The brief offers a succinct look at the debate around Prop 17 and why the Attorney General must be allowed to explain that Prop 17 subjects California motorists to rate hikes on their auto insurance premiums. As the brief explains:
[Mercury wants] the Attorney General’s title and summary for Proposition 17 to include “all the sweet” … while excluding “all the bitter.”
A copy of the brief is available at: http://bit.ly/a2EziJ
WHO: Harvey Rosenfield, founder of Consumer Watchdog and author of Prop 103
WHAT: News Conference prior to Prop 17 court hearing
WHERE: Steps Sacramento Superior Courthouse – 9th Street Entrance
720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA
WHEN: March 12th, @1 p.m. PST, prior to hearing
NOTE – To Record Trial: The trial begins @1:30 PM. Media must submit a request form (available at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/fillable/mc500.pdf ) to the Court’s Public Information Officer. Phone: (916) 591-0050
- 30 -
Is it true Mercury is sending out e-mails to their employees pushing them to vote for this Prop 17? Is that legal, pressuring the employees to back any measure for personal gain? Doesn’t that pressure the employees to vote, or lose their jobs?