Grand Jury Renews Assembly Election Probe

SANTA ANA —  A county grand jury Tuesday renewed a probe of alleged election and campaign finance irregularities in last year’s 67th Assembly District special election, as Democrat Laurie Campbell, who was thrown off the ballot for filing falsified nominating petitions, appeared before the panel.

Campbell entered the district attorney’s office about 9:30 a.m., accompanied by her lawyer, Robert Chatterton, and left the courthouse six hours later. Both declined to speak to a reporter as they arrived.

A spokesman for the district attorney’s office declined to discuss the grand jury proceedings.

Two other people associated with the campaign of Assemblyman Scott Baugh (R-Huntington Beach), who won the Nov. 28 special election--aide Jeff Nielsen and contributor Adel Ziedan--also appeared at the courthouse Tuesday. It was not known if they appeared before the grand jury.

Nielsen was a paid worker in the Baugh for Assembly campaign last year and is currently a district representative for the freshman Assembly member. Ziedan has acknowledged giving Baugh an $8,800 campaign contribution in cash. State campaign law prohibits candidates from accepting cash contributions greater than $100. Baugh reported the contribution on a campaign fund-raising document.

A Republican campaign source said the grand jury is expected to resume hearing witnesses in the matter on Thursday.

The district attorney’s office is investigating Campbell’s candidacy and Baugh’s links to it, as well as alleged financial irregularities in Baugh’s campaign. Democrats have charged that one or more GOP legislators engineered Campbell’s candidacy to siphon votes from popular Democrat Linda Moulton-Patterson in the winner-take-all race to replace Assemblywoman Doris Allen, who was recalled in the same special election.

Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle (R-Garden Grove) has acknowledged that staffer Mark Denny was involved in gathering signatures for Campbell’s nominating petitions. And Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) has admitted that his campaign manager, Rhonda Carmony--who at the time was also working in the Baugh and recall campaigns--was “peripherally” involved in recruiting Campbell.

GOP leaders have acknowledged that they were interested in recruiting a second Democrat in the contest. Baugh, Pringle and Rohrabacher, however, have all denied having any role in Campbell’s candidacy, and there has been no direct evidence demonstrating their involvement.

The district attorney’s office launched the investigation into Campbell’s candidacy shortly after a Sacramento Superior Court judge removed her from the ballot Oct. 26.

Tuesday marked the second time the district attorney’s office has brought witnesses before a grand jury to hear evidence in the case. In late December, four witnesses were presented, according to lawyers for those involved in the case.

The 1995 grand jury, which expired on Dec. 31, recommended that the case be taken up by this year’s grand jury, according to an official familiar with the case. Others have said the district attorney lacked the evidence to win an indictment.

Campbell entered the race on Sept. 21, the deadline to file papers at the registrar of voters’ office for the 67th Assembly District race. Campbell had picked up nominating petitions a day earlier but did not circulate them herself, according to some two dozen voters who signed her papers on those two days.

Rather, the petitions were brought to them by several unidentified men between 20 and 35 years of age.

Jeff Butler, who worked on the recall and Baugh campaigns, has said that recall campaign manager Jeff Gibson told him him that Gibson and Pringle staffer Mark Denny helped gather the 40 signatures from Democrats necessary to get Campbell on the ballot. Butler said that Gibson also told him that Campbell met with Gibson in the parking lot of the registrar’s office on Sept. 21, where she was given the petitions to sign.

Gibson and Denny have declined to comment on Butler’s assertions. They did not return phone calls Tuesday.

According to Butler, Pringle’s deputy chief of staff, Jeff Flint, gave instructions that Campbell sign the petitions because Flint believed that a Republican could not circulate the petitions.

Flint has vigorously denied those allegations.

A member of the registrar’s staff said she saw Carmony outside the office late in the afternoon of Sept. 21.

Carmony has referred all questions to her attorney, Creighton Laz, who could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

While it is not a crime for a Republican to recruit a Democrat, it is a felony to falsely fill out any part of a nomination paper or to knowingly file a falsified nominating petition. Penalties can include a $1,000 fine and imprisonment of up to three years.

In addition to its investigation into the recruitment of Campbell, the district attorney’s office is looking into alleged campaign reporting irregularities by Baugh.

At the heart of those allegations is a $1,000 donation made to the Baugh campaign on Sept. 15 by Kendrick Campbell, Laurie Campbell’s husband. Baugh returned the contribution to the Campbells at his home a week later, on the day Laurie Campbell filed to run in the race.

The Baugh campaign failed to include the contribution or its return on two campaign financial reports filed in October and November. Baugh listed the contribution and its return in an amended report filed a few hours before the polls closed.

Individual cash expenditures of more than $100 are barred by the state’s Political Reform Act, which governs campaign spending and reporting. Violations can be punished by civil or criminal penalties, including a four-year ban on a candidate running for office.

Baugh has said through his attorneys that campaign treasurer Dan Traxler was responsible for the delay in reporting and that Traxler also gave Baugh the $1,000 refund in a sealed envelope, which he then gave to the Campbells. Baugh did not know it was cash rather than a check, his lawyers have said. His attorney Ben Davidian has also said that the return of a contribution is not a campaign expenditure and, therefore, Baugh did not violate the law.

Traxler’s attorney has said that Baugh was responsible for the delay in reporting and that he gave Baugh cash because Baugh asked for cash.