SLO County clerk-recorder sued over a bit of ballot grammar. Here’s what the judge said

Just when you thought local politics couldn’t get any more ludicrous, along comes a court case filed over a grammatical nit — more specifically, the placement of a modifier.

Keith Gurnee is arguing that San Luis Obispo County Clerk-Recorder Elaina Cano ran afoul of state law in the way she describes her occupation on the June 7 primary election ballot.

Gurnee, who ran unsuccessfully for SLO mayor in 2018, asked the court to order Cano to remove the description from the ballot.

Cano lists her occupation as “county clerk-recorder, appointed,” which may sound a bit awkward but is nonetheless perfectly accurate. She was appointed by the Board of Supervisors last year, after Tommy Gong resigned in the wake of harassment by the “stop the steal” crowd.

Gurnee — who supports Stew Jenkins for the office — insists the word “appointed” should be before Cano’s title, not after.

“The use of the word ‘Appointed’ following the title of the office, especially as the words are separated by a comma, improperly renders the title of the office unmodified,” his court complaint states.

He contends that under the state Elections Code, the only acceptable wording in this type of situation is “appointed incumbent.”

Hair splitting? You betcha.

In fact, Judge Hernaldo Baltodano already denied the request without explanation.

Gurnee, who is represented by Davis attorney Michael Nolan, says he may appeal.

“We’re just trying to figure out where to go,” he said. “We got no direction from the judge. ... He flat out denied it.”

If you’re a plaintiff filing a frivolous case that’s wasting the judge’s time, maybe that should tell you something.

Gurnee bases his argument on this section of the California Elections Code:

“... A candidate may propose a ballot designation consisting of the phrase ‘appointed incumbent’ if the candidate holds an office, other than a judicial office, by virtue of appointment, and the candidate is a candidate for election to the same office.”

Note the use of the word “may,” rather than “must.” Nowhere in the election code is “appointed incumbent” mandated.

Yet Gurnee doubles down by arguing that voters may be confused when the word “appointed” comes after the title.

“In this sense ‘Appointed’ indicates to the voter an evaluation of the candidate as ‘equipped’ or ‘endowed’ (The familiar descriptive phrase ‘well appointed’ comes to mind).”

Please. Voters aren’t nincompoops who need to be protected. They’re perfectly capable of figuring out that appointed means exactly that, whether it comes before or after a title.

They’re also able to see this nonsense for what it is: Another attempt to deflect attention away from what’s at stake in this race — protecting our voter rights.

The office of clerk-recorder has never been more important. We’ve witnessed multiple attempts to overturn the will of the people by those who would challenge the integrity of election officials.

We saw it with Tommy Gong, and now we’re seeing unwarranted attacks on Cano.

With his silence, the judge spoke volumes when he dismissed this meritless case out of hand.

Voters should do the same with baseless attacks on well-qualified candidates.