SIGNATURE REVIEW DEFENDED; OFFICIAL SAYS VALLEY VOTE TALLY MAY NOT ADD UP.

Byline: Michael Coit Daily News Staff Writer

Los Angeles County's chief election official defended her decision on Tuesday to carry out a full count of all the petition signatures submitted by Valley VOTE in an effort to get a cityhood study.

With the Local Agency Formation Commission set to review the random count today, Registrar-Recorder Conny McCormack said the tally completed last week did not predict there would be enough valid signatures.

She said a full count is needed to determine if the required number of San Fernando Valley voters support a study.

McCormack's staff has started verifying all 202,514 signatures. Using 27 workers on Monday and 56 on Tuesday, McCormack said her office reviewed 13,859 signatures after two days, but she won't issue any reports on the findings until all signatures are reviewed.

``I have no desire to have my staff working a couple of months on this petition, but if that's the requirement to make sure the petition is sufficient, then that work has to occur,'' McCormack said Tuesday of the workload.

Valley VOTE leaders contend the work isn't needed and the county could save the estimated $275,000 cost, money the group would rather have spent on the million-dollar cityhood study.

``The delay's not necessary and delay is a real concern. We want the study to begin, we want everything to move ahead,'' said Richard Close, co-chairman of Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment.

Central to the dispute is the state election code penalty for duplicate signatures.

The random count completed last week found three of every four signatures were valid but 25,000 signatures were cut from the predicted tally of 153,00 because of 24 duplicate signatures - a penalty of 1,000 for each duplicate. That dropped the predicted number of valid signatures to 128,599 compared with the 131,771 needed, McCormack said.

``The bottom line was it's inconclusive,'' she said.

Valley VOTE leaders said the penalty for duplicates is out of proportion to their number. Close said they will ask LAFCO today to use its discretion and certify the petition, or at least set a firm deadline for the count.

``If we can get commitments to get this 100 percent sample done by the end of February, then let it begin,'' he said. ``We think it's a waste of money, but if they think they need to do it, so be it.''

Larry Calemine, the LAFCO executive director, said he directed the Registrar-Recorder's Office to complete the full count and he questioned whether the commission would change that course.

``When the commission agreed to do a random count, we agreed to do it according to the rules in place, and the petitioners knew that,'' he explained. ``We're just following through on that.''

The random signature verification process has been controversial, but the courts have upheld the system.

Political consultants said the system has dogged other petition efforts across California, but they acknowledge that a better method has not been found.

Anticipating questions about the verification process, McCormack will be joined by a top lawyer for the Secretary of State's Office at today's LAFCO meeting.

McCormack noted that the formula within the petition verification codes, that gives greater weight to duplicates than signatures found invalid, has proven accurate following full counts in other petition efforts.

For instance, McCormack said a recent full count for a congressional term-limit petition showed a valid signature rate within a percentage point of that in the earlier random count.

``I think that pretty much validates the accuracy of this,'' she said.