As Riverside’s ward two prepares to elect a new councilmember in June, candidates are beginning to assemble their campaigns. On March 20, councilmember candidate Gracie Torres filed a legal challenge against her opponent, Aram Ayrapetyan’s (Ayra) professed job description of “Educator/City Commissioner.” The challenge was ultimately rejected by the court on March 30, and Ayra was not ordered by the court to amend his campaign.
In the official lawsuit, “Torres vs Gause,” Torres alleged that Ayra’s designation of himself as an Educator and City Commissioner on his ballot designation, a document intended to inform voters about a candidate and their platform, was “factually inaccurate due [to] education not being his principal employment.
Although Ayra’s Form 700 Financial Disclosure recorded his recent work as an instructor with the University of California Riverside’s (UCR) Osher Center this past winter quarter, it also noted that his nearly year and a half work as an Associate Director of Development at the nonprofit Big Brothers Big Sisters of Orange County and the Inland Empire paid Ayra a higher salary, suggesting it was his principal employment.
Torres’ legal challenge cited Ayra’s reported employment as conflicting with Elections Code section 13107’s requirement that candidates chose an accurate designation for themselves. The challenge aimed to petition the court for a writ of mandate against Ayra’s designation. A court order which would have ordered Ayra to amend his designation to more accurately represent his varying employment labels.
Torres also mentioned that Riverside City Clerk Donnesia Gause approved Ayra’s ballot designation after being made aware by Torres team that the designation could be inaccurate, stating, “It’s not [the] Petitioner’s fault that the City Clerk waited until March 19 to make a final determination of the validity of the ballot designation at issue.”
The Superior Court of Riverside recorded under the statement of facts that Gause found sufficient documentation to claim the designation and furthermore that she “has no interest in the outcome of this litigation other than ensuring that the ballot materials were prepared.”
The court further reported, “So long as a candidate provides substantiation of their chosen designation and the wording other side complies … the City Clerk does not have the authority to reject a candidate’s chosen designation,” to explain their reasoning for rejecting Torres petition for the writ of mandate.
In an Instagram post, Ayra called the challenge baseless and criticized Torres’ attempt to challenge his ballot designation, stating,“My opponent chose to try to gain an edge through attorneys and the Courts … When you start building real momentum and challenging the status quo, this is what happens.”
In a press release, Torres stood firm in her action against Ayra stating “We followed the process as directed and brought this forward because voters had legitimate questions about accuracy. While the court has made its decision, I believe it warrants further inquiry.”
