2 Candidates’ Statements Barred by Court : Politics: Sample-ballot remarks in Irvine Ranch Water District race assailed the incumbents, who filed suit. Judge orders the comments deleted.

SANTA ANA — An Orange County Superior Court judge on Friday barred most of the written statements of two Irvine Ranch Water District board candidates from the county’s November sample ballot, siding with two incumbents who claimed the statements amounted to a “hit piece” against them.

With little comment, Judge Leonard Goldstein ordered the county registrar of voters office to delete large sections of the 200-word candidate statements submitted by water district challengers Scott Peotter and Lesley Ann Stoll. Only several sentences were left intact.

Incumbents Peer Swan and Ray Auerbach filed suit last month against the registrar of voters and the two candidates, seeking to bar the written statements from the sample ballot.

After the court hearing, Orange County Assistant Registrar Don Taylor made the line-by-line deletions in the seventh-floor hallway outside the courtroom, working feverishly to meet a 5 p.m. deadline. Taylor had to submit the revised candidate statements to the printer by day’s end to avoid a delay in the mailing of the county’s 1.1 million sample ballots for the Nov. 8 election.

Taylor said the court ruling will have no effect on procedures at the registrar of voters office.

“It does not set any precedent for us that I can see,” Taylor said. “We don’t tell people what they can and can’t put in a candidate statement. It is always open to court challenges.”

The candidate statements in question alleged that Swan and Auerbach, board members since 1979, authorized construction of two “palatial” water district office buildings, raised water rates and imposed “excess” drought penalties on water users.

Both incumbents say the accusations are blatantly false. But Goldstein’s decision, based in part on a 1992 California Supreme Court ruling involving judicial candidates, did not take into account whether the statements were true or false. Goldstein simply ruled that the challengers’ ballot statements should be limited to biographical information.

“We’re preserving the candidate statement as the state set it up to be,” said Swan, 50, treasurer of a Newport Beach electrical manufacturing company. “It’s not supposed to be a place where you can print a sleazy hit piece on other people.”

Attorney Howard Klein, representing the two water board challengers, argued in court that the term “qualifications” should be broadly interpreted to allow a frank discussion of issues by candidates.

“I believe what a candidate feels about the issues in a particular race is appropriate,” Klein said. By limiting the statements to biographical information, Klein said the sample ballot becomes “a cure for insomnia.”

Peotter, 37, an Irvine architect, said he believes such court decision will have a chilling effect on candidates with few financial resources who are considering running against incumbents.

“It gives additional power to incumbents,” Peotter said. “The candidate statement is the most important opportunity that many candidates have.”