Status of Bruce Boyer Legal Challenge for Ballot Access as VC Sheriff Candidate

Bruce Boyer filing for VC Sheriff candidate

Bruce Boyer campaign for Ventura County Sheriff:  August 6th, 2018


Update as to the legal action that Bruce Boyer, as he is a fully filed candidate for Ventura County Sheriff, should be placed on the ballot. Bruce Boyer is represented by attorney Joel Farkas:

We are now filed and briefed with the CA Appellate Court. 56-2018-00509733. With the law, the State Constitution, Court Rulings, AG opinion and the foundations of our liberty ALL on our side; we do expect to prevail. Defeating the corruption and tyranny will be neither easy, cheap nor swift.  The Court will have to strike down the results of the June 5th ‘primary election’ and order that I be on the ballot for the November 6th election (which is of course the actual election date).  We have more than sufficient time and resources for this. All the other factors line up nicely to allow a Nov 6th election to take place without any further distress on anyone’s part. It will be of great interest and newsworthy as we prevail in restoring the right of voters to choose their candidates ending the imposed monopoly on power granted to “salaried LEOs. Having the result “nullified” will be extremely newsworthy and of great value to my campaign.

 I plan to address the County Board of Supervisors directly at their next meeting.


On April 18th Dept 41, Ventura County Superior Court denied the request for a writ of mandate that Boyer be placed on the ballot. A writ of supersedeas was filed with the CA Appellate Court, which refused to hear it. An appeal to the CA Supreme Court was filed today.

The County in reply to the filing and briefs did not address the argument that the ballot qualifications are unconstitutional. Article I of the State Constitution is clear in calling for the ‘election’ of County Sheriffs. There are no ’qualifiers’ to this in any way. Any ‘qualifiers’ would have to have been passed as amendments to the State Constitution, none have been. There are CA Court cases that strike down ballot restrictions as unconstitutional, a case as to County Supervisors from Butte County and Baca v. Los Angeles 2003 as to voter imposed term limits. There is also an Appellate case from Colorado that struck down similar “qualifications” as to County Sheriffs.

As to the hearing of the writ on April 18th; The Court, Judge O’Neill (a Wilson appointee and former Ventura County DA) opened by announcing that it had a tentative ruling to find against Boyer. The Court then inquired if Boyer was prepared to pay one million dollars to have the ballots reprinted? Mr. Farkas stated that Mr. Boyer was not, nor should he have to write a check as Boyer was not even alleged to be at fault for his name not being printed on the ballot. For as the qualifications are unconstitutional, then the remedy is what it must be. It begs the question that if Mr. Farkas had affirmed that Boyer had a check for one million dollars right there, would that not have meant that he would have been on the ballot? So, it was not as to constitutional; it was as to paying to be on the ballot? This will factor in as to the appeal.

The Court ruled that as the State Legislature is to provide for the election of County Sheriffs; that for it to impose ‘qualifications’ as to restricting and limiting who can run for office is within the scope of the law and therefore constitutional. The Court has refused to provide a ruling that we can directly appeal; manipulating the law to deny our right to due process.  The Court refuses to answer as to the other rulings and how such a ruling does not violate our fundamental right to choose our elected officials, the right to run for office. Without this we are not a government of by or for the people.

At the April 18th hearing; Mr. Farkas offered to the Court that as the actual election is in November that the solution could be to hold the election then between Boyer and the one other candidate (who is sponsored by the current Sheriff). Judge O’Neill was not interested in this “novel approach”. Judge O ‘Neill condescendingly opined that the qualifications for Sheriff were in fact extremely low; that even his bailiff could run for Sheriff. This being exactly our point. A court bailiff or a prison guard or park ranger is ‘qualified’ to run for an elected office; yet private citizens regardless of how otherwise qualified; are excluded as we have not been “salaried Law Enforcement Officers” of even the lowest grade. The Attorney General of the U.S. is ‘unqualified’ to run for County Sheriff. The citizens therefore are denied their right to choose and vote for the candidate of their choice.

There were two unstated aspects of the ruling. First that the Court does not want the voters to be able to choose a sheriff who will overturn the SB54 Sanctuary State Rebellion and restore the Constitution to the Sheriff’s Dept and by extension the Court. Second; a ruling that ‘qualifications’ are unconstitutional also means that ‘qualifications’ for judge would be as well. Citizens could then run for judge and that is an even more direct threat to the power of the judges.

The aspect of discrimination was not addressed in this case as the statute is unconstitutional as to it’s imposition of a restriction in what the Constitution guarantees as to our rights. Should the discrimination aspect need to be addressed; we will seek a disabled veteran who will want to run for County Sheriff anywhere in CA, have them file and be found unqualified. Then see how the Court tries to pass off that direct discrimination.

A victory in this case will have far-reaching effects as nationally twenty-eight states have acted to restrict the citizens in who they can elect as their county sheriffs. A victory here will enable the citizens to again elect the sheriff of their choice. Career LEOs will be more responsive to the citizens for if not the citizens will be able to elect non-LEOs who will do the will of the people. A citizen should not have to retain an attorney and go to court at his own expense in order to give the voters a choice. We hope that this will be remedied for the future to insure the people free elections.

California has had only a dozen actual contested elections for the fifty-eight county sheriffs in the last thirty years. Career Law Enforcement has held a monopoly. Ventura County may make history in restoring a government of the people, or it will make it in taking a giant step to stomp it out.

I do like to make it exciting! We have a Country to save!

[email protected]

(805) 422-3005


Ed note: We asked VC Sheriff candidate William Ayub to comment on Boyer’s article and received this:

Thank you very kindly for the opportunity to comment on Mr. Boyer’s writings but I will respectfully decline to comment.  I in no way wish to interfere with Mr. Boyer’s efforts to right what he perceives to be an injustice.


We also made a similar request of Voter Registrar Mark Lunn, and heard back 8-8-18 as follows:


Thank you for asking me for a response.

You’re right, he doesn’t give up. He also doesn’t know or abide by the laws of the State, an odd thing for someone who seeks the highest law enforcement position in the County of Ventura.  He also is severely misinformed about his chances on appeal.

My decision to keep Mr. Boyer off the ballot was based on very clear law and was confirmed by the trial court judge.  The court of appeal then immediately (within one day) unanimously denied Boyer’s almost unheard of petition to place him on the June ballot. For Mr. Boyer to think that he has the skill set to run a high performing professional law enforcement agency, like the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department, is incredulous to me. I know, from being a former law enforcement executive, that holding public office and leading a law enforcement agency requires unquestioned integrity and a profound respect for the rule of law. Mr. Boyer’s record is that regard is dubious at best. You can Google his and his company’s record of prior rebukes in California courts for yourself.

Now to comment on Mr. Boyer’s writings. The conversation he states he had with me regarding my background and the CHP never occurred. In fact, all the information he cites from that conversation is factually incorrect. For example, the information concerning the CHP’s actual hiring of African American officers is documented here: Not only are Boyer’s claims false, they are defamatory and expose him to a lawsuit. Respectfully, as the publisher, it exposes you and the Journal as well. I might suggest that you could lessen the ongoing impact of his libel against me by correcting the record or at least by linking the attached redacted document in place of the one you are currently publishing, in which Boyer defames me and which has no factual basis. I suppose this may place you and the Journal in a difficult position with an advertising client, but it would enhance subscribers’ belief that your publication is objective in running articles about Boyer.

While I support, defend and encourage participation in the democratic process for those seeking public office, those efforts must be accomplished legally and without wrongfully damaging the reputation of others. Voters need to be informed that Mr. Boyer is not a candidate for Sheriff and his name will not appear on the ballot in November.  They also need to know he is not being honest.

Thanks again for the opportunity to respond.

Related articles

Bruce Boyer campaign for Ventura County Sheriff | Citizens Journal …

Apr 8, 2018 – Bruce Boyer, candidate for Ventura County Sheriff for the June 5th election; as represented by attorney Joel Farkas has a hearing scheduled for …

VC Sheriff candidate Bruce Boyer continues in his … – Citizens Journal…

May 15, 2018 – Ventura County Superior Court Judge Vincent O’Neill, Jr. ruled on April 18 in court againstSheriff candidate and civil rights activist Bruce Boyer …

Filed VC Sheriff Candidate Boyer’s statement on … – Citizens Journal

Mar 16, 2018 – Bruce Boyer; campaign for Ventura County Sheriff: Press release 3-16-2018 rev. The Ventura County Clerk announced on Mar 15th and was …

Elect a Constitutional Sheriff! | Citizens Journal | Citizens Journal

Added by Citizen Reporter on May 1, 2018. … Tags: 2018, Bruce Boyer, budget, California, ConstitutionalSheriff, federal immigration law, ICE, SB54, Ventura …

Editorial: In sheriff’s election, the law is the law – Ventura County Star…sheriffs…/544285002/

Apr 23, 2018 – We cannot support Bruce Boyer’s misdirected efforts to get on the ballot to … If we want to let civilians run for sheriff, then the law needs to be …

Sanctuary foe Bruce Boyer sues to run for Ventura County sheriff…sheriff/499620002/

Apr 9, 2018 – A businessman who wants to be the next Ventura County sheriff is asking a judge to put him on the ballot. … View the E-Newspaper … Bruce Boyer, 57, who lives outside Simi Valley, is asking the Ventura … cited “deprives county citizens of their right to vote for the elected officials of their own choosing.”.

Get Headlines free SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing DONATE

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments