'Hard to Believe' 

Editor:

I voted against Measure M and I believe that the superior court will use declaratory relief to strike down the measure and allow the State Display of Flags statute to prevail (California Government code section 430 to 439). ("'A Symbolic Gesture,'" March 30.) The proponent made the claim that the measure was legal. All other municipalities in California that have a flag ordinance follow state statutes. The free speech argument is changing the goal posts after the proponent failed to check state statutes. The proper way to change the flag order is to change the state statute.

The California Constitution has reasonable restraints. The text of the measure does not mention freedom of speech and I find it hard to believe that in the future the appellate court would change a declaratory relief rejection of Measure M. The electorate was not fully informed in my view. Six percent of the submitted ballots in Arcata had neither yes nor no. Some of the electorate saw this as legal and others may have used their vote as a "protest" against the city attorney's impartial review and those who opposed the measure. The courts and legislative bodies don't have the "protest" option. They must follow laws as written and Arcata as a general law city is restrained from overriding state laws.

Walt Paniak, Arcata