USA Fluoride opponents claim court win on Healdsburg ballot measure language

In a sharp rebuke to Healdsburg officials and a victory for fluoride opponents, a Sonoma County judge has ordered the city to change its proposed language on a ballot question that asks voters to weigh in on use of the additive in the city’s water supply.

Judge William Harrison found the city’s wording “misleading, inaccurate and biased,” because it did not accurately convey the language of the petition that qualified for the November ballot.

Vice Mayor Gary Plass said Friday that he was “shocked and disappointed” by the ruling, but city officials said they do not plan to appeal.

As a result, the question put to voters will go beyond the simplified version approved by the City Council earlier this month: “Shall the City of Healdsburg stop fluoridating its water supply?”

Instead, the ballot language will more closely mirror what proponents asked for — that the practice be stopped until the city or manufacturers can supply proof that fluoride is safe to ingest.

It will ask voters whether a moratorium on water fluoridation be instituted until the “manufacturer of the fluoridating chemical provides information regarding identification of any contaminants in the fluoridating chemical batch, and a toxicological report and verification of safety for the fluoridating chemical.”

Dawna Gallagher, a staunch fluoride opponent and former Rohnert Park City Council member who spearheaded the lawsuit against Healdsburg, said “it’s a victory for the California Election Code and the people of Healdsburg who signed a petition thinking it was going on the ballot a certain way and the city changed it completely.”