.
Greg just posted this up on the blog last night, and thanks to him, Henry Vandemeir and anyone else who helped make this happen:
Okay, YOU THREE, do the right thing like you promised, and amaze us!
DPOC Calls On The City Of Anaheim To Enact Elections By Single-Member Districts
En EspanolSanta Ana, CA – 2/21/2013 – The Democratic Party of Orange County (DPOC) calls on Anaheim to enact elections by single-member district for the 2014 election cycle.
In June 2012, Anaheim community leaders and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the City contending that Latinos are effectively shut out of the current electoral process. Currently, council and mayoral elections are conducted through an “at-large” system.
“The DPOC reaffirms the California Democratic Party’s support of single-member district elections in cases where underrepresented groups’ electoral success would be enhanced by the adoption of single-member districts. It is time for the City of Anaheim to settle the lawsuit and place a districting plan on the ballot as soon as possible,” stated DPOC Chair Henry Vandermeir.
Until the November 2012 election, at least three of the five members of the council lived in the eastern part of the city known as “Anaheim Hills.” Moreover, the area of the city west of Euclid Street, known as “West Anaheim” and where more than 125,000 people live, has not had a resident elected to the council since 1998.
2012 DPOC- endorsed candidate and now Councilmember Jordan Brandman, has called for the City to move to single-member districts for the 2014 election cycle.
Vandermeir hopes that, “The entire Anaheim City Council will join Councilmember Brandman and others in calling for single-member district elections and develop a system that promotes equal representation among its residents.”
Note: Because Anaheim is a Charter City, voters must approve any districting plan in order for district elections to be enacted.
Well, first of all, kudos, because this is the right thing for the Democratic Party to do, to be fostering stronger democracy. As I’ve written many times, this is not really so much about Latinos, although the lawsuit had to be framed that way – it’s about making it 6 or 8 times easier and less expensive for a regular person, Latino or not, someone who knows their neighborhood and will be answerable to it, to become a councilperson in the OC’s biggest city – something that now generally costs $200 grand and results mainly in councilpeople who are loyal servants to the local plutocracy (or occasionally the unions.)
Hopefully this endorsement doesn’t end up making the districting reform seem liberal or partisan, or somehow something that would favor Democrats over other parties, it really shouldn’t. In fact by all rights the OC GOP should now vote to back it as well – given Mayor Tait’s reputation as “conscience of the OC GOP,” as well as the OC GOP’s election endorsements of stalwart reformist Brian Chuchua, and Lucille Kring who at least claimed at the time she was going to back districting.
I like this tack, of taking Jordan Brandman at his word. I think that’s at the urging of Los Amigos’ Dr. Jose Moreno, a plaintiff in the suit. If we take councilwoman Lucille Kring at her word too, we should have a majority of three (c0unting Tait) who should vote to immediately settle this lawsuit and send the reform to Anaheim’s voters. Lucille told about fifty members of Los Amigos when I dragged her down there on a cool Wednesday morning in January that she would vote to settle the suit and move to six districts plus a Mayor at large – what Tait has proposed since August. And I will put out of my mind what she told me later privately – she should be kept to her public word, which was also the promise she made to Mayor Tait when he endorsed her.
And of course here’s Jordan, shortly before the election (promises begin around 4 minutes) :
Of course taking Jordan and Lucille at their word entails ignoring a lot. For example:
- Their joining in the firing of City Attorney Cristina Talley, whose main offense was (reportedly) advising the council that they were in violation of the California Voters Rights Act, and that if they insisted on fighting it, it would be difficult, lengthy and expensive – which it has been;
- The council majority – with whom Jordan and Lucille still have not been seen to ever disagree – have so far spent over $280,000 fighting the ACLU to NOT have districting (and this is going to grow by the month until this is settled…)
- The “Citizens’ Advisory Commission” (touted by Jordan above) which has seemed to be a stalling tactic from the members who oppose districting has been meeting regularly and featuring well-paid speakers from all over the country who come touting EVERY MANNER of amazing election ideas that are not districting. We are still working on finding out how much is being spent on that whole charade, which really needs to be added onto the $280K and whatever fees these hardworking ACLU lawyers are gonna eventually want.
But hope does spring eternal huh? For now let’s take Jordan and Lucille at their word, and ask them at the next meeting – DEMAND them at the next meeting – to join the Mayor, end this useless fight, and start moving forward toward a new Anaheim.
Eh?
It means that they already have Latino-friendly white corporate people lined up to be candidates in the districts.?
Don’t forget corporate friendly Latinos who look like me, but don’t think like me.
Once again, more ballots were cast in Huntington Beach (91,663) than in Anaheim (91,204) and the DPOC looks ridiculous with their double-standard!
If districts are so great, then why doesn’t the DPOC come out for them in Huntington Beach, Irvine, Orange, Garden Grove, Fullerton, Mission Viejo or Costa Mesa?
When Democrats are against districts in Huntington Beach, it looks like the DPOC is now only for districts when they think it will give Democrats a political advantage.
Are you the same guy who asked me this half a year ago? I suppose my answer would be the same:
Huntington Beach is nowhere near as geographically spread-out, ethnically diverse, or economically disparate as Anaheim.
Also, as your electoral stats show, Anaheim citizens tend to vote a lot less than HB ones, given that Anaheim’s population is a lot higher. That’s probably because so many Anaheimers feel disfranchised and unrepresented, and it’s so hard for the average citizen to run without big corporate backing. Problems that districting aims to solve.
Also, I’m not sure I’m against districting in HB either. I know it was defeated back in the 90s or something, but I wasn’t paying attention back then.
It hasn’t come up in HB. I might well support it if it did, but it doesn’t seem to be as much of an issue there. That may be because, to the best of my knowledge, ethnic minority segments of HB haven’t been prominently victimized by police over the past half-year or so. (HBPD seem to be considered an “equal opportunity” organization in that respect. Young people might have a valid complaint, as I recall from once being a young person there.)
Districts are not always critical; they are a response to a problem. Anaheim has a problem.
It did come up
in the 90’s2004 in HB and got defeated. I forget why, I wasn’t paying much attention to local stuff back then.“There is nothing good about districting,” said council member Debbie Cook in 2004. The Huntington Beach Democrats Connie Boardman, Debbie Cook, and Jill Hardy all lined up against council districting with the sycophantic Tim Geddes in tow (I don’t think Joe Shaw was living in Huntington Beach at the time).
http://www.ocweekly.com/2004-02-26/news/power-politics/
It’s been pointed out the Huntington Beach has more voters than Anaheim. It should also be pointed out that Irvine is more spread out than Anaheim. Irvine has the most square miles of any Orange County city and you don’t see Democrats calling for districts there either!
This is tiresome. Democrats didn’t start the push for districting in Anaheim. Nonpartisan independents at Los Amigos did, and they were joined in support by both Republicans and Democrats in Anaheim (and also opposed by Republicans and Democrats in Anaheim.)
I’m glad the DPOC has come out on the right side this time in this town; a lot of us pushed them to.
Debbie Cook, Connie Boardman, and Jill Hardy had nothing to do with this decision as far as I know, let alone Geddes.
I don’t know what the arguments are for in favor of districting in HB (let alone in 2004) or Irvine. Maybe it’s a great idea. Mauybe you should get it started.
Actually Debbie Cook did go on and on at me not long ago about how districting in Anaheim is a horrible idea that I shouldn’t support. That’s just something she and I disagree on.
It means that some people’s investments (more of time and effort and reputation than of money) in the party are paying off. (I’m speaking for myself here; I can’t speak for the party.)
I hope that we’ll be a party that more people think is worth voting for. That’s where the readers come in. If the response to taking these sorts of positions is that we lose support — and unfortunately we will surely lose some, so the question is how much that is exceeded by how much we gain — this will become less likely. If we get more votes, volunteers, small contributions, etc., as a result of our taking politically risky stances on sensitive issues, this sort of action will become more likely.
Lest I seem partisan — I’d be happy to see the OCGOP swoop in and agree with us on any of these issues, be they district elections in Anaheim, stopping the 405 toll lanes, pushing for humane treatment of the homeless, sensible immigration reform, supporting worker’s rights, respect for women’s safety and autonomy, and in support of a rational approach to San Onofre. (I believe that we have some prominent Republican allies on all of these issues — but they have tended not to get the support of the OCGOP generally.
By all means — take away these campaign issues from us! We’ll find something else to run on. But until you do, people will have an increasingly better idea what we stand for — and that we stand with most people. The difference between the party that will take a stand and the one that will pretend to be less offensive than it is will become more stark.
it is not clear to me.
Do they want 6 district with the rep living within that district and each voted for city wide, like in Santa Ana?
Or district only voting for for each member in each disrict?
I’m pretty sure – and I hope – that what the DPOC is backing, and what Anaheim gets, is the district only voting. Otherwise the cost and difficulty of running doesn’t change at all.
You guys in Santa Ana should change to that as well. Maybe you’d manage to get a couple of conservatives, and/or a couple of white people or Viets.
Vern, I thought ward specific voting was a good idea twenty years? Ago, but then I looked at the rules of elections, how councilmembers represent city residents, etc. I came to the conclusion that the 3 choices the voters of Santa Ana had to pick from way back in 1986, the current make-up was the best of the bunch. And in 88 to 92 was an election for ward specific voting that the voters rejected.
Anaheim like Huntington Beach is messed up because those cities do not require the councilmember to come from and reside in the ward they represent.
About that last sentence: Anaheim, like Huntington Beach, doesn’t have wards. Are you thinking of Santa Ana and Newport Beach?
I think cook just means they’re not responsible to a certain area. So most of em end up from Anaheim Hills or Southeast HB.
Maybe — and yet, they don’t have wards, so that last sentence is nonsensical.
It’s certainly what I want. (Well, eight would be better.) We’ll see if it’s at issue. It would not be too hard to get the Central Committee to take an explicit vote, if need be.
Sure enough as I kind of expected, the corporatist shill Cunningham is out with his reaction to the Dems doing this. I’m not in the mood to link to him, but here’s most of what he’s saying:
“As Orange County Republicans snooze, blissfully ignorant of the dangerous possibility of council districts being imposed on Anaheim (or in some cases, providing misguided support for them), the OC Democratic Party is lending its voice to the left-wing coalition pushing for them. This just came over the transom from the OC Dems…
[ah, always the transom with Matthew…]
“There is much to say about council districts, but I’d like to point out that the single-member district system being pushed by the OC Democratic Party, Mayor Tom Tait, OCCORD and others is the least representative option.
“Under such a system, Anaheim residents would be governed by a council the majority of whom they had absolutely no voice in electing. How on earth can anyone rationally claim that is more representative, more democratic than Anaheim’s current at-large system?”
Obviously Matt thinks that the OC GOP should put all its effort into opposing districting, exhibit A being that the hated and feared Democrats are now supporting it.
This could be the beginning of a wonderful quarrel… maybe over the weekend…
Wow — that’s sort of stupid. Does he also think that the President is therefore necessarily more representative of the popular will than either house of Congress; or that the Governor is more representative than either house of the Legislature?
Seriously, was he always misfiring this badly? How did he ever get taken seriously to begin with, then?
Here’s the asterisk kicker that’s less discussed.
“Note: Because Anaheim is a Charter City, voters must approve any districting plan in order for district elections to be enacted.”
An at-large system will essentially have to phase out itself out. Not impossible, highly unlikely, but quite the contradiction!
I’m not sure about this, but I would think that there may be some exception in the rules regarding Charter Cities for changes made to settle a bona fide adversarial lawsuit. It would surprise me if all such settlements have to go to the voters. So the question is: does this fall into an exception?
My layman’s reading of the lawsuit’s remedy is that it preempts the City Charter from overriding the intent of the Voting Rights Act.
The PRAYER FOR RELIEF section states:
“ Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that this Court:
A. Find and declare that Defendant‟s imposition or application of an at-large method of election to elect its City Council violates the CVRA and that the adoption of an election system using single-member districts is required to remedy the violation;
B. Grant permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant from imposing or applying its current at-large method of election to elect the City Council;
C. Grant injunctive relief mandating that Defendant impose and/or apply district-based elections, as that term is defined by California Elections Code § 14026(b), including the adoption of fairly constituted districts that do not dilute Latino voting strength or otherwise discriminate against Latinos, or other alternative relief tailored to remedy Defendant‟s violation of the CVRA;..”
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA VOTING RIGHTS ACT – CASE NO.: 394360-6
http://cbsla.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/98575247-moreno-v-anaheim-complaint.pdf
That’s not surprising. Sort of undercuts the big “here’s what everyone’s overlooking!” comment above, doesn’t it?
How so, grand whitesplainer? That’s just the plaintiff’s ‘prayer for relief’ from the court…
And remember, this blog was dry humping the Mayor’s 6-district charter amendment from August to vote on districts.
Huh? I would still be “dry-humping” that idea, if that’s your slang for supporting it enthusiastically. That was to get six districts onto the November 2012 ballot – a Presidential election year, where it would have had a great chance, and we would have all this bullshit and expense behind us now, and everyone would be figuring out what their districts were and who was gonna run in 2014, for a much better election, much better chance for the little guy, much better Council (probably.)
That’s a little different from the trepidation we feel over it going up to a vote at a low-turnout special election, such as June 2013, Nov 2013, June 2014, or even Nov 2014 – the latter of which obviously would result in the new districts not even taking effect till the 2016 elections.
What are you so snotty for?
GSR, if you’re going to race-bait me, you’ll have to find the answer elsewhere. Read the post above and then meditate on it.
Vern, I think it’s probably part of GSR’s OC Weekly employment contract.
Vern – Anaheim is reactionary as shit and in a post “riot” election produced a ‘monoracial’ city council (aka all gabacho). The six districts (should be eight) charter amendment could have very well failed despite the larger voter turnout.
Bloviator- When the DPOC put out their statement in favor of settling, they noted that districts, under the terms of it, be put before voters. That’s what essentially happened in Compton, a charter city as I understand it, last year where the ballot measure prevailed handily, but Anaheim isn’t Compton.
Vern wrote here, “I think that’s at the urging of Los Amigos’ Dr. Jose Moreno, a plaintiff in the suit. If we take councilwoman Lucille Kring at her word too, we should have a majority of three (c0unting Tait) who should vote to immediately settle this lawsuit and send the reform to Anaheim’s voters.”
For the ‘settle and vote’ track, which has its support articulated here and in other places, in Anaheim’s case it would have asked the same electorate that produced the current council devoid of minorities to vote in a mechanism that the lawsuit says would politically enfranchise Latinos. The dynamics will change in the election cycles to come, but voters are pretty predictable here (Brandman: pringle protege / Kring: three time councilwoman, name recognition)
The City, on the other hand, is heavily hanging its hat on Anaheim’s charter status in terms of fighting the claims, the plaintiffs ‘prayer for relief’ aside.
I dunno, GSR, that all seems like bloviation to me. Too long for Gustavo to read, anyway. I guess I’m entitled to ignore it by your standards.
Aight, coo! Perfect time to ditch this shit! I don’t know about the lawsuit, but I think I’ve found ways to gain temporary injunctive relief from your bloviating!
As you said, think what you will. Keep calling people out for being white, though. That’s a sure road to success. (For Gustavo, not you.)
When someone is paternalistic in their lecturing tone blissfully unaware of the smug white privilege underpinning it I will always call it out for what it is. Don’t consider it a “compliment!”
Of course, you’ll feel compelled to offer some slippery rebuttal. Too bad I won’t care.
It’s no slippery-slope rebuttal: you, like your mentor, call names and dodge debates when you don’t think you’d win on the merits. You have a problem with my “paternalistic” age, fine. Go after it if you must. But that’s not the same as my race attacking my race. Do I go you for coming from a dominant-religious background (speaking of privilege)?
Your position that no one has the right to criticize you — you call it “lecturing” — is also a basis of male privilege and class privilege, by the way — and you shouldn’t get so hoity-toity until your paycheck doesn’t come largely from shady ads for the sex industry.
District/ward only voting. With a 30 day residency requirement means a rich white republican can easily win any council seat involved. And if not, the recall requirements would be so small that if a councilmember did not vote the way the controlling majority demands, that member could be recalled easy and the rich white republican then taking over that seat.
So before you say district/ward only voting is the way to go, “just because its difference”, you should think about how the changes affect all aspects of city business.
A rich white Republican can run — and can flood the mailboxes with literature. That doesn’t mean that he or she can win, easily or at all.
And by the way, I think Santa Ana’s system (before “GG”) is the best of the bunch.
Of course you do — it allows all segments of the city to vote to override the wishes of voters in a particular district. If Anaheim were predominantly African-American minority rather than Latino, the districts with the highest minority population could be represented by the likes of Alan Keyes, Herman Cain, and Ken Blackwell — inimical to the interests of their communities, just as the majority voters would prefer. No thanks.
Greg, do you believe that the voters should only / or first and foremost, vote race as the qualification?
“just as the majority voters would prefer. No thanks.” (who cares what the voters prefer? Is that how they do it in Brea?)
My statement was about their preferring someone who shares their perspective on life and who empathizes with their personal situation. Like it or not, race and ethnicity (like other demographic factors) have a lot to do with that.
Should it be the paramount consideration? In my opinion, no, but democracy means that others get to form their own opinions.
(We don’t let outsiders know how we do it in Brea.)
Greg, would the redistricting be simular to segreation? where each district must be one color or ethisity?
1 – white
2 – asians
3 – Latinos
4 – blacks
5 – old people (all kinds)
6 – mixed (all kinds)
if they go to 8
7 – glbt
8 – wealthy government emplyees
Before answering that question, cook, let me ask you one: was the partisan Congressional redistricting that took place after the 2010 census in states including Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin based on such criteria?
(Oh, what the heck: the answer to your question is “no.” Actually, it’s “Durrrr, no.”)
“Oh, what the heck: the answer to your question is “no.” Actually, it’s “Durrrr, no.”)”
Thanks for answering your question, because I have no Idea about those other states redistricting.
I was at the California redistricting meeting held here in Santa Ana and told them I thought that Anaheim and Santa Ana should each be the center of separate assy districts. I thought that there was enough Latino’s to justify 2 districts.
But alot of people (mostly Latino’s) said they need a super district of those two cities to protect their edge.
Now they got Tom Daly. (way to step in it)
TOuche, cook…
The questions about the validity and feasibility of elections by districts, instead of at-large ones, are legitimate. It would be a change, and as any change, it encounters resistance and requires explanations.
District by Elections would better address the root causes of the problems affecting our City, the high level of disparities, which to a large extent sparked the last year’s riot.
“…While much of the country watched in shock, people who study urban unrest and police community relations say that Anaheim, a Southern California city best known as the home of Disneyland and a seat of Orange County conservatism, shares the social tinderbox characteristics that have set other communities ablaze from Detroit to Los Angeles.
“Riots don’t just happen, said Clemmet Price, a Rutgers University-Newark historian who has written extensively about urban unrest. “There is a long complicated history that would make a city susceptible to something like that.” …
There are lessons that cities and police departments should learn from places like Newark, Detroit and now Anaheim, said Price.
“Power-sharing is essential,” said Price. “When the demography of a city or for that matter a state or region is changing as it is always want to do, it is the responsibility of elected officials and civic stewarts and clergy to see the writing on the wall.” …
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/28/anaheim-riots-police-shootings_n_1712105.html
The feasibility of implementing districts elections will depend on the outcome of the lawsuit. The Prayer for Relief is requesting: “Grant permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant from imposing or applying its current at-large method of election to elect the City Council”
“District by Elections would better address the root causes of the problems affecting our City, the high level of disparities, which to a large extent sparked the last year’s riot.”
….How so? Based on what evident do you make this claim? And why hasn’t “District by Elections” worked in Chicago Ill. ?
“Defendant’s imposition or application of an at-large method of election to elect its City Council violates the CVRA”
….How can the voter’s right to choose the candidate of their choice violate the CVRA? And how are the voters rights protected if they are only allowed to vote on candidates that special interest allow on the ballot?
This is my attempt to succinctly answer your questions. I invite you to read the links below for a fuller coverage.
One of the evidences is the failure, in Anaheim, of the current at large electoral system to reflect the demographic composition of the city, and most importantly to identify and address the needs of the community as a whole.
A voter’s right to choose the candidate of their choice may not violate the CVRA if the voting procedure and practices do no discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in the Voting Rights Act. The contention is that Anaheim is violating the CVRA.
One of the conclusions offered by one of the expert witnesses, from the City of Chula Vista which had experienced a CVRA challenge, at one of the meetings of the Anaheim’s Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections, is the following:
“So, here are some takeaway points I would offer. First, under the California Voting Rights Act, and given the apparent anomalies in voting patterns between Latino and non-Latino candidates, there is a distinct possibility that Anaheim may be required to abandon its at-large city council elections in favor of a by-district voting system for electing its city council members.”
Regarding the question of special interests allowed on the ballot, I think we should overturn the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.
http://www.anaheim.net/images/articles/4957/12_13_12_CityofVista.pdf
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA VOTING RIGHTS ACT – CASE NO.: 394360-6
press.com/2012/06/98575247-moreno-v-anaheim-complaint.pdf
Thanks for your input, Toro.
I will be interested in the reasoning the court gives if it rules agaist Anaheim.
I bet the case will end up being poseponed because the US Supreme court is looking at the gutting the voting right act as unconstitutional, and that will affect California’s too since its a tag along.
No it wouldn’t affect California’s unless they stretch even further than they have any right to do. It can be justified under our own state Constitution.
I read more on this law. It is just a bad law.
I bet if you looked up the state senators and assy members who pushed this pos upoun us Californians, They may be members of the law firms that are now making millions off of these bs lawsuits.
So you don’t like the California Voting Rights Act either, huh? Wrong people keep voting or something?
It’s come full circle. Once to stop segregation from affecting voting rights, now these air heads want to use segregation to manipulate voting rights.
The voting supplies are printed in 5 languages here in Orange County. When I worked for the US census we had a chart of 134 languages, using the basis of the BS lawsuit, Anaheim would need 134 districts, gerrymandered to 1 or more people of the 134 to protect their status as minorities.
Segregation? You mean “districting”? That’s “segregation” to you?
Cook, if you want to get upset over the use of districts to group people by race, we should get together sometime and I can show you maps from all over the country that do it. You’ll have used up all of your outrage by the time you’re done. You’ll end up looking like Yanni.