.
.
.
The City Council’s meeting videos has been down this morning — “We are experiencing technical issues and are currently working on this issue.” That’s too bad — because you’ll need to see what the Council majority did last night regarding Anaheim districting to believe it. A link to the video will be posted below, along with the time stamps for what you’ll want to view, when it becomes available. Until then, Adam Elmahrek’s piece on Voice of OC about last night’s meeting is, as usual, must-reading for Anaheim politics — and it contains many juicy quotes.
Word on the street for months has been that the City Council majority did not plan to tilt the table against Latinos by choosing a map that blatantly disadvantaged them. Instead, it would undermine reform in its choice of which four of the six new districts would go forward with an election in 2016 and which two would wait until 2018 for their first shot at self-determination. That’s what they did Tuesday night — and they did so in almost the most audacious and atrocious way imaginable.
Most shockingly — at least to anyone who might try to understand Anaheim politics using a standard understanding of party politics — the deciding vote to betray the interests of Latinos came from the Council’s sole Democrat, Jordan Brandman.
But, as last night showed once again, the two parties in Anaheim aren’t Democratic and Republican. It’s the Disney Party vs. the People’s Party. It’s all about Disney and some of its wealthy corporate associates squeezing as much money out of the city’s people as they can — a totally unnecessary and unneighborly move for one of the richest corporations in the world.
To see what happened, let’s go to the map.
Guess which Anaheim flatlands district WON’T get to vote on its own representation in 2016? Guess which one has the most Latinos?
The Council’s task last night was to choose which two districts would sit out the 2016 election. (Anaheim Hills, the district in yellow at the right, goes on for roughly the length of the rest of the city.) After the 2016 election, one of victors in the the four 2016 districts will be chosen at random to have to face re-election again in 2018. (This becomes important later on.)
When the public hearing on the meeting began, about 10 people — largely from the same coalition that pushed the “Reyes 2” map into the position of being the “Recommended Plan” of the panel of judges, spoke to ask the Council to set 2016 elections for Districts 1, 3, 4, and 5. (In order, 3, 4, and 5 will be the most Latino districts in the city. Districts 1 and 2 are pretty much equivalent. District 6, Anaheim Hills, is the least Latino.)
Mayor Tom Tait said, once public comment had ended, that coming into the meeting he had planned to propose that the identities of the districts facing 2016 elections be chosen randomly out of a hat. However, hearing unanimous support from the audience for the “1, 3, 4, 5” option, he would instead propose that plan. Councilmember James Vanderbilt seconded the motion. Not a word had been spoken supporting any other alternative when Councilmember Kris Murray was recognized to speak.
Murray proposed an amendment to the motion: that District 2 — the district immediately west of Euclid, be substituted for District 3 as having a 2016 election. Her reasoning was that she resided in District 6 and could easily represent it, while Vanderbilt (who lives in the far east — and least Latino — part of District 3) could represent that district. She and Lucille Kring repeatedly — for the first time that I can recall anyone saying from this dais, Vanderbilt included — referred to him as “Latino” — which he is, in much the same way that Barack Obama can be characterized as “of British ancestry” based on his mother.
2. The Councilwomen Hijack Vanderbilt’s Ancestry to Disenfranchise Latinos
Let’s have a little aside on that issue — before things, as they will, get even weirder:
As I recall, Vanderbilt’s mother is from either Costa Rica or Chile — definitely not Mexico. He ran for School Board the first time in 2004 using the surname “Vanderbilt-Linares” — and he lost. Since then he’s been “Vanderbilt” on GOP Central Committee, School Board, and Council ballots. Adam’s piece is very good on this:
“We have a sitting Latino representative in three,” said Kring in a reference to the Latino majority district in the center of the city. “Mr. Vanderbilt has served there, and served there honorably.”
…
The logic bewildered some in the crowd. Several had no idea Vanderbilt was Latino until that night.)
Conservative Republican Vanderbilt himself seemed somewhere between perplexed and perturbed at suddenly being anointed by the Council majority as the One True — or at least Sufficient — representative of the heavily liberal, Democratic, and Mexican District Three. Back to Adam:
Vanderbilt himself brought up a point that undermines the council majority’s argument. He pointed out that he actually won second place in the citywide election. While under an at-large system that means he still won a seat, under a district election there is no seat for second place.
It’s also largely assumed that incumbents might be moving around the city in order to run in a district where they think they will win. So if Vanderbilt moves, he’s no longer representing the district under the council majority’s logic.
None of that mattered to the Council majority. Vanderbilt’s widely unknown ethnicity and home at the edge of District 3 was useful to them in eliminating it from the 2016 election — and that is what mattered.
3. Kring Climbs on Board the Murray-mobile, but Surely Congressional Candidate Brandman Wouldn’t — Right? Right?
Kring seconded Murray’s motion to substitute District 2 for District 3. This was no surprise. Generally, on these sorts of “important to Pringle and/or Disney” issues, Murray comes briefed with the finest grade of misleading bullshit, handcrafted by the most expert dissemblers, to spray into the public’s ears. (Remember when she said, at the front end of this process, that Anaheim should have districts but allow the whole city to vote on who is elected to each seat — which defeats the very purpose of “self-representation”? Sure you do. And yes, we see you averting your gaze there, Santa Ana.)
That it would come down to a 2-2 vote with Brandman as the decider was no surprise. Normally, he would be aligned with Murray — but it would seem hard for a Democratic candidate for Congress, in a district that included Santa Ana as well as Anaheim, to slap Latinos quite this hard in the face. Murray and Brandman are devoted to each other, but they would not be above a little theater — where Murray (whose vote Kring seems to be instructed to follow in such situations) created a situation that not only ingratiated her with Republicans and those in the stripe of foothills including Anaheim Hills, but would also allow Brandman to “vanquish her” and come out as a hero to Latinos and Democrats.
On the other hand, maybe Disney just really wanted District 3 out of the 2016 election, in which event Brandman would just have to go along.
Brandman came in well-briefed — which was an early sign of trouble. He’s not going to “well-brief” himself well, which means that he had been programmed and dispatched. But was he briefed to be a hero or a traitor? While he might have come in well-briefed for political theater, all doubt quickly went away: he was there to argue that because West Anaheim — especially District 1 — hadn’t had a representative on City Council for quite some time, and while District 3 had been overrepresented (by himself, Vanderbilt, and Gail Eastman) on Council in recent years, it was only fair that West Anaheim get its two representatives immediately.
We’ll get to a much broader critique in Part 2, but this has certain problems from the very start.
First, Lucille Kring has considered herself part of West Anaheim for years — she was reportedly trying to tie her house to in the southwest corner of district 4 to what has now become District 1 — and has less than no affinity for the Ponderosa-centered “core” of District 4.
Second, District 3 has only been able to be represented by people supported by all of Anaheim — and competent Latino Democrats have generally not even run for the past decade, with the exception of Dr. Jose Moreno, who got swamped by Disney’s independent expenditures. (John Leos, remember, is a Republican; Lorri Galloway is an Iberian-Filipina from Anaheim Hills rather than, as she has reportedly sometimes claimed, actually Latino — let alone “Lorri from the Block.”)
And finally — for this installment — the people who have supposedly “represented” District 3 for the past decade have not really been representative of District 3. James Vanderbilt is a good guy, but he’s a conservative Republican generally understood to be white. Gail Eastman is, unlike most Latinos, not a Democrat — and she has been quite conservative, especially on crime issues (although she hasn’t been as wacky as Kring.) The only Democrat since Richard Chavez who has actually lived in District 3 is Jordan Brandman himself — the guy who didn’t think that Anaheim had a policing problem when he ran in 2012, the guy who practically had to be tackled by Loretta Sanchez to go along with a districting program at all, the guy who endorsed two white Kleptocratic Republicans over Democratic Party-endorsed Dr. Jose Moreno, and now the guy who has pushed off the representation of Anaheim’s ONLY majority-minority district for two years to a non-Presidential election year, when disproportionately far fewer Latinos vote!
He claims that District 2 has been unrepresented while District 3 has been represented? That’s not how Latinos in District 3 feel — and they are the ones who brought the lawsuit that led to this change! He himself is the refutation of his own argument!
The funny thing is that Jordan has been telling people for over a year that he’s likely to move. Once he drops out of the race for Congress — something that this vote seems to make almost inevitable — endorses Lou Correa for the seat, pockets the money he’s raised for a future campaign and aims for re-election to Council — the most likely district for him to head to for two years is … District 2! With Connor Traut headed for a showdown with Amanda Edinger in District 1, he could move to the west side of the Anaheim Island (which I’ve heard is the lowest crime area of District 2) right down the street from Traut in District 1, and the two of them could rule the West from right across the border.
(Hmmm … how’d that map make that result possible, anyway? I’ll have to think on this.)
More to come! Meanwhile, to get yourself up to speed for Part 2, read this. That’s going to matter.
WOW! Great insight. Now what happened to the Joe Dunn post?
That’s not my table. Your server should be along anytime. We appreciate your business.
It’s back. There were a few historical errors which are now corrected. Enjoy!
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2015/11/joe-dunn-the-man-the-record-the-interview/
Well, how many million will it cost for Kris Murray to have her way this time?
It gets better, Ryan. This is supposed to be in the next part, which I don’t have time to write today, but I’ll give you a sneak preview. Note that I’m doing this without reviewing the video, because I had planned to do so this morning and it was down. It’s up now; the hearing starts at 0:56:50 and continues on until 2:39:20. (“It’s 104½ minutes of hell!”) I don’t have time to pick out all of the time stamps within that range right now, let alone to review the full video.
I had mentioned in public comments (I was speaker #9 of 10) that there was an argument that they not only SHOULD include District 3 for 2016, but that they HAD to do so given that this emanated from of a settlement specifically regarding Latino voting. (It did not emanate from a suit over the rights of people in the 2nd district.)
Mayor Tait either picked up on my comment (which was the only time that he had heard me talk about it) or had independently reached the same conclusion. He asked City Attorney Houston whether it was the true that “1345” (as I’ll call it) put the City in a safer position than Murray’s “1245” proposal.
Houston advised the Council, based on the argument that voting rights lawsuits require showings of discrimination over a long period of time, that it would be extremely unlikely (again, I haven’t reviewed his words due to the video being conveniently out of commission this morning) for any plaintiff to prevail. I will need to review the law on this one, but I BELIEVE that there is an alternative basis for a law suit where the decision-making body has engaged in a long period of animus — intentional discrimination — against the population in question.
Imagine a lawsuit against this City Council based on establishing their animus against Latino voting rights! Imagine the evidence to be provided, even before we would get to depositions! If such a suit would make it past a demurrer — or a 12(b)(6) motion, given its likely being filed in federal rather than state court — then it is hard to estimate how many millions it might cost. I wonder if the City would just STIPULATE that the Council had shown anti-Latino animus rather than inviting any plaintiff to go ahead and prove it.
Michael “frivolous and without merit” Houston? Yeah, there’s a legal opinion I want to put more of my tax dollars into. Hey how is the Cristina Talley suit going? You know, the one where most of the SAME people fired the only Latina City Attorney in the County, without warning or prior opportunity to correct problems she was never written up for, and then replaced her within the span of one Council meeting, with a younger white guy with WAY WAY WAY less experience and they started him at higher pay than Talley had been making after over a decade on the job? Yeah, THAT lawsuit. Nope, no racial bias to see here, folks. OK honestly I think much of their bullshit is monetary and not racial, they are screwing the poor who are without a voice, and keeping them without voice is part of the agenda. That the poor happen to be largely Latino just works out that way, but they would screw them over regardless of any shared ethnic identity. But if a lawsuit for racial bias gets Talley access to the court system, then you go girl! At what point do voters who are not Latino recognize they get screwed by the bias of the Council as well, every time tax dollars are not available to fix our potholes because it sailed out the door in Houston’s hiring of outside Counsel for these multiple legal challenges that are wholly unnecessary, we all get screwed.
Watch the video. It will remind you of Big Bear. As in. “I wish a big bear would have come into the chambers from stage right and …”
So . . . the last time this guy had an opinion on how a CA voting rights issue was gonna go, it cost Anaheim $2,000,000 . . . right? Maybe more?
Over under on $2,000,000 this time around? I’ll say less. $1,650,000.
It’s funny to listen to and read the tortured “explanations” that serve absolutely no purpose. They don’t fool anybody and it’s hard to believe that even Brandman, Murray or Kring actually believe their own horse shit.
So what’s the point, other than telegraphing his talking points/marching orders to Cunningham via public meeting rather than through Todd Ament.
Murray’s initial statement was probably in part instructing Kring as to what to do.
The rest of it was just trying to make the public think that they weren’t out to screw Latino voters out of racial animus OR fealty to Disney. Heavy lifting, that.
Amanda Edinger is running? Where does this come from? I don’t know her, don’t think we have ever met even in passing, but given the Traut treatment on the West Anaheim Neighborhood Council seat and then the way Traut and Brandman were lobbying to not select her for Community Center Authority (a consolation prize if ever there was one) it is clear the Brandman/Traut coalition is terrified of her. Since they don’t tend to move without polling (even under the radar inquiries at least) I suspect they have reason to believe she would do well. Again, I don’t know her, I know people who think well of her, (and others who don’t, based largely on facebook memes and no direct contact with an individual human being, so who knows?) but I have to believe she has to have the interests of West Anaheim at heart FAR above Traut.
Let’s look at who else is getting hosed in order to push the agenda of those operating out of view.
Gail Eastman has had a candidate committee for 2016 since January 2015. Now the Kleptocracy tells her to take one for the team and wait another 2 years. Because they do NOT want Jose Moreno running in 2016 when the City skews to the left in Presidential years, then swings back to the right in off years. 2018 puts Jose Moreno in the ring with Eastman, the Republican of convenience, in a more conservative voter base year. I am sure they presented it to her as “helping” her maximize the odds. But will Eastman hold out for 3 more years? Remember, this is someone who NEEDED the stipend from serving on Council, in fact when Tait took the OCTA spot from her, the reaction of her supporters was an assumption that Tait was trying to financially punish her by denial of the OCTA stipend, that pays pretty well, and I think comes with insurance. Their claims is that Tait then threw it in her face by refusing to take the money himself. Of course it does not occur to her, or her sock puppet brigade, that Eastman did a horrid job on OCTA, she offered no evidence of understanding the complex issues she was deciding, which was reflected in refusal to even ask basic questions, because if new info was presented she would have to CONSIDER it and leave the script so carefully crafted for her . She needed to be replaced before more damage was done, and Tait could not trust any of the other sell-outs. But taking the paycheck would look like he booted her to hike his own pay (which he clearly does not need) Nope, logic does not come into play with this crowd, who operate almost entirely on emotion, wound up to hysteria by the Master of Group Think.
So I put odds on them giving her a consulting gig to tide her over until 2018, when they have convinced her a run against Moreno in a more conservative and Eastman-friendly election year works in her favor. They will find something with a private sector paycheck, but something that keeps her in the public eye (like tomorrow’s “Gift of History” event..)
OR…does Der Curtster cut her loose? Pringle’s support of Gail was always tenuous at best, while he managed to convince her he liked her, he had no respect for her. His support for her campaign came only after the filing period had been closed and he realized he would not be getting a better candidate pool to choose from, and only then did he endorse her. And he didn’t come across with a ton of money for her. I don’t see him keeping that meal warm until honey gets home from work, sorry.
Thanks so much for your service to the community Mrs. Eastman, we would like to offer you this imitation gold-tone timepiece and this lovely framed certificate of appreciation for your one term of service. And off you go…right over the side of the S.S. Pringle.
He’s done something similar with Kring. And then there’s his courting Galloway, who currently seems out of speculation for either Council, Mayor, or anything. He sure does seem to have a way with women!
Since his “way with women” always seems to involve a checkbook, I’m tempted to insert a quote from the “Fitzgerald’s Greatest Hits” album here. Nah.
Is it not obvious to nay of you that Jordan is a ghost that is doing this to help his fellow DINO Lou?
ummm…. no… doesn’t sound obvious.
Just cuz Jordan and Lou are both Dinos doesn’t mean Jordan wants Lou to beat him. And how does it help Lou, for Jordan to give Anaheim’s most latino district one less reason to come out and vote in 2016? Not everything in the OC is about Lou Correa.
What I can’t abide is Kris Murray and Lucille Kring, who spent over $2 million of taxpayer dollars fighting against district elections, to be lecturing the rest of us on what the purpose and spirit of district elections is.
Right?
Perfectly stated.
I mean that in the sense that Jordan is a Correan. Like Jannies and Trannies. this race has Correans vs the Git ‘er Dunn’s
I expect that he will eventually drop out and support Correa — especially after the deserved shellacking he will take for this assholery — but that he’s also in the race just in case Correa falters. But mostly it’s to boost his stature, meet new people, and build both his campaign war chest and his contributors list.
Dr Moreno is on the war path and is calling for Jordan’s head.
Where? Where? I wanna see!
There’s good reason for that, but it’ll be a little tough for Jose to seem impartial, cuz it’s the district HE would have run in that has been deferred to non-Presidential year 2018.