Well, Councilman David Penaloza did say, “Let a judge decide,” while voting to proceed full steam ahead with the flawed recall election of his colleague Jessie Lopez. And this morning he’s gotten his wish, except there are still no definitive answers. Judge Craig Griffin just COULDN’T decide at this point, this being unprecedented, and lots of people liable to be “disenfranchised” no matter what he finally decides January 12.
Santa Ana voter Guadalupe Ocampo, who is now a Ward 6 resident but at the time of Jessie’s 2020 election (before redistricting) was a voter in Ward 3, was one of the 1,186 voters who SHOULD have got ballots for this recall and DIDN’T, and yesterday she sued for an injunction to stop this recall in which she and her neighbors are being deprived of the legal right to vote. (And of course, if the courts agree with the ROV that the pre-redistricting map is the one that should have been used, that means the recall fell 200-something signatures short of what they needed to qualify this damn thing.) But the cautious Griffin feels he must do a lot more research before making any decision.
Plaintiff Ocampo had a secondary request – that if Griffin wouldn’t just cancel the election, he should at least order ballots to be sent to her and her 1185 neighbors so they could have a vote on this thing – something the ROV confirmed they could accomplish within a day. (There is only a week left till election day.) Griffin felt this would be WAY too last-minute. (But why not postpone the Nov. 14 election day?) “They’ve received no campaign material, they don’t know enough about this election.” Ocampo’s counsel, Gary Winuk, aptly retorted “Voters have a right to vote, not a right to receive mailers.”
Participating in the hearing via Zoom were lawyers for Santa Ana AND the Registrar of Voters. Many of us were surprised and disappointed that the Registrar didn’t mention that he would be unable to certify the results when they’re concluded.
The Recall proponents’ counsel, unsurprisingly, was Mark Rosen, a former Garden Grove Councilman, conservative Democrat, and crack election lawyer who always seems to be the choice of anti-progressive forces. When discussing dates to come back and revisit this issue, he pointed out, “It’s very possible the recall will not succeed, and then this whole case will be moot!” True that, I guess, but what a waste this has been.
Two of Griffin’s better-known election decisions of recent years were:
- Forbidding candidate Vince Sarmiento from mentioning his endorsement by the DPOC for a race – Supervisor – that is supposed to be nonpartisan. Winner = Kim Bernice Nguyen!
- Allowing, against plaintiff Mark Daniels’ request, moonbat Lenore Albert to
use “attorney” in her designation in a DA race when she’d been disbarred (or something?)to stay on the ballot for DA even though she’d used “attorney” as her designation when she’d been suspended. Winner – Moonbat!
Griffin is proud of doing his own research on important matters like this, not leaving it up to his clerks. An excellent place for him to start if he hasn’t – or at least for you and I to start – is THIS brand new piece by the excellent Jill Replogle of LAist– a new acquaintance of mine from whom I’ll proceed to quote liberally (but DO click on her story!).
LAist spoke with six outside election experts to get their opinions on the Santa Ana recall snafu, two of them county registrars of voters.
They told us:
- Page, the O.C. registrar of voters, is right — there is a fundamental error in the Lopez recall election. The wrong district boundaries were used to calculate the number of signatures needed to trigger the recall and to determine who gets to vote.
- Nevertheless, California election law isn’t exactly straightforward on the subject.
“I can certainly understand how mistakes are made because the law is not at all clear,” said Douglas Johnson, president of National Demographics Corporation, a company that assists local governments with redistricting.
The experts consulted by LAist agreed that California law and court precedent have established that elected officers are to represent the population that initially voted them into office. And, that the same population should get to decide whether to remove their representative from office…
AND…
What state election law says, and doesn’t say
When Santa Ana adopted its new district boundaries, the city council passed an ordinance stating the new boundaries would go into effect starting with the November 2022 general election “and subsequent elections thereafter.”
But that seems to contradict state law. California election code states that new city council districts will take effect at the first election following adoption of the new boundaries, “excluding a special election to fill a vacancy or a recall election.”
Johnson noted that the “excluding” subclause is key but easily ignored.
“It’s only a couple of throwaway words, but they have huge impact,” he said.
The California Secretary of State’s 2023 recall procedures guide says nothing specifically about how to handle a recall election after redistricting.
Johnson and Woocher said court precedent is much more decisive on the matter. Woocher noted a 2021 opinion from the California attorney general regarding a special election held after a San Luis Obispo County supervisor died during his term in office. The state attorney general determined that the district boundaries in place when the supervisor was elected, in 2020, should apply to the special election to fill his seat.
In a letter to Santa Ana’s City Clerk advising her of the mistaken boundaries in Lopez’s recall election, O.C. Registrar Page cited a different attorney general opinion, from 2014. That opinion suggested that a city council member was unlawfully appointed to serve out the term of his predecessor, who resigned, because the new member didn’t reside within the city council district boundaries that existed when the incumbent was elected.
But long story short, Judge Griffin felt he didn’t have enough time to make an “intelligent decision” on this flawed recall, so he’ll decide on the legitimacy of this election January 12, long after the votes are counted – awkward!
Till then, we KEEP FIGHTING!
So, if the recall vote goes against Jessie Lopez is she immediately removed from her seat on the Santa Ana City Council – or not?
I would think not – it’s still the case that the Registrar of Voters will not and cannot certify the election. But I’m gonna check on this again. I’ll be adding a lot more to the story in the next few hours, I just wanted to beat the Voice and Register to this story!
What a shit show
I really don’t see how this Bob Page guy can remain employed as ROV.
Perhaps, since SA is a charter city, the Santa Ana Ordinance 2022 boundaries would supersede State law.
Rosen will probably try arguing that. Bad luck to him.
Of course as he said, Jessie may very well win, and this shitshow and its horrific smell will gradually recede from us.
That, unfortunately, is a possibility. I lost one case for CATER (I think that this was the “bond approval without a public vote” case) on the basis that the City could ignore state law. I still think that it was a horrible, precedent-mangling decision.
If the recall election does happen & is successful – would Jessie be removed immediately – as in a “normal” recall?
Dude nobody knows. This is what the dimwits on TV call “unchartered territory.”
But Mikey Gates has lost several cases trying to claim charter-city HB doesn’t have to follow state law, right?
As the smoke clears, that seems to be what this is about – Santa Ana’s slapdash ordinance versus state law.
Obviously, there has to be limits on a city’s ability to flout state law. They couldn’t outlaw voting and have incumbents appoint their successors, for example — much as they might want to.
Thinking back to the Anaheim case, that was about Anaheim following its OWN law so that won’t be different.
I could go research this but someone wants me to write an Open Thread….
A couple of things:
Homelessness has decreased substationally…. I don’t know what Santa Ana you live in! It is as the dude said OUT OF CONTROL.
As for the previous poster commented on her photo, projection much? You use unflattering pictures all the time Including in this article of the mayor.
Paul is right. Just like Anaheim, the mayor is the daughter of a prominent, politically connected lawyer.
Whether she survives the recall/lawsuit/appeal Ms. Lopez’s Goose is cooked.
So. In your view, Jessie’s Goose is cooked even if she wins. Interesting, I wonder how that works.
You don’t write too clearly, but I think you are saying that homelessness has NOT decreased “substationally.” Well, people see what they want to see, but facts are facts – HOMELESSNESS IN SANTA ANA FELL 44% FROM 2020 TO 2022, since Jessie and her allies have been in charge.
That’s from the County’s “Point in Time Count,” not somebody’s feelings. https://www.santa-ana.org/santa-ana-homeless-population-fell-44-from-2019-to-2022/#:~:text=Santa%20Ana%27s%20homeless%20population%20declined,Time%20Count%20report%20released%20today.
I believe that is substantial, or substational, or whatever.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen Valerie in person, but if you’re talking about Vern’s column that’s pretty much what she looks like. He didn’t need to hunt for the worst around, which this isn’t.
You can see a photo of Jessie here as well. It takes some real hard work (and perhaps some intentionally bad processing) to make her look like Kim Jong Un. By the way, projection means I do it 100% and my target does it 0%. Here, my target does it 100%, so at most you could accuse us of being just as bad as them. Except that we weren’t, so no protection.
Why don’t you go lean on Penaloza for bailing on the recall? That seems like a good use of your rhetorical talents.
Some trolly commenter above or on another recent story suggested we look at the “consultants” the different cliques of Democrats here use or used.
Does that mean Valerie and Phil are… MELAHAT-MADE? That would check out, and be very good to know!
Here are Valerie’s top contributors (ignoring independent expenditures) in 2022, according to Transparency International:
This organization has been paid by the candidates and committees listed below.
Total Payments
Candidate
Committee
$1,500.00 Orange County Professional Firefighters Assn Local 3631 PAC
$1,000.00 Apartment Association of Orange County PAC
$1,000.00 Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs PAC
$1,000.00 California Apartment Association PAC
$1,000.00 California Real Estate PAC (Crepac) – California Association of Realtors
$1,000.00 Laborers International Union of North America Local 1309 PAC
$1,000.00 Manufactured Housing Educational Trust PAC / Mhet PAC
$1,000.00 Northgate Gonzalez LLC and Affiliated Entities
$1,000.00 Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties’ Community Action Fund PAC
$1,000.00 Republic Services Inc and Affiliated Entities
$1,000.00 Service Employees International Union Local 721 Ctw Clc State & Local
$1,000.00 Southern California District Council of Laborers PAC
$1,000.00 Avelino Valencia Avelino Valencia for Assembly 2022
$1,000.00 Tom Daly Daly for Assembly 2022
$975.00 Building a Stronger California Sponsored by Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters
$600.00 Roofers Political Education and Legislative Fund of the United Union of Roofers Waterproofers & Allied Workers
$500.00 Communications Workers of America Committee on Political Education Political Contributions Committee (Cwa Cope Pcc) (Fed PAC Id #C00002089)
$500.00 Communications Workers of America Southern California Council PAC
$500.00 Dimarco Araujo & Montevideo a Professional Law Corporation
$500.00 Jeffrey a Kaplan
$500.00 Latinas Lead California
$500.00 Tom Umberg Colonel (ret) Tom Umberg for Senate 2022
$249.00 Edison International & Affiliated Entities
$249.00 Michael Harrah Including Aggregated Contributions of Caribou Industries Inc and Eastcom Corp
$249.00 Ware Judith/ware Disposal co Inc
(My guess is that those $249 contributors thought that they were sneaking in under a $250 disclosure limit. HA-HA!
The only expenditure this shows is:
$2,601.00 Cops Voter Guide Inc 10/07/2022
If she didn’t have any more than that — well, that’s sort of telling about her relationship with SAPOA, wasn’t it?
My guess is that the City should have better records, but based on this I do wonder where the money given to her went. Maybe I’ll explore that some other day.
Obviously a lot cheaper to win in Santa Ana than Anaheim. Still we see unsurprisingly that her largest contributors are “public safety,” developers, and landlords – the same folks trying to get rid of Jessie so that people like Valerie can run the town.
If memory serves — and y’all know my standard disclaimer there — Judge Griffin DID rule for Mark Daniels on the matter of Lenore not being able to use the ballot designation of “Attorney” during a time when she was suspended. (That suspension was later voided for reasons that, as I recall, had to do with the State Bar’s own interests in a legal battle with her.)
What we LOST on was the question of whether Lenore should be removed from the ballot because she had signed a mandatory form, explicitly required in the Elections Code, attesting that she was a California attorney in good standing and able to practice, at a time when she was suspended. I knew of this form because I had signed it myself, I believe under penalty of perjury!, during my protest run for DA back in 2014. I was absolutely gobsmacked when the Judge just flat-out read that requirement out of the qualifications to run. As I recall, his reasoning was that she might have her eligibility reinstated before the election — which did happen! — but I didn’t and don’t think that that eliminated the problem of her having made that representation at a moment that, according to the Bar, itt wasn’t true.
Lenore may challenge me for saying this here. I suppose that that would be a good reason to start covering her adventures with the Bar over the last year, which I’ve mostly not reported on — so if anyone wants to be drowned in that mire then you know which way to root!
Regarding his future decision the judge gave 3 possibilities:
1. That they (recall supporters) did it just right and it’s not a problem.
2. They did it wrong, but there was no time to challenge the certification and so it’s going to stand even if it’s wrong.
3. It’s wrong in something that is so fundamental, it’s going to have to be thrown out.
Yes, as reported by both Brandon and Cunningham (who wasn’t there but someone must have told him.) I didn’t think that line was interesting enough to include.
It seems damn interesting to me. IMO, I don’t think that the situation meets option no. 3 level – that leaves 1 & 2. Neither of which would be desirable to the No Recall camp.
Those are obviously the options.
Except, it seems to me, he could’ve ordered the extra 1200+ ballots sent and delayed election day a couple weeks, but nobody suggested that. And that still wouldn’t address the 200+ signature shortfall.
Any such order #1 or # 2by Judge Griffin would be appealed, with a stay of her removal. Presuming that they would tabulate it — and I think that they shouldn’t — the judge would have to order the ROV to certify the election. I doubt that that order would get past the local appellate stage, which would probably find against his order, but if it hit the state Supreme Court I wouldn’t expect it to be upheld.
What you don’t seem to understand is that an election in which the wrong people voted DOES fail under #3 because that’s a fundamental failure.
Have you heard about SANTA ANA’S THREE STOOGES? At the last council meeting Mayor Valerie Amezcua said that, if SA voters next year decide they want to let their undocumented neighbors vote in city elections, she HOPES HER OWN CITY GETS SUED OVER IT. Literally, her words were, “I know for a fact we are going to be in litigation. I know it and I welcome it.” NOT making this up.
https://voiceofoc.org/2023/11/santa-ana-noncitizen-voting-undocumented-residents/
On the heels of that brash invitation, her ally David Penaloza announced that he would refuse to provide funding to defend the City from that lawsuit. Quote: “You will not have funding to protect this litigation. I can tell you right now, you will not.” Bold, bold words for a person in the fucking Council minority!
But that’s not the worst of it – David outdid himself referencing Council’s oath to “to defend the U.S. against all enemies foreign and domestic… WHICH WE HAVE RIGHT HERE!” So, to him the Santa Ana citizens and residents pushing for this reform are foreign and domestic ENEMIES OF THE USA! He probably thinks I’m an enemy of the country, and Vince Sarmiento too – I didn’t know David hated us so much.
Penaloza joined the loathsome Phil Bacerra in ridiculing speakers and proponents from local legal clinics, including UCI School of Law’s immigrant rights center, as “armchair lawyers chasing paychecks” – as if David and Phil know so much about, um, anything!
And of course Phil, as usual, accused the progressive majority of putting this on the ballot “in order to look good before an election” – no doubt Phil projection. I don’t know how popular the non-citizen voting initiative will be among voting citizens – it looks like a risky move to me and probably politically dangerous. So NO, Phil. This doesn’t make sense as pandering. This is folks doing what they think is right, which we understand you can’t understand.
And this is the Santa Ana minority that WANTS TO BECOME THE MAJORITY – three grotesque, mean children. That much more important that Jessie beats this recall!
Here’s the Kleptoscribe’s take on that meeting: https://ocindependent.com/2023/11/santa-ana-city-councils-progressive-majority-puts-noncitizen-voting-on-november-2024-ballot/
Matt literally writes that “Councilmember Thai Phan [he’s made the unilateral decision not to use her middle name ‘Viet’ as everyone else does] is the prime mover behind the effort to allow non-Americans to vote in city elections.”
Thai told me the other day that’s not at all true, that the main drivers of this are Johnathan Hernandez and Ben Vazquez, but that she supports it. Matt doing his best to wrap this around Thai means that his bosses at the POA and elsewhere still have their sights trained on the fine councilwoman.
“non-Americans” is dog whistley pejorative, of course, but you have to wonder at the lameness of trying to get non-CITIZENS the right to vote. No such right exists. Nobody promised immigrants taxation with representation.
As Nativio Lopez said 20 + years ago and widely discussed on this blog and it’s predecessor the SACITIZENS YAHOO GROUP:
NonCitizens have been legally allowed to cast ballots in NYC local elections for years.
That was a go nowhere in post prop 187 days and is a bad idea now.
BTW, Brandon Pho’s estimate of the Non-Citizen voter population of Santa Ana by about 50,000 people.
This is political positioning. PERIOD.
Regardless of the merits.
I never noticed until recently how much Bacerra looks and acts like Don Jr.
Wow, you’re right! I’ll have to remember that. Looks like Don Bacerra Jr. is in till 2026, when he’ll be termed out. Here is his latest:
“A lie gets halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on.”
Homelessness has gone down substantially (I forget the figure right now) while Jessie and her allies have been in charge.
On the other two things, Jessie and her majority support enforcing existing law on street racing and public intoxication. The Valerie-Phil-David minority has been pushing for unconstitutional, draconian measures, like arresting anyone who happens to be on the sidewalk when street racing is happening. THIS is the election-related pandering – all these lame efforts are solely to make Jessie look bad to help the recall.
NOW, true to form, in the last days of the election, when it’s too late to respond effectively, the Yes on Recall forces are accusing her of wanting to ABOLISH THE POLICE!
A lie gets halfway around the world… I wish Chief Valentin, with whom she has a good relationship, would make a flyer for her, but it’s too late. Good thing these Ward 3 voters I meet have good bullshit detectors.
I was trying to figure out what that that awful photo of Jessie — who usually photographs well — was supposed to invoke — and finally it hit me: they found a way to make Jessie look like Kim Jong Un.
Valerie should not be pushing lies, because there’s a handy phrase that could be flung at her for doing so.
If I had time this morning I’d write one last piece about the Jessie Recall. Maybe tonight.
What an amazing victory it will be for the people against the wealthy, greedy special interests, if things go well tomorrow! And for Santa Ana too.
Cunningham (funded by the POA) is now calling out the anti-recall forces for hypocrisy for complaining about out-of-town special interests when they enjoy the much smaller help of some out-of-town special interests: https://ocindependent.com/2023/11/jessie-lopez-allies-oppose-out-of-town-interests-unless-its-anti-cop-radicals-from-l-a/
It’s an old lame trick of Cunningham’s which we see all the time, such as when he responds to the total domination of Anaheim by Disney, developers and public safety by pointing out the ten-times-smaller contributions of unions like UNITE-HERE. As always he expects his enemies to UNILATERALLY DISARM or stand accused of hypocrisy.
The Voice today documents A MILLION DOLLARS spent on the Yes side by the police union, landlord organizations, and mobile home park owners. The NO side has spent $123k so far – what’s that, about 1/8 of the recallers? – with the biggest contributing “special interests” being a the progressive UFCW at 20k and some latino rights group at 10k. OUTSPENT EIGHT TO ONE. https://voiceofoc.org/2023/11/will-the-heart-of-oc-see-a-decisive-shift-tomorrow-on-rent-control-policing/
The YES canvassers are getting paid $25 an hour, are mostly from out of town and uninformed, and are being fed lies and exaggerations to peddle every day. We NO canvassers are being paid $20 an hour, believe in what we’re doing, and most of us are from Santa Ana. Of COURSE we’re going to accept help from LA or wherever if it’s offered.
The latest too-late-to-respond-to YES flyers accuse Jessie of wanting to ABOLISH THE POLICE (unless you read the small print closely) – absurd as she was a strong supporter of Chief Valentin who always voted to increase police funding. What is referenced is ONE LA COUNCILWOMAN, Eunisses Hernandez (whom I met once at a police-killing protest) who calls herself (or once called herself) an police abolitionist, who is opposing the recall.
Whatever happens tomorrow, Jessie is not going to be removed for a long time. Interesting that the mobile home park owners have contributed 100K to getting rid of her. Because mobile home owners ALL OVER THE STATE, and in Santa Ana particularly, need rent control to be extended to them as well – and I think this should happen ASAP next month while Jessie is still on Council.
A word on my old pal Jennifer Hall: “The City Clerk” keeps getting blamed for giving the recallers the wrong map. Jennifer started in Santa Ana in February. She says she never gave anybody any map. It was either her predecessor, or NOBODY gave Serrano and Tim Rush a map, they determined the map themselves. Doesn’t matter, it’ll still come down to a small discrepancy between state law and SA ordinance. But just don’t blame it on Jennifer, she inherited this shitshow.
If Jessie pulls through tomorrow though, what a David vs. Goliath victory that’ll be, just like 2020 and 2022 in Santa Ana! EIGHT-TO-ONE spending! And a nightmare over, hopefully an ERA of nightmares over.
Maybe Jessie said “Abolish the Police UNION!” Nah, probably unconstitutional. I’ll try again:
ABOLISH POLICE UNION CONTROL IN SANTA ANA!
When did you move to Santa Ana Vern?
When you gripe about “Out Of Town” influence, what the hell are you.
You were too stupid or too lazy to research your “Troll’s” tip about following the money….Like a true Kitchen table lawyer amatuer, Diamond documents Azmezcua’s finances, she had NOTHING to do with this, other than agreeing with the YES side. What a moron.
Do some work, look who is organizing, PAYING for and GETTING PAID by both sides (other than you who earns the ost $$$ you have in years knocking on doors.
No wonder Greg can’t afford photo shop. Maybe you could get a real job and pay Brandon Pho $60. to do the EASY PEASY research that would link your Dead Jew buddy, some other Anaheim folks to the REAL PEOPLE behind this.
Fascinating. Dipshit.
How much is Photoshop, Dipshit? Not the skimpy version, the classic one.
“Dead Jew Buddy”? Paul Wellstone?
I get it for @ $1.00 per day ($29.95 mo) for Adobe Suite. It includes six programs and you can load on three devices.
Pretty cheap
I dislike those leasing software models, so no. I prefer to own them outright and drive them until they drop.
Wrong link to kleptoscribe.
I actually had to read a few of the typically constipated paragraphs before I found out.
Whoops sorry fixed https://ocindependent.com/2023/11/jessie-lopez-allies-oppose-out-of-town-interests-unless-its-anti-cop-radicals-from-l-a/
Correction on the mobile homes bit – Santa Ana’s rent control ordinance ALREADY covers mobile home parks – the only one in California that does.
Jessie is winning, with the first reported votes which I expected to be the reactionaries.
56.1 to 43.9, with 20% of registered voters counted.
It should only get better from here, but let’s wait and see…
If she wins, my piece tomorrow will be “Jessie Beats Recall – WINNERS AND LOSERS”
It occurred to me, that even if she wins, the suit should continue challenging the legitimacy of the election. Because it’s still true that 1200+ people didn’t get to vote who should’ve, and that Rush and Serrano were 200+ signatures short, and that the discrepancy between city ordinance and state law needs to be addressed.
And it’d show us to be people of principle who are about more than just winning.
PS. I just ran that past Jessie and she is already on the same page. The lawsuit will continue, and not only did she beat the recall fair and square but it’ll be shown to be illegitimate. I wish we could make the POA pay the City the 600k they wasted on their bitter project.
Good news the recall failed .
Has Judge Griffin ruled on this yet? I thought his decision was supposed to be some time in January.
Yeah, I dunno. I was hoping they were gonna pursue this even if Jessie won, which she did. And on election night she told me they were going to. Cuz the principle you know.
But Cunningham was trashing the council majority a month or so ago for certifying the results of an election that they had said was illegitimate, just because they won. Disappointing but unsurprising. I don’t know if that means this case has been dropped.
Part of the principle of justiciability is that a live case or controversy must exist, so this might now be considered moot.
On the other hand, there’s an exception to the justiciability criterion of “standing” that allows a court to decide a case if the controversy “is capable of repetition but evades review” — which IIRC initiated with part of the holding of Roe v. Wade (!), which could be heard despite the pregnancy being over by the time the Supreme Court decided it because the law in question still existed, was still being applied, and would continue to be applied in the future. I’d argue that that analysis should apply to this case as well.