This came in late last night – over whatever it is we’ve got where the “transom” used to be – from Jose “Joe” Moreno, the only ACTUAL Republican in the AD-69 race. He’s decided after much thought to ignore the threats to his livelihood based on over-strict interpretations of the obsolete Hatch Act from vengeful allies of Tom Daly, and to stay in the race after all so that Santa Ana and Anaheim non-racist Republicans have someone to vote for. I welcome this news because, not only do I think he’s right, but I think he mainly takes votes from corporatist DINO Daly, whom establishment Republicans have coalesced around, and hence probably helps MY candidate, labor hero Julio Pérez. The following is Joe’s press release – V.
*
ASSEMBLY CANDIDATE JOSE MORENO COUNTERS
HATCH ACT VIOLATION ALLEGATIONS
PRESS RELEASE, FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, April 21, 2012
CONTACT: Jose Moreno, Email: jose@votejosemoreno.com
ANAHEIM – There has been a lot of speculation regarding my candidacy for the 69th Assembly District, and whether the federal Hatch Act applies to my campaign, which I am addressing in this press release.
With its enactment over 72 years ago, the Hatch Act was based on ending the possibility of corrupting influences from government offices that were intended to effect the outcome of “partisan elections.” While the Hatch Act’s legislative intent was just, unfortunately over time this law has been increasingly misused as a political weapon against specific candidates, with no bearing on thwarting corruption.
The Hatch Act has been used against my candidacy, which has resulted in a significant threat to my employment, which is my family’s main source of income and benefits. Shamefully, I have even been subjected to coordinated intimidation, which in my opinion has been unconstitutional and extreme.
I have steadfastly stated that I have absolutely not politicized my employment position to benefit my campaign. I do not have the ability to award jobs, government contracts, grant pay raises or give any other special favors in exchange for political support yet my main opponent, who is a County official, has done so and he is continually allowed to do so with no repercussions. [emphasis from V – this refers obviously to candidate Tom Daly. We’ll see who the main opponent reallly is soon enough…]
While some might say that this is business as usual, I say it is wrong regardless of one’s political point of view. This extrajudicial attempt to end my candidacy will not end government corruption, nor will it strengthen our democracy, instead it only serves to undermine our electoral process.
A 2008 Federal Judge ruling that was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States clearly supports my contention that our new non-partisan “Open Primary System”, is absolutely not a partisan election. In fact, our own California Secretary of State, refers to our California Voter Approved election system as a “voter nominated system.”
Prior to this June’s primary election, candidates from each of the political parties were nominated in the primary elections and they then ran against the other partisan nominated candidates in the general election. Obviously these previous elections were “partisan elections.”
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel specifically states, when referring to a Hatch Act violation that, “a partisan political election is one in which any candidate is to be nominated or elected as representing a party…” As such, since California’s electoral system this year is a non-partisan open primary election, called a voter-nominated election, in June and in November, the Hatch Act does not in fact apply to my campaign for the 69th Assembly District.
Again, the passage of Californian’s Proposition 14 and the affirmation of the Federal Judge ruling in WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE v. WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY ET AL 552 US 442, provides ample evidence that I have not violated the Hatch Act.
The fact that a political party is designated on the ballot was allowed so to give voters a sense of what the candidate thinks. I have not sought a nomination or an endorsement from any political party. Both the State Law and the ruling aforementioned are publicly accessible information that should be consulted with before alleging a possible Hatch Act violation. I am a candidate on the ballot for the 69th Assembly District and my name is Jose “Joe ” Moreno.
###
PS. Emami’s evidently written that he thinks shiny-faced Joe will make it through the June 5 top-two primary. I don’t know I’d go THAT far, but good luck Joe!
sounds like a political attorney wrote Joe’s statement ……
No, Joe wrote it. He was nice enough to let me post it first here: http://ocpoliticsblog.com/assembly-candidate-jose-moreno-counters-hatch-act-violation-allegations/
Hey, you got some nerve coming around here when you’ve got me and Diamond banned!
(BTW, readers, nothing to see at that link that’s not already here – whoever came first.)
Yeah Vern, Art posted it FIRST!! Neener, neener, neener!
“Hey, you got some nerve coming around here when you’ve got me and Diamond banned!”……… Hmmmmm
Remember the Golden Rule — Gröfaz!
Hi Stanislaw. It must be so lonely out there in your endless Exile, never having any of your comments approved … wait a second …
“never having any of your comments approved”………. Hmmmmm
So why are you going psycho when someone else never approves your commenting crapola?….. Huh?
VERN! Take this story down! Take it down! Art published the press release first!
Oh, on second thought, leave it up. If a tree falls in the forest….
“If a tree falls in the forest”………. Hmmmmm
Lets see if there will be any sound when a fatso falls.
In addition, I am preparing amicus curiae brief re above cause to be filed ex parte to further amuse you.
Someone’s suing a tree?
I will join in this amicus curiae brief – I’ve long felt that the ONLY way to determine once and for all if this falling forest tree makes a sound will be through litigation, and the discovery that will accompany it.
“I will join in this amicus curiae brief”……. Hmmmmmm
You can’t Gröfaz because you and Golem are both sued as DOES in the ongoing action against the progressive vandals who are causing the trees to fall just to hear their sound, same as you and Golem have admitted by stating: “if this falling forest tree makes a sound”, and “If a tree falls in the forest” respectively.
Me thinks Pedroza is being paid by Moreno for web services. Don’t let Pedroza babysit your Kids Jose!!!
so does that mean the republican will win?
It means that Moreno is competing with Daly (and to some extent Martinez, after the Van Tran interview) for the Republican vote, as well as with Perez, Martinez, and Barragan for the Latino vote.
It means that if the Republican leadership is truly — as I believe it is and as they deny — pushing for the “business-friendly” Daly in this election, they’re going to have to do it more explicitly and aggressively, because they can’t spread the message “hey, everyone, Moreno pulled out of the race, so don’t waste your vote on him.” Now the message will have to be something subtler, like “Moreno can’t win, so vote for the Anglo Democrat.” (Good luck with that! We’ll be waiting for reports from voters on what they hear.)
Who this hurts more depends on whether you think that more Latinos are likely to forego the three other Latinos for this one, or that more Republican voters are likely to vote for the only Republican on the ballot in the absence of a major IE campaign that I, personally, just cannot wait to cover. I think that — despite Joe Moreno sharing the name of the well-respected Dr. Jose Moreno of the School Board — the latter is far more likely.
It’s an interesting way to divide up the electorate. All I can say is that the people saying that Julio is going to take 6% or whatever those absurd polls say are underestimating it — and, so far as November’s vote is concerned, possibly by a full order of magnitude.
And I’m pleased to see that Joe is gunning for Tom. Shot by both sides! (And that DOESN”T always mean you’re right.)
Vern, I the great and wonderful Art, the most successful Latino blogger ever can do whatever I want! I can silence you and Greg but you cannot silence me. I don’t have to explain anything to you. I am Art! Now leave me alone you stalker!
The Liberal OC’s “Joe Hill,” their new pseudoymous writer of whom I had had a high opinion, purports to rip Joe’s statement a new one here:
http://www.theliberaloc.com/2012/04/23/yes-jose-moreno-you-are-a-partisan-candidate/
Hill’s main argument against Moreno (which he makes with truly Nelson-esque snottiness) is that this is INDEED a “partisan” election, because Moreno’s candidacy fees were paid for by Scott Baugh’s OCGOP, and because Moreno likes to go around bragging about being the only Republican in the race. Well, that’ll be up to a judge to decide if those two factors can make a non-partisan election a partisan election.
No thought given to the intent and spirit of the Hatch Act. As Moreno points out, Tom Daly “has [awarded jobs, government contracts, granted pay raises and given other special favors in exchange for political support] and he is continually allowed to do so with no repercussions…” while Moreno can’t and doesn’t do those things.
And yet the Hatch Act (supposedly) prevents Moreno and not Daly from running for “partisan” office, making a mockery of the Hatch Act’s spirit and intent. Moreno did NOT claim (as Hill misinterprets him or pretends to) that Daly is breaking the Hatch Act himself.
And then we also wonder – it takes some special motivation to split hairs over things like this. I like seeing Moreno in the race; not only does he have a right to be there, not only do 69th AD Republicans have a right to a candidate, but I also think his presence hurts Daly. And the only people who seem hellbent on keeping him out of the race are Daly backers. Does Hill join Chmielewski in the Daly corner, leaving only Chris over there backing the progressive candidate?
I just left a comment suggesting that someone might want to check case law rather than making definitive statements on their own ruminations.
If they’re saying that a City Council or School Board race can officially become partisan if someone gets a party endorsement, that’s news to me.
There is an exemption in the Hatch Act for ELECTED officials, ie Tom Daly.
“State and Local Employees
Hatch Act provisions do not apply to:
“#4 an individual holding public elective office. This exemption applies only when the elective office is the position which would otherwise subject the employee to the restriction of the Hatch Act.”
http://www.osc.gov/haStateLocalwhoisnotcovered.htm
I like Jose Moreno, and in spite of what he wrote in his press release and based on his unique circumstances there does NOT seem to be an exemption clause from the Hatch Act for Jose Moreno.
Francisco “Paco” Barragán
http://www.linkedin.com/in/franciscobarragancpacia
Yes, we all know the Hatch Act doesn’t apply to electeds like Daly.
And Joe’s argument is mostly based on the new top-two system not being a partisan election.
Will this question be settled by the Primary Election date?
The Hatch Act should apply only to those guilty of violating it’s provisions – otherwise it is an incumbant protection law.
DITTO
I checked yesterday: case law is thin. I tend to agree with you here, though I’m open to counterarguments.
I don’t think that it will be “settled” beyond this: Moreno is apparently in (though he may lose his job) and so his effect on the campaign as outlined above is set.