.
Anaheim’s Corporatist Council Majority. From top left clockwise:
Kris Murray, Lucille Kring, Gail Eastman, Jordan Brandman.
(hat-tip to young Jayson Acevedo for noting the Kring-Incredibles resemblance!)
Okay. So. This evening’s Anaheim Council meeting is supposed to be the one where the Council discusses, and possibly decides, what to do next on the issue of district elections. With their Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC) having given its final recommendation recently, and with the Court’s July 9 deadline for dealing with the issue approaching, they will probably decide to put the question of district elections onto the June 2014 primary ballot. However, rather than giving the public the option for true district elections, it’s suspected that the stridently anti-democracy four-member majority will instead attempt to placate and confuse much of the public with:
Santa Ana-Style Faux Districts
And what do we mean by “Santa Ana-Style Faux Districts?”
To back up a bit, people have been pushing for the reform of “district elections” in Anaheim for decades, for at least three interconnected reasons: The difficulty of running at-large in such a large city (the largest city in California that is NOT broken up into districts) has caused:
- an underrepresentation of minorities, particularly of Latinos, who comprise 51% of the town’s population but have rarely got onto the Council;
- an overrepresentation of Councilpeople from a couple of wealthy and/or well-connected neighborhoods – the Hills and the Colony – at the expense of the vast working-class flatlands;
- and MOST IMPORTANTLY to many of us, the impossibility of winning without kissing the ass of the city’s most powerful and wealthy interests: Disney, developers, hotels, and the Police Union.
Dividing the town into districts (with a Mayor elected at large) – where a candidate ONLY HAD TO RUN within his own district – would make it MUCH easier for a regular person to run without being financed and bought off by those special interests. There would be folks on the council in touch with the needs of their own areas; it’s much more likely that Latinos and other minorities would have a chance; and most importantly the expense of running would come down from an average of $200,000 to $25-35 K (depending on if it’s six or eight districts) – and even with NO money, it would be possible for a dedicated candidate to knock on all the doors in their district and get to meet most of the voters.
Now, Santa Ana, the County’s 2nd-biggest (and notoriously ill-run) city, enjoys a truly half-assed system, which some call “hybrid” or “at-large districts” – basically a candidate must RESIDE in the district – one councilperson is elected from each district – but they have to RUN in, and be elected by, the whole city. So there’s no decrease in the expense of running, and high-voting areas get to choose who “represents” all the other districts. 
It’s said that in this last Santa Ana council election, at least two candidates were elected by the whole town while losing the vote in their own district. Yes, rejected by their own neighbors who know them best, but foisted on them anyway by the big money in Floral Park or wherever.
And THIS is the system (word on the street has it) that the Council majority will now try to foist on Anaheim – one that will still allow the town’s big money to pick the whole Council, and let the Hills and the Colony pick who “represents” the flatlands. They will still call this “districting,” and demand our gratitude, but they will be giving us dog food and telling us it’s sirloin steak. (As depicted to the right.)
The Best-Laid Plans:
What went “wrong” with the Citizens Advisory Committee?
LOL. Truly interesting, what happened with the CAC. What, to all appearances, was a delaying tactic by the Council majority to prevent or postpone districting as long as possible, stacked with anti-districting appointees, eventually came back with a majority recommendation that we districting advocates celebrate: 9-to-1 for putting the question of districting on the ballot; and divided on whether the council should have SIX or EIGHT members (five votes for six, four votes for eight, old Vic Real undecided.) Now us reformers are applauding the CAC, while the anti-reformers who created it are stomping up and down and crying foul – a most entertaining sight!
What “went wrong” with this best-laid plan? Two of the anti-reformers’ appointees went rogue, in different ways. First, distinguished old West Anaheim businessman Vic Real, a Harry Sidhu appointee, paid very close attention to all the presentations, and with great difficulty decided that districting was best for Anaheim after all. The corporatist blogosphere began to call him a traitor and a “weak sister,” and who knows how much pressure and grief he went through in the two weeks between his decision and the final vote? (He blew up at ME when I tried to thank and interview him.)
Those two weeks were apparently when the anti-reformers, ably shilled for by their useful paid propagandist Matt Cunningham, gave up on defending the status quo, and fell in love with Santa Ana-style faux districts, realizing that even though it would be a LITTLE more work stacking the Council under that system, they could still do it. So when the CAC came back for the final vote, the anti-reform contingent, now having reclaimed Vic, attempted to shoehorn this option into the recommendation at the last minute.
But this time they were stymied by the loose cannon Keith Oleson, a Kris Murray appointee. Having got the post as a strong opponent of districts in general, believing them to be divisive and leading inevitably to corrupt, competing fiefdoms, he seemed to see how Santa Ana-style districts was the WORST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS, adding the need for big money onto those putative faults. (At least, we THINK that was his thinking – we can only speculate as he’s cut off ties with his oled friends.)
So once again the anti-reformers howled like stuck pigs – stabbed in the back first by Vic, then by Keith! – and the final recommendation does NOT include the Santa Ana option, despite the acrobatic spinning of Cunningham.
What the Mayor Intends to do Tonight
Mayor Tom Tait, the Council’s token human being, finds it delightful that the recommendation of the CAC is essentially the same as what he proposed last August – letting the people decide between the status quo or “six councilmembers elected by districts to be drawn by a non-partisan panel of retired judges.” Delightful, because this CAC was created by his enemies as a bulwark AGAINST what he was trying to do. Also, many think it’ll actually have a better chance PASSING next year than it would have last November.
Tait, at typical Council meeting.
So the Mayor’s intention is to keep things simple – he will propose putting on the ballot exactly what the CAC recommended. Specifically six districts, as that got one more vote on the CAC than eight districts.
I said, why not have TWO questions – first, voters would choose between the status quo and districts; THEN, they could choose between six and eight. The Mayor has no preference between six and eight; he prefers to keep the ballot question simple and based on the majority CAC recommendations; and he says it could easily be changed from six to eight in the near future if citizens want that.
If past is any prologue, ANYTHING the long-suffering Mayor proposes will die for lack of a second anyway, while we citizens applaud his lonesome courage from the peanut gallery and Anaheim’s living rooms. (See dramatization to right.)
Obviously a good way to squash any reform at the ballot box is to confuse the voters with too many options – a tried and true method which I expected the Council majority to use. BUT, instead, word from our moles on the 7th floor, as well as noise from the Jerbal, indicates that they are going to push enthusiastically for the dog food, or Santa Ana option…
How Kris Murray et al. will sell the Dog Food…
Remember that Murray, Brandman, Eastman, and now Kring, are Disney puppets – Pringle puppets – and as such, they are well-equipped to sell you ANYTHING with a smile on their faces. Tonight they will try to convince you that the Santa Ana option, which they’ll call a “hybrid” or “at-large district elections” *OXYMORON ALERT*, is:
- a beautiful and reasonable COMPROMISE between folks who want districting and those who don’t;
- something that will help hold the whole city together – and who don’t like TOGETHERNESS?
- most democratic, because YOU lucky Colony resident will get to vote for a BUNCH of councilpeople, not just your own – choosing West Anaheim’s representative, the Hills’ representative, etc… AND
- that it’ll settle the ACLU lawsuit, so that they don’t have to keep wasting hundreds of thousands of your money fighting it!
REALLY?? Would Santa Ana-style “districting” satisfy the Court?
It really SHOULDN’T, as it will still be virtually impossible for the average Anaheimer – Latino or otherwise – to have a fighting chance at getting on the Council without swearing fealty to Disney. But there are pessimistic insider voices who think it COULD satisfy the Judge. This is one weakness of basing the lawsuit on the CVRA’s racial language – a reform that makes it necessary for Disney to buy a Mexican councilman in a Mexican district COULD be considered sufficient by the Court.
COULD. We’ll see on July 9, which is when Judge Franz Miller will next be checking on the City’s progress satisfying the CVRA. He sounded pretty severe last time, telling them they’d better come back with a very serious plan…
A theory to give us all pause…
Here’s something I’ve heard theorized a lot, over on this side of the debate: There’s reason to believe that the folks behind this fight against districting – your Pringle, your Council Majority – would prefer to appeal this case all the way to the California Supreme Court, with the ultimate goal of overturning the California Voting Rights Act – or at least to affirm charter city sovereignty from state civil rights laws (a cause celebre on parts of the extreme right.)
We’ll have more soon about why we think that’s what they’re up to, but for now I have to say that if Jordan Brandman is knowingly part of a project to eviscerate California’s Voting Rights Act, then there are a lot of Democrats who should be proud as punch of helping him get to his current perch. *major snark* That’s Loretta Sanchez. That’s Lou Correa and Jose Solorio. That’s his very enthusiastic campaign manager Melahat Raifei. That’s the Democratic Party of OC itself.
And if Gail Eastman is also part of destroying the CVRA, then I hope Lou Correa is proud of helping her get into office with his ringing endorsement of her back in 2010.
We are probably going to end up needing a citizens’ initiative drive
to get real districting on the ballot for June 2014…
Sometimes we people are just on our own. But we really ARE a Rebel Alliance – stretching from … (to be continued)
Disney will run Anaheim for the forseeable future. Voters will need to organize and vote in their ‘people’. Don’t expect any assistance from the current council.
It is funny to me, that the intent of the Santa Ana hybrid is clearly to continue the big money strangehold on elections so the corporate interests can still shout down the grass roots candidates. But every now and then you get a fluke candidate, like Jennifer Rivera in ’12 and ’08, who operates a ghost campaign and still beats active, viable candidates because the name seems familiar. Just this last election cycle, Angelica Amezcua ran for Ward 3, and because of the way Santa Ana districts are set up, with At large voting, exactly as Kris Murray wishes for Anaheim….the most white conservative section of Santa Ana is now represented by a liberal Latina who voters rejected in that District! Amezcua lost to Brett Franklin in the District they were running to represent on Council in fact I think she came in 3rd. But because enough voters in the rest of Santa Ana weighed in on her, they cancelled out the will of Ward 3 voters, and imposed the will of left leaning outsiders on their more conservative northern brethren.
What a great combination we are brewing here.
We know that Anaheim’s population base is increasingly Latino, and it is predicted that within a few election cycles Latinos will be the majority in flatlands Anaheim. (some neighborhoods like mine already are-and don’t get wrong, I love the diversity of my ‘hood, and we get some amazing tamales as Christmas) now throw in that Anaheim voters are leaving their GOP registration in droves-not registering Dem but skewing to DTS/NPP as they cling to conservative values but leave the party that no longer represents them over the special interests that the Republican Council is sending our money to. Now add the secret sauce…at large district voting….and we get Liberal latino candidates representing Anaheim Hills, because the flatlands majority voted for them!
If the GOP loses Anaheim it is not a victory of the left, it is our own GOP leaders shooting themselves in the foot by clinging so tightly to their own selfish agenda, reaching into the municipal cookie jar too often, and backing “Republicans” like our current Council majority who wouldn’t know a conservative value if it bit them in the hiney.
Anaheim residents want to vote, we want a say in our own leadership, we are tired of having government mandates dictated to us by the “let them eat Mickey-shaped cake” crowd, and leadership better get with the program or find themselves hoisted by their own petards.
Why do you keep cutting off the part of the picture where that guy is wearing a tutu while Pringle is coming up behind him?
“.. the most white conservative section of Santa Ana is now represented by a liberal Latina who voters rejected in that District!”
Amezcua ran a grassroots campaign and won against the monied interests – isn’t that what you want for Anaheim Cynthia?
Did she run any campaign at all, skally? Feel free to check before you answer.
Seems like a decent councilmember, regardless, though.
No need to be smarmy Diamond.
OK: but she didn’t run a campaign, what are you talking about?
There were a lot of Amezcua signs around, but for two other Amezcuas. My understanding is that Angela Amezcua didn’t campaign.
well .. you can’t more grassroots than not campaigning – can you?
Your understanding is naïve and I believe erroneous.
Angie “Azumezcua” Oliver is perhaps the WORST example of what I think Cynthia is trying to say.
Every indication is she is a puppet with her husband pulling the strings.
You state strong and abrasive opinions for someone so anonymous.
I’ll take that as a compliment. Thank You.
I am puzzled with your basis for “a decent councilmember”. I’ve not seen that and find her to be aloof of issues and inaccessable. Smart politics but poor governance .
She was describef as a “liberal latina”, I would love to see that substantiated. Labels are dangerous and except for an emotional slip up, Mr. Errr I mean Mrs. Oliver has been disiplined enough to avoid them.
Hopefully she ends up being a good represenitive for the community, liberal latina or conservative white. Simply an agenda free representitive to the city at large, not just the wealthy enclave where she lives.
I mean that she’s been a decent vote on the issues of which I’m aware. If, as it seems to me, she’s mostly voting with the other “barons” on the City Council (i.e., not Pulido), then to me that means that she can be described as liberal, especially now that Martinez has apparently gotten past her bad case of Solorio poisoning.
Whether AA consults with her husband or anyone else on her duties and votes seems to be beside the point unless she (or her husband) is taking bribes. I don’t think that even you have asserted that, have you?
This is simply a sneaky way to maintain the (at-large) status quo.
Voters who wanted true reform will vote against this hybrid. Those who are satisfied with (their personal influence in) the current system will also vote against, leaving no change.
In the end, a judge will decide.
Problem is, common wisdom says the change in a charter city has to be approved by the people. We are between a few rocks and several unknown hard places.
There’s a WHOLE lotta people effected by this. I think the quest for change is laudable and sorely needed, but like the whole “arab spring” thing, which of course is a catalyst can lead to collateral damage.
In other words, there are a TON of people going about their simple lives in Anaheim, poor for sure, but who live happily and better then they might have elsewhere, but not as well as other people think they should.
It reminds me of the LA TIMES three dollar tee shirt article, when researched the Viet slaves forced to produced the shirts, could not understand why AMERICANS would complain, .30 cents a day was a great living in their world.
Until residents of central Anaheim stand up, rally about, this is all more political bullshit (perhaps rightfully so) it remains a bunch of liberal outsiders complaining. Absent in these post is any of the “stakeholders”. Get them involved and you’re in business.
No of course I M NOT ASSERTING THAT. But, you understand my contention, being coy doesn’t help. It is my contention that a guy named Robert Oliver, a white Jewish lawyer from North Santa Ana stands about as much chance of getting elected as Stanley (Oh Lord, I said his name……….please don’t come out) Fialia. While his wife using her maiden name and campaigning as a school teacher was able to be elected in a surprise upset.
There is nothing wrong with counseling your spouse (family or friends for that matter), but I believe this to be closer to George Wallace putting up his wife for Governor, than FDR listening to Eleanor on women’ s issues or Hillary Clintons push for Health Care reform in that administration (of course these are dramatic examples).
As I said, I look forward to an independent thinker on the City Council. Three of the sitting members Martinez, Tinajero and Benavides were elected in 2006, and little has changed, so I don’t hold out hope that all of a sudden things will with Angie Oliver, Anaheim residents should not either. That was my point, in a round about way.
What I thought Cynthia Ward was getting at was wider representation of the people for the people, Angie Oliver does not represent that. That’s all. Sorry if I was too “abrasive” for your tender emotions.
Weren’t you one of the ones calling for her to resign a couple of months back over at Pedroza’s place? I don’t think that you have the basic level of charitability towards her to decide whether she’s closer to Lurleen Wallace or Eleanor Roosevelt.
You didn’t want her to win? Should have found someone to beat her, then.
Identifying the lack of change since 2006 with anyone other than Pulido is very very odd.
Looks like Art’s imaginary friends are at it again. Why don’t you shut up and help Art pay off the money he owes Dan.
Speaking of imaginary friends somebody better call Joe Hill!
I never said I didn’t want her to win, I was just pointing out the juxtaposition.
While don’t believe I am charitable enough to be unbiased, I doubt you have a good enough understanding of the goings on in Santa Ana.
I have never called for her to do anything and I am seemingly restricted for posting there ( I think for posting complimentary things about your senate candidacy….something about putting your money where your mouth is) so you must have me confused with one of his other imaginary friends.
In the end this whole exchange doesn’t matter for the time being, based on this mornings LA TIMES.
Haven’t read it yet. Link to the story.
If Latino’s can’t get elected unless there is district specific elections, how do you explain that the 6 seats in Santa Ana are all held by Latino’s?
Where do you get the idea that it would be cheaper? I bet those numbers where pulled out of thin air.
There is only one thing that district specific does do, it make recalls easier, nd that could be the best argument for that type.
Dummy. WHITE people can’t get elected in Santa Ana unl’ess there are district specific elections. Because the majority of Santa Ana voters are Latino.
That’s how it’ll be in a decade in Anaheim too, if there aren’t district specific elections. By then the voting majority will be Latino.
We don’t want either city’s majority to run everything, leaving the minorities no voice. That would include you pasty Santa Ana white folks!
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
yawn…
No wonder it’s called a “dream”.
How’s that judging by the content of a person’s character thing working for The Birthers?
Yeah — and it hasn’t happened yet.
Why should whitey expect a council rep “all their own”?
Whites are less than 10% of the population of Santa Ana.
Besides, I don’t like white people.
You do understand that the discussion is specifically about Anaheim, right? Floral Park is not the same sort of electoral power in Santa Ana that Anaheim Hills is in Anaheim.
love the idea of district elections
its much easier and cheaper to buy council people that way
Not really. With city-wide elections, a threat of funding an opposition campaign may do the trick all by itself.
most of those threats are without substance. district elections, as someone suggested earlier, can be had for under twenty thousand compared to two hundred thousand for a city wide campaign in a place like Anaheim. with your bank, greg, you could buy two seats just on what you spend at lunch.
I am not saying that it is good or bad, and it might be very good if you can inspire a neighborhood to put together some funds, but it does make it easier to secure some influence, which when you consider your arguments, makes it a good thing for the people who are currently, allegedly under represented