Anaheim to Hold Public Hearing on Districting on Jan. 12, but Recommended Map Still Alive


 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

.

.

.

Anaheim Map - Consultant 2

Consultant Map 2 said WHAAAAAT? And holding a public hearing HOWWWWWW?

THIS IS A BREAKING STORY.

Here’s agenda item 26 for next Tuesday’s Anaheim City Council meeting.

This is a public hearing, held pursuant to direction given at the City Council meeting on December 15, 2015, regarding the formation of and boundaries for six City Council districts to be reflected in a districting map, including, without limitation, consideration, discussion, modification and potential action (including action directing staff to prepare one or more ordinances for consideration at an upcoming meeting) on one or more districting map(s) submitted during the districting process undertaken by the Anaheim Advisory Committee on Electoral Districts (“Committee”); to consider, discuss and act (including action directing staff to prepare one or more ordinances for consideration at an upcoming meeting) on which four City Council districts will hold elections in 2016 and which two City Council districts will hold elections in 2018; and such other matters as may be related to formation of six City Council districts.  At the public hearing the City Council may receive staff presentations on and may discuss and take potential action (as described herein) on one or more districting map(s) submitted to the Committee, including without limitation districting maps that include two or more Latino majority citizen voting age population districts and/or other districting maps, including the map identified as “Recommended Plan (Map 3)” in the Final Report of the Committee.

That link: http://local.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/7626/7656/7659/8600/documents.htm

More as we learn more.  Keeping the Recommended Map alive is smart.  Having a public hearing that the Council never voted to have?  Not smart.  Not at all.  (Note: now they’re saying that the public hearings are pursuant to Brandman’s asking for them during Council Communications on Dec. 15.  This will bear some investigation.)

  1. Staff Report on Item 26

DATE: JANUARY 12, 2016

FROM: OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, COUNCIL DISTRICT ELECTION DATES AND RELATED MATTERS

ATTACHMENT (Y/N): YES                        ITEM # 26

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council conduct a public hearing regarding formation and boundaries for six City Council districts to be reflected in a districting map, consider which four districts will hold elections in 2016 and which two districts will hold elections in 2018 and provide direction to staff regarding preparing an ordinance, or ordinances, for consideration by the Council at a later date on these and related matters.

BACKGROUND:

On October 6, 2015 the City Council received and filed the Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Electoral Districts (“Committee”). The full Final Report, including attachments thereto, is appended to this staff report as Attachment 1. The Final Report recommended a districting plan identified therein as Map 3, as revised (see Public Submission Tab #P31, see also Attachment A of Final Report). In addition to the Recommended Plan (Map 3), a total of 5 draft sample map plans (Drafts 1, 2, 3, 3Rev0829, and 4) were prepared by the demographic consultant retained by the City and a total of 32 maps were submitted by members of the public for community input and the Committee’s consideration. All maps presented to the Committee are appended to the Final Report and provided as part of this staff report for your review (see Attachment C to the Final Report).

At the December 8, 2015 Council meeting, the City Council postponed indefinitely adoption of Ordinance No. 6349, which was introduced on November 17, 2015 to approve the Recommended Plan (Map 3) as the districting map and also sequenced elections in that map’s six districts (districts 1, 2, 4 and 5). At that time, the motion to postpone also directed that staff set further public hearings to discuss alternative map proposals submitted to the Committee. Thereafter, at the December 15, 2015 Council meeting, Councilmember Brandman, during “Council Communications,” requested that staff schedule public hearings on January 12, January 26 and February 6 of 2016 to consider maps submitted to the Committee and further requested that staff be available to present submitted maps that include two or more Latino majority citizen voting age population (CVAP) districts. The public hearings presently scheduled and noticed are being held pursuant to the direction given on December 15th. The Mayor also mentioned during consideration of a separate agenda item relating to the Advisory Committee on December 8th that he would like the ability to discuss the Recommended Plan (Map 3) as well as consider districts 1, 3, 4 and 5; this hearing allows for that discussion to occur.

For reference, a list of maps submitted to the Committee that include two or more Latino majority CVAP districts, based on data available at this time, is appended as Attachment 2 to this Staff Report.

SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL COUNCIL DIRECTION/ACTION

Following testimony and discussion at tonight’s public hearing, the Council may choose to direct City staff regarding two primary decision points (discussed in more detail below). Staff recommends that the Council give direction on these decision points in the following order:

  • First, the Council may choose to direct that the City Attorney prepare one or more ordinances establishing a particular districting map for consideration and potential introduction/adoption at future scheduled hearings.
  • Second, the Council may choose to identify which 4 districts should be up for election in 2016 and which 2 districts should be up in 2018 for inclusion in any of the ordinances mentioned in the prior bullet point.

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS

After tonight’s hearing, two public hearings will follow on these dates: January 26th and February 9th.  If, after conducting tonight’s hearing, the City Council prefers a particular district boundary map, or prefers to consider more than one district boundary map, the Council may direct the City Attorney to prepare and return to the Council with one or more ordinances adopting a map(s). In that case, any ordinances would be presented and could be introduced at the second public hearing on January 26th and thereafter, scheduled for approval at the third public hearing on February 9th.

If tonight’s hearing does not lead to Council direction to include any maps in one or more ordinances for introduction on January 26th then more than three meetings would be required in order to be consistent with the statute summarized above.

SUMMARY OF LAWFUL DISTRICTING CRITERIA

A number of legal requirements relate to the creation of district maps/boundaries. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that districts be as nearly equal in population as possible. State Supreme Court opinions and state law require that total population be used for creation of districts. See Calderon v. City of Los Angeles (1971) 4 Cal. 3d 251; Cal. Elec. Code 21620. For the purposes of establishing City Council districts, this means that the districts being mapped need to contain nearly equal numbers of inhabitants. While this topic is presently the subject of consideration by the United States Public Hearing Regarding City Council District Boundaries and Council District Election Dates Supreme Court (Evenwel v. Texas), the current state of the law in California requires total inhabitant population be used to establish Council districts.

Elections Code section 21620 also states that in establishing district boundaries, such boundaries must comply with the all applicable provisions of the Federal Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C.§§ 1973 et seq.) and the Council may also consider additional factors such as:

  • Topography;
  • Geography;
  • Cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity, and compactness of territory; and
  • Communities of interest of the districts.

Under federal Voting Rights case law and the Equal Protection Clause, consideration of minority voting rights may be considered in creating districts but must not be the predominant factor in selecting a particular voting system or district map. Voting rights case law also holds that the courts must give substantial deference to the legislative body’s determination that one districting plan (compared to another) will result in more effective representation for minority voters. See, e.g., Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 917 n. 9 (1996) (“States retain broad discretion in drawing districts to comply with the mandate of § 2.”); Rodriguez v. Pataki, 308 F. Supp. 2d 346, 430-32 (S.D.N.Y.) (three-judge redistricting court), summarily aff’d, 543 U.S. 997 (2004) (rejecting a claim that Section 2 required a reduction in majority-minority seats to permit a greater number of districts in which Latino voters might be able to elect).

California and Federal case law allow other criteria than those listed above to be considered. The criteria enumerated in the California constitution that must be used by the state redistricting commission for redistricting of California’s state legislative and Congressional seats does not apply to local districting by cities.

CONSIDERATION OF DISTRICTING PLANS

Following the public hearing on this matter, the City Council should discuss one or more districting plans. The demographer consultant will be present to address any questions regarding the maps or any modifications, including those maps directed at the December 15th meeting.

The October 6, 2015 staff report (included herein as Attachment 3) summarized the process undertaken by the Committee to review and consider maps.

Potential Council Direction: To take action on establishing Council districts and move forward with a specific map or maps, the City Council will need to make a motion or motions directing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance or ordinances adopting a particular district map plan(s) and boundaries. If such direction is given tonight, the City Attorney and demographer will prepare any ordinance(s) with the district map(s) requested for introduction at the next public hearing.

CONSIDERATION OF ELECTION DATES FOR DISTRICTS

It is necessary to establish the election dates for the six City Council districts in any of the maps that the Council may want to introduce in an ordinance. The City Charter requires that in 2016, four City Council districts be placed on the ballot for election. The remaining two districts will be up for election in 2018. It bears noting that the Charter specifies that following the swearing in of those Council members elected in 2016, one of the four districts will be randomly chosen to have only a two-year term of office. The random selection for a short term is required by the Charter to transition to an increased size of the City Council, so that 3 seats (excepting the Mayor) are up for election every two years after 2016. The City Council has the sole discretion to determine which districts are placed on the 2016 ballot.

Potential Council Direction: The Council will need to give direction to staff as to which 4 districts it desires to have on the November 2016 ballot for any particular map that is asked to be introduced in an ordinance, the remaining two districts would then be up for election on the November 2018 ballot.

If direction is not given at the time a preferred district plan is requested for inclusion in an ordinance, such direction will need to be given no later than when the ordinance for such map is introduced.

IMPACT ON THE BUDGET

Funds sufficient to take action on this matter to implement districting are included in the City Clerk’s 2015-16 budget.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Andal      Michael R.W. Houston
City Clerk                City Attorney

Attachments:

(1) Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Electoral Districts to the Anaheim City Council, including attachments as follows:

(A) Committee Recommended Plan
(B) Correspondence received by Committee
(C) Proposals submitted by public and draft sample plans by demographer
(Consultant Drafts #C1-C4; Test Maps #T1-T2; Public Submissions #P1-P32)
(D) Committee agenda, staff reports and minutes
(E) Samples of public outreach

(2) List of Maps with 2 or more CVAP Latino majority districts, as submitted to the Committee

  1. Consultant Draft 1
  2. Consultant Draft 2
  3. Consultant Draft 3
  4. Consultant Draft 3 (revised)
  5. Consultant 4
  6. LULAC (Montez/Hernandez, Map 1)
  7. LULAC 1 (Revised September 4)
  8. LULAC 2
  9. Kim 1
  10. Brown 1
  11. Brown 1 version 2
  12. Gallegos
  13. Gagne
  14. Grace
  15. Chuchua 4 (August 20 revised, Consultant test map)
  16. Chuchua 5
  17. Chuchua 7
  18. Reyes 2 (August 20 revised, Consultant test map)

(3) Correspondence from League of United Latin American Citizens; and Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development, on behalf of various community organizations

(4) October 6, 2015 City Council Staff Report for Receipt of Final Report (without attachments)

DATE: OCTOBER 6, 2015

FROM: OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE FINAL REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL DISTRICTS; DISCUSS AND CONSIDER SAID REPORT, THE PROCESS FOR FUTURE APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND RELATED MATTERS

ATTACHMENT (Y/N): YES ITEM # 24

RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the City Council receive and file the Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Electoral Districts (“Committee”) to the City Council and consider, discuss and direct staff to provide further information regarding the Final Report, the process for future approval of City Council district boundaries and related matters.

BACKGROUND:

On April 7, 2015, the City Council adopted City Council Resolution No. 2015-147, which created the Committee. The Committee is composed of five retired judges that served on the Orange County Superior Court (“Committee”): Chair and Justice Edward Wallin (an Anaheim resident), Judge Nancy Wieben Stock, Judge James Jackman, Judge Steven Sundvold and Judge Thomas Thrasher.

The Committee’s purpose was to assist in developing a district map or maps to recommend for adoption by the City Council for use commencing with the 2016 City Council elections. To that end, the Committee was directed to recommend a districting plan or plans that it believed comply with applicable state and federal law.

The resolution authorizing the Committee requires that the Committee deliver to the City Council a final written report by no later than October 6, 2015. The Final Report is required to include the Committee’s recommendations.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS:

The Committee, with assistance of the City Clerk’s office actively sought participation from the City’s voters, residents, community groups, businesses and other stakeholders. The robust outreach program included: use of public service announcements transmitted by local television, cable, YouTube, and print media outlets (in both English and Spanish); publication of meeting agenda (posted and published in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese and Korean); a dedicated City webpage with information regarding the districting process (with capability to be translated into multiple languages); community meetings and Committee meetings (with Spanish interpretation services provided at each meeting and other languages, upon request); multi-lingual flyers placed at all city libraries, community centers and city public counters as well as availability for distribution by community members, groups, and field staff; e-postcards emailed (English and Spanish) to identified community and business stakeholders prior to each meeting; informational mailings in City utility bills and various City publications/newsletters; press releases; and communications on the City’s social media outlets. In addition, draft maps were also placed at all city libraries during the Committee’s process. Samples of community outreach are included in Attachment E to the Committee’s Final Report (which report is Attachment 1 to this staff report).

The Committee conducted a total of 10 meetings that were open to the public. In addition, the City’s districting consultant/demographer was available at these meetings to assist members of the public with the mapping tools used to create district maps. The agenda and minutes of all Committee  meetings through August 26th are included in Attachment D to the Final Report (Attachment 1 to this staff report) and the final two Committee meetings’ agenda and minutes are attached hereto as Attachment 2.

The Committee meetings allowed for public comment before the Committee, including those factors that the public thought were important for the Committee to consider in reviewing potential district boundaries. Committee meetings were held throughout the City at City Hall, the Brookhurst Community Center, the East Anaheim Community Center, the Ponderosa Resource Family Center, Western High School and Loara High School. Approximately 712 participants attended the ten (10) public Committee meetings, with approximately 157 individuals providing comment during the course of the meetings, and approximately 89 individuals receiving simultaneous interpretation services through the use of a city-provided headset and on-site Spanish interpreter.

City staff also presented information on the districting process to the four neighborhood councils in the month of July. A total of 5 draft sample map plans (Drafts 1, 2, 3, 3Rev0829, and 4) were prepared by the demographic consultant retained by the City and a total of 32 maps were submitted by members of the public for community input and the Committee’s consideration. During the process, the Committee directed the demographic consultant to make revisions to such maps, which were presented at later meetings. All maps presented to the Committee are appended to the Committee’s Final Report and provided as part of this staff report for your review (see Attachment C to the Final Report). Members of the public that submitted maps were provided the opportunity to present their maps to the Committee.

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF MAPS:

During the process of holding Committee meetings, and based on input from the public and consideration of staff and legal counsel comments and advice, the Committee progressively narrowed its focus to certain maps. Key considerations and communities of interest that related to the Committee’s focusing on certain maps included the following:

  • Total population equality (as required by law) and minor deviation from population equality(as permitted by law), particularly with respect to the district boundary line between Districts 5 and 6 (which on maps of focus is the boundary for the district including far east Anaheim).
  • Compactness and contiguity of districts, particularly in connection with considering obvious  demarcation of east-west boundaries for districts.
  • Using Euclid Street as a boundary between the two districts in the west and the other districts and use of Magnolia Avenue, East Street and State College Boulevard as significant dividing lines for other central City districts.
  • Keeping cognizable communities of interest and neighborhoods such as elementary school attendance areas, the Arabic business community in western Anaheim, the Colony, the Ponderosa neighborhood and residential areas of west Anaheim cohesive.
  • Compliance with federal Voting Rights Act requirements.
  • Dispersal of the Resort District and Platinum Triangle into multiple districts.

At the August 26th Committee meeting, the Committee gave direction to staff to return with the following three maps for further focused review (the parenthetical reference is to the location of these maps in your agenda packet):

  • Map 1 – see Public Submission Tab #8 of Final Report Attachment C
  • Map 2 – see Public Submission Tab #18 of Final Report Attachment C
  • Map 3 – see Public Submission Tab #30 of Final Report Attachment C

In response to Committee discussion and public input, the Committee gave direction to the districting consultant to make modifications in various maps for further consideration. For instance at the August 26th meeting, the Committee requested that one map of focus (known previously as “Reyes Map 2”, identified as Map 3 above, and now identified as “Recommended Plan (Map 3)” below) be revised to move the District 5/District 6 boundary from Tustin Avenue to Miller Street/La Palma Avenue/Glassell Street, in order to account for cohesion of planned future development.

After considering these maps at the September 8th meeting, as well as other maps presented by speakers from the public, the Committee directed staff to prepare a Final Report recommending Map 3, as revised (see Public Submission Tab #31 of Final Report Attachment C), termed herein as “Recommended Plan (Map 3).”

COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT / RECOMMENDED PLAN (MAP 3):

On September 16, 2015 the Committee took the following action: The Committee unanimously adopted a Final Report recommending the City Council consider adopting the Recommended Plan (Map 3) as the districting map for the six City Council Districts. At the September 16th meeting, an email was received from the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and a letter was received from representatives of Orange County Labor Federation, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Orange County Asian-Pacific Islander Community Alliance (OCAPICA), Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice Orange County (CLUE-OC), Orange County Congregation Community Organization (OCCCO), Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development (OCCORD), Korean Resource Center (KRC), UNITE HERE Local 11, Los Amigos of Orange County, and Youth on the Move Education International, supporting the Recommended Plan (Map 3). Because these two correspondences were not included in the Final Report, they are attached hereto as Attachment 3.

The Final Report provides analysis and other context for the Committee’s decision and deliberations.

The Final Report is Attachment 1 to this staff report and all maps considered by the Committee are included.

Pages 7 through 12 of the Final Report provide detail on Recommended Plan (Map 3)’s characteristics and the rationale for the Committee’s unanimous recommendation. However, the Final Report’s Executive Summary succinctly describes Recommended Plan (Map 3) and the Committee’s rationale for recommending this plan as follows:

“The Plan [Map 3] has a total population deviation of only 1.40%, with all deviation justified to follow major roads and keep communities of interest intact. It is a contiguous plan that strongly considers compactness, particularly in light of the elongated shape of the city. As the Plan description below details, it carefully delineates between communities of interest as articulated in testimony during our public meetings. The Plan utilizes natural and man-made boundaries that are logical and easy to follow. This Plan carefully addresses voting rights and gives minority groups, particularly the large Latino population, with significant public testimony indicating that the Plan gives the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice (this is also discussed below in more detail). Finally, we heard a substantial amount of support for this Plan from many individuals and groups from throughout the city, including support from those that had submitted “competing” maps, including maps that were in the final grouping of maps considered by the Committee (i.e., supporters of Map 1 and Map 2 before the Committee).” (Final Report at p. 2.)

At its final meeting on September 16, the Committee heard further testimony including testimony regarding other maps submitted by members of the public. The Committee then unanimously approved the Final Report including the Recommended Plan (Map 3.)

Staff requests that the City Council receive and file the Final Report. At this time, should the City Council desire to discuss and consider the Final Report and its recommendations, it may do so. The Council may also direct staff to provide further information regarding information contained in the Final Report.

PROCESS FOR FUTURE APPROVAL OF DISTRICTS AND RELATED MATTERS:

The proposed process is summarized below. Both the process and potential substantive actions are briefly described.

Future Approval Process & Timing of Public Hearings

Following tonight’s meeting, the City Council will hold a minimum of three noticed public hearings as follows, consistent with state law (Cal. Elec. Code § 10010(a)):

  •  Two public hearings prior to approval of a proposal to establish district boundaries.
  • A public hearing to approve a proposal to establish district boundaries.

Based on publication deadlines and work necessary to complete the process, staff has already noticed public hearings in this matter as follows: October 20th , November 17th and December 8th.

If, after holding the first public hearing on October 20th, the City Council prefers a particular district boundary map, the Council could then direct the City Attorney to prepare and return to the Council with an ordinance adopting said proposed map. In that case, an ordinance would be introduced at the second public hearing on November 17th and thereafter, scheduled for approval at the third public hearing on December 8th.

The gap between the October 20th and November 17th public hearings allows for the City Attorney and the demographer to draft an ordinance establishing districts or to provide additional feedback/analysis if requested, should the City Council give direction to staff on a particular map at the October 20th public hearing.

Keep in mind that if the first public hearing on October 20th does not lead to Council direction on a particular map then more than three meetings would be required in order to be consistent with the statute summarized above.

Substantive Actions to be Taken in the Future

Ultimately, the City Council will need to take action on an ordinance that accomplishes two key items described below. Potential Council direction is also noted below, which direction would need to occur at the public hearings.

  1. Establish Districting Map and Boundaries. The ordinance will adopt a City Council districting map for use commencing with the 2016 elections and create district boundaries.

Potential Council Direction: To take action on this aspect, the City Council will need to make a motion directing the City Attorney at an upcoming meeting to prepare an ordinance adopting a particular district map plan and boundaries. This direction could be given as early as October 20th for November 17th consideration.

As noted above, the Committee recommends the Recommended Plan (Map 3). The Council retains discretion pursuant to the City Charter to select this map, make modifications to it or select another proposal. The demographer consultant will be at all future public hearings to address any questions regarding the maps or any modifications.

  1. Establish Election Dates for Districts: The ordinance will also need to establish the election dates for the six City Council districts. The City Charter requires that in 2016, four City Council districts be placed on the ballot for election. The remaining two districts will be up for election in 2018. It bears noting that the Charter specifies that following the swearing in of those Council members elected in 2016, one of the four districts will be randomly chosen to have only a two-year term of office. This is necessary in order to transition to an increased size of the City Council, so that 3 seats (other than the Mayor) are up for election every two years after 2016.

Potential Council Direction: The Council will need to give direction to staff as to which 4 districts it desires to have on the November 2016 ballot, the remaining two districts, plus the one district randomly chosen for a two-year term, would then be up for election on the November 2018 ballot. Direction on this aspect will be included in the ordinance.

The City Council has the sole discretion to determine which districts it chooses to put on the 2016 and 2018 ballots. Presently all Council members serve “at large” for the duration of their current term of office. In other words, current Council members will continue to serve their full terms without a requirement to reside in a particular district.

IMPACT ON THE BUDGET:

Funds sufficient to take action on this matter and to interact with the Registrar of Voters to implement districting are included in the City Clerk’s 2015-16 budget.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Andal                            Michael R.W. Houston
City Clerk                                 City Attorney

Attachments:

  1. Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Electoral Districts to the Anaheim City Council, including attachments as follows:
  1. Committee Recommended Plan
  2. Correspondence received by Committee
  3. Proposals submitted by public and draft sample plans by demographer

(Consultant Drafts #C1-C5; Test Maps #T1-T2; Public Submissions #P1-P32)

  1. Committee agenda, staff reports and minutes
  2. Samples of public outreach
  3. Committee meeting agenda and minutes from September 8, 2015 and September 16, 2015.
  4. Correspondence from League of United Latin American Citizens; and Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development, on behalf of various community organizations


About Greg Diamond

Somewhat verbose attorney, semi-retired due to disability, residing in northwest Brea. Occasionally runs for office against bad people who would otherwise go unopposed. Got 45% of the vote against Bob Huff for State Senate in 2012; Josh Newman then won the seat in 2016. In 2014 became the first attorney to challenge OCDA Tony Rackauckas since 2002; Todd Spitzer then won that seat in 2018. Every time he's run against some rotten incumbent, the *next* person to challenge them wins! He's OK with that. Deposed as Northern Vice Chair of DPOC in April 2014 (in violation of Roberts Rules) when his anti-corruption and pro-consumer work in Anaheim infuriated the Building Trades and Teamsters in spring 2014, who then worked with the lawless and power-mad DPOC Chair to eliminate his internal oversight. Expelled from DPOC in October 2018 (in violation of Roberts Rules) for having endorsed Spitzer over Rackauckas -- which needed to be done. None of his pre-putsch writings ever spoke for the Democratic Party at the local, county, state, national, or galactic level, nor do they now. One of his daughters co-owns a business offering campaign treasurer services to Democratic candidates and the odd independent. He is very proud of her. He doesn't directly profit from her work and it doesn't affect his coverage. (He does not always favor her clients, though she might hesitate to take one that he truly hated.) He does advise some local campaigns informally and (so far) without compensation. (If that last bit changes, he will declare the interest.)