This great statement from Phu comes in the wake of an encouraging poll from Tulchin Research that shows him within the margin of error of winning this long-time Republican-gerrymandered seat (Assembly District 68) over notorious immigrant-basher Allan Mansoor.
For Immediate Release Contact: Brian Mineghino – Cell: (562) 619-3278
October 8, 2010
Assembly Candidate Nguyen Compares New State Budget to Problems in Costa Mesa; Calls it Unconstitutional
Westminster, CA—Sixty-Eighth Assembly District candidate Phu Nguyen today reacted to the newly approved state budget calling it unbalanced and harmful to California’s future fiscal health. He immediately drew parallels between the chronic deficit contained within it and a similar problem in the City of Costa Mesa where his opponent has been elected for the past eight years.
“The state budget passed today violates California’s constitutional requirement that our budgets be balanced. It assumes revenues that will never materialize and again delays getting our state’s financial house in order,” Nguyen said. “Unfortunately, Sacramento isn’t the only place this happens. My opponent, as mayor of Costa Mesa, has presided over the decline of a once economically healthy city.”
State budgets for most of the past decade have contained deficits, which have mostly been dealt with on a temporary basis. Costa Mesa has operated under the same premise for several fiscal years now under Mayor Allan Mansoor. Costa Mesa found recently to be the only city in Orange County to spend more than it took in over the past 8 years, according to an independent study.
“Allan Mansoor fired police officers and firefighters, increasing response times in emergencies without fixing Costa Mesa’s budget problems,” Nguyen said. “That may be business-as-usual in Sacramento, but I don’t think people here in Orange County find that acceptable.
“I’m running to offer an alternative to the career politician treadmill we find ourselves on,” Nguyen continued. “I offer common sense business experience.”
Costa Mesa has posted deficits for several years, and in the past three have posted budget holes of $10 million in 2008 – then revised to $15 million, $19 million in 2009 and $16 million going in to next year. Each year Mansoor has punted on fixing the city’s long-term structural needs and instead cut vital services such as public safety and borrowed heavily from the city’s shrinking reserves.
“Phu, gaining in the polls”……. Hmmmmm
Based on the picture above, Phu is gaining but I am not sure if it is in the polls.
Vern, seriously – look into Costa Mesa’s budget issues a little before making idiotic comments like this. Also, your assertion that Mansoor is a “notorious race-baiter” is total BS and you know it. Name one single incident, Vern. Just one.
Yeah, I’m sure you disagree Rob, but these comments (which are Phu’s by the way although I agree with him) are based on a study reported in the Register last week:
http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/2010/09/27/all-oc-cities-generated-a-profit-except-one/64994/
Costa Mesa was the only city in Orange County to lose money regularly over the last 8 years, during which Mansoor was Mayor and councilman. Caspa did an article on this blog about the study too, and I remember you argued with him. Of course you’d like to blame CM’s dismal budget situation on greedy public employees, but it has a lot more to do with the ridiculously low taxes on hotels and stores like South Coast Plaza’s Nordstrom’s, the most profitable Nordstrom’s in the world, which pays CM only $50 a year. And no, these ridiculously low taxes are NOT passed on to us consumers in any kind of lower prices, they just make these lucky businessmen richer.
And we could argue about “race baiting,” it was a phrase I just threw out quickly when posting this, but I think you know what I mean by it – Mansoor is most well known for his “hardline immigration policy,” doing everything possible to make life in Costa Mesa difficult for its Latino immigrants, and pretending that they’re the biggest cause of all CM’s problems. His entry into politics was famously due to his aversion to what he called “Roach Coaches,” the food trucks that blare “La Cucaracha,” and are operated by and most patronized by Mexican-Americans (some of whom are legally here, some not.) That’s what Mansoor is mainly about. That, ridiculously low taxes on big businesses, and picking on unions.
Okay, on second thought I changed “race-baiter” to “immigrant-basher.” That’s a little better. Thanks.
Convenient how you and Caspa leave out the part about the actual audited financial returns showing that Costa Mesa did, in fact, bring in more than it spent.
Mansoor was elected and then re-elected because he talked about daily quality of life issues which impacted residents from every part of the political spectrum. Even when big money and big names came in to defeat him, he won. His immigration stance is supported by the vast majority of the American public, and has nothing to do with race.
Inconvenient to your world view as it may be, those roach coaches were unlicensed and violating the law, as well as stealing business from brick and mortar stores, and bringing trash and noise to residential neighborhoods. They are no longer in Costa Mesa, which has a thriving Latino business community that pays taxes, rent and employ many – and that do not have to compete with unlicensed vendors.
Let’s get this straight: Allan Mansoor is getting 19% of the Vietnamese vote and 26 of Viets are still undecided and willing to vote against Phu?
The only way he has a chance to dominate the Vietnamese vote to such an extreme that he overcomes the registration advantage and here he stands to lose up to 45% of the Vietnamese vote.
Phu is toast.
For extra credit I read up on Tulchin Research. They are a definitely Dem leaning outfit, but walking the precincts in Costa Mesa , I have personally heard an incredible dissatisfaction with Mansoor. You get a real sense of a campaign when talking to voters outside of polls and I’m not seeing the “Republican” advantage.
On a side note there is an interesting story regarding Probolsky fudging his poll numbers.Found it during my research……seems Capitol Weeekly refused to publish his poll.
http://www.calbuzz.com/2010/10/capweek-kudo-whores-v-klutzes-lou-channels-meg/
Reposting press releases?
For a second I thought I was on the FibOC.
Yeah Sean. I’ve been doing that for Phu, Melissa, Hedrick, Krom, and sometimes Loretta for a long time. IF I consider their releases interesting and enlightening.
What makes it different from the LOC is I usually have a little commentary, and I let people know where the release came from.
And this was an especially good, thought-provoking press release. And I also was one of the very few to know about this poll, which despite what John says, bodes very well for Phu.
yeah, sure enough, the LOC just did put this poll up, after me, with no clue as to whether any of it was Prevatt’s writing.
Maybe if Vern didn’t have to sing for his supper…..I for one liked it. Sometimes I get sick of listening to you guys talk….and I want to see what others are saying. It mixes it up a little. As for the GlibOC, ALL they do is cut and post. Balance is somewhere in the middle.
I personally don’t care for any of the two candidates (especially Mansoor), but wouldn’t it be rather ironic if Republican Party efforts to “get out the vote” in the Vietnamese community on behalf of Van Tran had the consequence of electing Mr. Nguyen to the State Assembly?
By the way Vern, I was in Santa Ana yesterday and saw “Cecilia Iglesias for Congress” signs plastered on the windows of small businesses that cater to the El Salvadoran community. As I suspected all along, her candidacy does have grassroots support.
In addition to this, I accidentally found out last week that a longtime friend of mine–who happens to be Green Party member–has dealt with Cecilia in the past. When I questioned her a bit further about Ms. Iglesias, she said “Cecilia is a real nice person”.
So have you discovered any court-worthy evidence lately to prove that Ms. Iglesias is part of vote-splitting plot orchestrated by Van Tran and the Orange County Republican Party to deny Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez her seat?
Maybe you skipped through most of my “John & Ken’s Election Picks” just to get to what I said about you – but Ceci got a nice little head-nod in there. I think a scheming little guy like Van Tran has all along been trying to figure out how to use her to his advantage, but that shouldn’t reflect badly on her… and I agree with what you said about her taking votes away from Van as much as from Loretta.
PS. I am not Frank Barbaro.
> PS. I am not Frank Barbaro.
I’m glad to hear that.
Hi Duane….do you think Phu has a good chance of winning?
Regardless of what my opinion is about Phu Nguyen’s residency, I think he’s actually got a very good chance of winning.
It is quite reasonable to assume that many people in the Vietnamese community will split their ticket and vote for both Mr. Nguyen and Van Tran.
They may feel that it is very important that someone from their community represents them both in Sacramento and in Congress.
That’s not a given, however.
The 68th State Assembly District does cover all of Costa Mesa where Alan Mansoor has better name recognition.
But Mr. Mansoor has a reputation for being incredibly divisive and is perceived as an “immigrant basher” by many.
That may not play well to younger Vietnamese voters who are sensitive to the fact that their parents were immigrants.
The 68th covers almost all of Garden Grove, Westminster, and Stanton where there are a high concentration Vietnamese voters.
Although the poll that Vern makes reference too may be biased (all polls are biased, by the way), there is probably some truth to the numbers.
In my opinion, the high number of undecided Vietnamese voters reflects uncertainty about whether they should cross party lines and cast their ballot for Mr. Nguyen.
My guess is that most of them will vote for Mr. Nguyen just to make sure they have someone from their community elected to a higher public office.
In fact, they may vote for Mr. Nguyen and Mr. Tran as insurance so that if only one of wins, at least they’ll have some influence at the state or federal level.
I also suspect that in this race there will probably be far more Republican crossover votes to Mr. Nguyen than Democratic crossover votes to Mr. Mansoor.
The race is still a tossup, however.
The issue about Mr. Nguyen’s residency could hurt him a tad bit, but probably by not that much because he’s now moved back into the 68th district.
But he better have his paperwork in order if it is a close race and Mr. Mansoor loses by 20 votes because the legitimacy of his candidacy could be challenged.
Thanks Duane….I appreciate your knowledge. 🙂
Interesting how you slam Mansoor for essentially being an ineffective councilman, because really, that is all the criticism amounts to, while giving Phu a free pass on his residency scandal.
I don’t know if you are talking to me, but I sure haven’t given Phu Nguyen “a free pass on his residency scandal”.
In fact, I think I’m the only person here on the Orange Juice blog who has posted the most critical commentary about it.
Rob’s talkin to me. He’s a big Mansoor fan who likes to argue with me.
I’ve got lots of problems with Mansoor, Rob, which I’ve listed in many places, and being ineffective is only a part of it. And I’ve got lots of positive things I like about Phu. I’m not sure this “when exactly did the family finish moving out of Santa Ana” question amounts to a “scandal.” Like I said, I remember him back in November telling me casually that he lived in Westminster and so it would be no problem giving me a ride home to HB. I’m sort of picturing a pregnant wife with a little kid reluctant and slow to leave the comfy safe neighborhood altogether. Not my idea of a scandal. But not to worry, Duane and Sean will no doubt continue to be all over it.
> Not my idea of a scandal. But not to worry, Duane and Sean will no doubt
> continue to be all over it.
Vern, I’ve pretty much put the matter to bed. Like I said, it really makes no sense for me to continue beating a dead horse.
I will concede to you, however, what Phu has done is not nearly as bad as the Anaheim School Board member I dealt with who was living in Corona del Mar.
But I don’t like rich people gaming the electoral system and thinking that they don’t have to abide by the same rules us little people have to follow.
And you fail to understand the issue isn’t entirely about when Mr. Nguyen moved out of Santa Ana, but being dishonest and evasive about it to the reporter.
You also need to realize that if Mr. Nguyen doesn’t have his paperwork in order, if he wins the election, the results can be overturned by a judge.
There is a provision within civil law that enables any voter to ask a judge to nullify the election results if there is evidence Mr. Nguyen committed fraud.
He can be barred from taking office if a judge decides there isn’t enough evidence to prove he resided in the district the day he filed his candidacy statement.
You can make all the excuses you want about Mr. Nguyen having “a pregnant wife with a little kid reluctant and slow” to leave their $1 million Santa Ana home.
But none of that is going to matter to a judge because he/she would have to follow the evidence requirements that have been established by law.
Now I don’t know if anybody is going to take action against Mr. Nguyen, but if it happens, the only person he has to blame is himself.
“Not my idea of a scandal. But not to worry, Duane and Sean will no doubt continue to be all over it.”
Well Vern I am sure the $500 paid to you by Phu’s campaign for “consulting” has not tainted your impartiality in anyway.
You’re talking about the freaking AD he bought on our blog. OUR blog. In June. Like he’s done on many blogs. And I’ve been writing positive stuff about him since I first heard of him last year. I don’t notice you having a problem with the other advertisers on our blog. Do they make you or Art not “impartial?” This is stupid…
Vern,
I have not received a single penny from anyone that advertises on this blog so I have no conflict whatsoever.
Vern, I like to argue with you because you’re smart as hell, write well, are actively involved in OC issues and honest (as far as I can tell). Unfortunately, you suffer from the true believer curse – your political and philosophical leanings lead you astray at times. Phu is an example – IF the allegations are true, it is illegal to do what Phu is alleged to have done, not to mention unethical. He is alleged to have deliberately and repeatedly broken the law. He is allegedly a millionaire liar who will have allegedly committed fraud and perjury to gain elected office.
You’d shred a Republican who did the same thing, but Phu gets a pass, and all kinds of BS rationalizations because you just really don’t like Mansoor. Weak.
Yep, I do like Mansoor, and I am a big fan – he is who he says he is and he does what he says he’s going to do whenever possible. He hasn’t been the smoothest politician at times, but that is becuase he wasn’t a politician in the first place. He was a deputy sheriff. He has stepped up and taken on issues which thousands in Costa Mesa had been complaining about. He ran into the buzz saw of Latino activism that has intimidated most everyone else into silence and stood his ground. He isn’t a bigot, he isn’t a racist, he isn’t a liar, and he has represented his constituency very well. The vast majority of criticisms of Mansoor by you and others are based on unfounded allegations and rumors, none of which are accurate.
You don’t have to like him, you can even REALLY dislike him, but continuing to call him an immigrant-basher is lame, and giving Phu is a free pass is just plain pathethic.
> He isn’t a bigot, he isn’t a racist, he isn’t a liar, and he has
> represented his constituency very well. The vast majority of
> criticisms of Mansoor by you and others are based on unfounded
> allegations and rumors, none of which are accurate.
I can’ t speak for Vern, but Mr. Mansoor isn’t as great as you make him out to be. You too suffer from the “true believer curse”.
That being said, I’m not going to spend the next three weeks arguing with you and Vern over Mr. Nguyen and Mr. Mansoor.
If I lived in the 68th State Assembly District, I wouldn’t vote for either of the two candidates. They’re both lousy.
The constitution gives each house of the legislature the power to judge the qualifications and elections of its members and to expel one of its members by a two-thirds vote.
http://www.smartvoter.org/gtg/ca/state/overview/legislative.html#10
This covers ethics but it also overshadows elections.
I think Duane is wrong. These races aren’t decided by the courts. Eligibility is in the hands of the legislators. I have a feeling they aren’t going to be rushing to Mansoors wailing if/when he loses.
> I think Duane is wrong.
Since I haven’t read the applicable laws since 2002, I will admit that it is quite possible I am wrong since what I’m thinking about might only apply to local offices and not the state legislature. The laws regarding domicile and residency are slightly different for different public offices.
As I recall it, if you want to run for Congress, you don’t have to establish domicile and residency in the district unless you are elected and sworn into office. For example, I could file papers to run for Congress in San Francisco while still living here in Anaheim. It’s dumb, but not illegal.
I did do extensive research on this issue at a the law library during the time I filed a criminal complaint with the Orange County District Attorney against an Anaheim City School Board member who was living in $1 million dollar home in Corona del Mar with his wife, three children, and a maid.
In this type of situation, any registered voter who has “standing” (in other words, a person who can prove they had been “harmed” in some way) can challenge the legitimacy of a seated candidate if evidence shows they filed a false declaration of candidacy statement.
A registered voter can actually petition a judge and ask that a restraining order be issued to prohibit the Registrar of Voters from certifying the outcome of the election until a hearing is held, which would be done in a very quick and expedited manner.
If the preponderance of evidence submitted at the hearing suggests a seated candidate wasn’t living in the district at the time they filed their paperwork, a judge can nullify the outcome of the election based on the pretext that the seated candidate committed fraud.
All of this has to be done within a short period of time. I think it has to be done within 90 days of the election. If nobody challenges the candidate within that time frame, then you won’t be able to do anything about it, at least in respect to pursuing this civil remedy.
Anybody, however, can filed a criminal complaint with the District Attorney’s Office asking they investigate a candidate, seated or unseated. to determine if they committed perjury on their declaration of candidacy statement. That is a felony punishable by a fine and prison term.
But the burden of proof is much higher because it is a criminal matter and established case law is much different. And then the big problem here in Orange County is that the District Attorney here doesn’t really want to prosecute white collar or government crime.
You may ask why I didn’t pursue a civil remedy when I went after the Anaheim City School Board member? I didn’t have “standing” to take legal action because I wasn’t a registered voter in the Anaheim City School District. I couldn’t prove I was harmed by his action.
In fact, the Senior Deputy District Attorney handling my case asked me why I didn’t pursue this civil remedy since I had more than enough evidence to convince a judge to unseat this school board member. But I couldn’t do it because I had no “standing”.
When I get a chance, I will look in my files for photocopies of the civil statute and applicable case law. I’ll see if it only applies to local offices. It is possible that the law has changed since that time. Besides, it has has been eight years … my memory could be faulty.
I dug through my old files and found the landmark case where a higher court upheld the authority of a judge to nullify the results of an election based on the fact the winning candidate filed a false declaration of candidacy statement.
The case is:
Pierce v. Harrold, 138 Cal. App. 3d 415 – Cal: Court of Appeals, 4th Appellate Dist., 2nd Div. 1982
You can find it on the internet at the following links:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13918431201514880437&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/59308
Understand this is not the only case law that deals with these issues. I think the requirements for establishing a domicile and residency are slightly different for candidates who are running for state legislature. I’m not certain.
Here is a summary of Pierce v. Harrold:
Joanne K. Harrold, a 1980 appointee to the West Orange County Municipal Court, gained election to her post by attaining 62 percent of the vote in the June, 1982 primary election. Orange Superior Court Judge Ronald Eugene Owen nullified her election, in response to two consolidated election contests, on the ground that Harrold committed a violation of Election Code §29303 (now §18203) by falsely stating on her declaration of candidacy that she was a resident of Orange County. That section provided:
“Any person who files or submits for filing a nomination paper or declaration of candidacy knowing that it or any part of it has been made falsely is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years or by both the fine and imprisonment.”
The Fourth District Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Justice F. Douglas McDaniel, affirmed. It declined to read into the section a proviso that the successful candidate not be subject to removal absent a conviction for submitting false election paper. McDaniel scoffed at 426:
“…[T]o make conviction of an offense a condition precedent even to initiating an election contest would represent an absurd contradiction in legislative policy. As contestants observe, ‘It does not require extended discussion of the realities relating to the time needed to prosecute even the least complex criminal case to compel the conclusion that the conviction requirement would render contests under…Section 20021(c) virtually [impossible to accomplish within the applicable statute of limitations].’”
The trial court had found that Harrold actually resided in Riverside when she made her declaration and that she used her Newport Beach property only occasionally. On appeal, she challenged the substantiality of the evidence. McDaniel said (at 428) that the ordinary civil standard of proof “by a preponderance of the evidence” pertained, and that, “[a]ctually, in terms of the evidence, this is not even a close case.” He recited the evidence, including gas, telephone and electricity bills for the Newport Beach abode showing infrequent use and her being registered to vote in Riverside.
For rest of the article, click on the following link:
http://www.metnews.com/legcom/deceit.html
Duane, I’m just stating my opinion. The choice is clear for me, Mansoor over someone who is quite likely a criminal.