Pedroza report that Perez CDP nomination in AD-69 is blocked is — wrong!




Julio Perez

Hijo laughs last.

I don’t want to shock anyone, but if you’ve read Art Pedroza’s breathless writings since Friday about how Julio Perez’s drive to get the nomination in AD-69 was thwarted after all — and you probably haven’t read them, because who is? — you have been slightly misinformed.  (And if you read its being repeated today, you were misinformed again.  I just checked and neither has yet been corrected.)

First, and less important, Perez was not trying for a California Democratic Party endorsement itself on Jan. 21, so it could not have been rescinded.  He was shooting  for a recommendation for an endorsement to be sent to the state convention weekend after next.  I myself have one of those recommendations in SD-29, but I have not officially been endorsed yet either.  I’m on the “consent calendar” because I got more than 70% of the vote from my district; Julio isn’t because he got less than 70%.  Had Julio not exceeded 50% of the vote at all, there would have been no nomination possible even at the convention, which will now consider Julio’s request for an endorsement.

It is true, as I warned, that the matter had not been settled back on January 21.  And it is true, as Art notes, that on Friday a memo came out from the state party stating as follows:

[“X”], a DSCC member elected through the ADEMs.  It came to our attention that she recently registered at an address that would make her eligible to vote in AD 69.

Although we received an official copy stamped by the Registrar of Voters (see attached), the date on the stamp indicates
the registration was dated after the public vote for the meeting.

As voters must be registered within the district at the time of the public vote, her ballot is deemed invalid and will not
be included in the final count.

Conclusion:After determining the eligibility of regular and provisional ballots cast at the conference, the final tally results in:

  • 10 ballots for Julio Perez
  • 3 ballots for Tom Daly
  • 1 ballots for Michele Martinez
  • 6 ballots for No Endorsements

Final results:

  • Perez 50%,
  • Daly 15%,
  • Martinez ≈ 1%

As per the By-Laws, when no candidates in the race received over 50% of the vote, the CDP takes a position of “no consensus” for the endorsement.

This race will not be moving on to convention.

This possibility is why I suggested at the time that my fellow supporters of Perez should not be so quick to say that he received more than 50% of the vote.  But they assured me that all was well.

And, sure enough, this memo came down today:

Ms. “X” previously submitted an official copy of her voter registration card stamped by the Orange County Registrar of Voters (ROV), in which the date on the stamp indicated the registration was received after the public vote for the conference.

However, in reviewing the official voter log from the ROV for Ms. X, her record clearly indicates a voter registration card with the updated address was in fact received by the ROV on 1/19/12 – prior to the date of the Pre-Endorsement Conference on 1/21/12.  The voter log also indicates a second voter card, with the same address, was received on 1/24/12.  It appears the ROV asked Ms. X to submit a new card on 1/24/12 to receive the official stamp instead of pulling the previously submitted voter registration card.

As the official voter log for Ms. X indicates, the ROV received her voter registration card with change of address prior to the Pre-Endorsement Conference.  The new address places Ms. X in the new AD 69, which makes her ballot valid.

Conclusion: After reviewing the Orange County ROV record for Ms. X, the final results are:

11 ballots for Julio Perez
3 ballots for Tom Daly
1 ballots for Michele Martinez
6 ballots for No Endorsements

Final results: Perez 52%, Daly 14%, Martinez ≈ 1%

As per the By‐Laws, when one candidate receives over 50% but fewer than 70% of the vote, an Endorsing Caucus will be held the Saturday of Convention.

This race will be taken up at Convention.

Just thought that some of you will want to know.  As to why I blank out the name of the voter in question, I’m throwing the dog a bone.  Art published the name and, if you’re that interested in who it is (no one who makes front page news), he really needs the hits.  It’s the least I can do to thank him for the chance to print those results again: 11 to 3 to 1. Not bad at all!

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. Corrupt party hacks hate him. He's OK with that too. He does advise some local campaigns informally and (so far) without compensation. (If that last bit changes, he will declare the interest.)