.
If we’re to believe Jordan that he is “his own man” and does believe in some progressive reform, then we should be – at least occasionally – seeing the above three as a majority. Hmm…
The distant third-place finish of reformist Republican John Leos, and the first-place triumph of Jordan Brandman, leave Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait with only runner-up Lucille Kring as an obvious ally, and represent a setback to at least two of the three major reforms he’d wished to move forward with in the coming year. It’s hard to see a guy – Brandman – who doesn’t seem to believe police brutality exists in the OC’s largest city (he’ll check with the chief, he says) backing any meaningful civilian review commission, just as it’s difficult to imagine such a close Pringle ally (in the spirit of optimistic goodwill, I’ll stop calling him a puppet for now) helping the Mayor to put “Let the People Vote” [on hotel subsidies] onto the ballot. If these two reforms are going to happen it will have to be the result of a grassroots citizens movement, a Take Back Anaheim-point-Two.
But, if you will recall, Jordan DID make a promise to Los Amigos and Loretta Sanchez – a promise that’s on video – to settle the districting lawsuit, and move forward with the vital reform of bringing more democracy to Anaheim by dividing the huge town into districts and having each elect its own councilperson. If Jordan’s videotaped promise means anything, then at least this is one track on which the city could make progress during Mayor Tait’s next two years.
(Note that I no longer call that lawsuit “the ACLU lawsuit,” and neither should you if you’re sympathetic to it. The suit was initiated by three prominent Anaheim Latino activists who feel their community is being sidelined and disenfranchised by the current at-large system; the ACLU is only assisting these three activists; and those who oppose the suit like to frame it as an ACLU scheme because they know that organization is controversial and polarizing. It’s the districting lawsuit.)
But … what DID Jordan actually say on this topic, and what did it mean? It’s nice to be able to review Hoagy Holguin’s video here, and sift through all the young politician’s hemming and hawing, but you can see that eventually Dr. Moreno and Congresswoman Sanchez DID get him to pledge to agendize “settling the districting lawsuit” near the end of this clip:
So there you have it – new councilman Jordan Brandman, on video, promising that as one of his first acts he will not only back but AGENDIZE settling the districting lawsuit. Will Jordan keep that promise? That’s the first of many questions we will ask in this article.
The Pringle-Disney Delay Strategy
Der Pringle.
Pretty much everyone who’s studied the issue agrees that Anaheim is in violation of the California Voter Rights Act (CVRA), that resistance to this lawsuit is futile and wasteful, and that district elections are inevitable. The idea also seems to be popular, as well as liberal and progressive. So in early August Disney and the instatiable lobbyist/ex-mayor Curt Pringle, finger forever in the wind but fiercely protective of his permanent compliant Council majority, came up with a way to split the difference…
And thus, on the morning of August 8, Disney announced with great fanfare that district elections was a wonderful idea whose time had come, diversity democracy yada yada. And that in order to really make it happen right, it should be studied at length by a duly constituted committee comprised of Anaheimers from all walks of life. And Jordan was dispatched that evening to bring the message to the public, at the council meeting he references above.
And Pringle’s compliant council majority followed through with this exact plan that night – refusing to put the districting question on the November ballot but instead initiating a nearly two-year process of studying the issue with not one but TWO committees – a “Citizens Advisory Committee” AND a “Charter Review Commission.” These should complete their work by JUNE OF 2014 – STILL a year and a half from now – in time to recommend WHETHER OR NOT the districting question should even be put before the voters in the June 2014 primary election.
Meanwhile they contracted the services of TWO law firms to FIGHT against this wonderful reform they speak so highly of – a fight that other cities’ experience has shown will be futile, and will certainly cost Anaheim taxpayers millions of dollars, but somehow is worth it to the Disney-Pringle council majority.
This keeps the permanent compliant Disney-Pringle majority (now with Brandman replacing termed-out Sidhu) in power for AT LEAST another two years (if not four or six.) And it doesn’t leave much time at all – assuming both committees and voters approve districting in June 2014 – for Anaheim voters and possible candidates to come to grips with the new political landscape by that November. This causes us to wonder, how much MORE corporate welfare is this majority planning to bleed from Anaheim in their remaining years, or, as Jason Young has asked, “How much more taxpayer money does Disney want?”
But Jordan Brandman has promised to “settle the suit,” tout-suite. We all just saw this on video. Would “settling the suit” obviate – make unnecessary and pointless – this two-committee, two-year study process, and get the matter on the fast track for a June 2013 special election instead?
So Many Questions…
I’m afraid this article will have many more questions than answers, partly because the principals in this ongoing litigation are reticent about talking to a loose-lipped blogger. But these questions are good to focus our minds, and will all be answered in due course:
Anaheim is a charter city, and changes to its charter – such as changes to the system of elections – must be approved by Anaheim voters. And, although the ACLU has never lost one of these voting rights suits, it has never sued a charter city before. But, could the court order district elections bypassing the voters? Apparently not, I understand.
The latest news in the lawsuit, that I know of, is that the council (council majority that is) wants a “stay” on the whole suit, while they go through their two-year “study” process followed by a possible June 2014 special election. Dr. Moreno seems comfortable letting this suit play itself out. Is it possible the court will say no to the stay, and order the city to hold a special election in June 2013 instead? (Best scenario, I think.)
Mayor Tait, who seems to be the only council member (besides the departing Lorri Galloway) to actually be enthusiastic about this reform, tried hard to get the districting question onto the high-turnout November 2012 election, because he is worried about it being easily defeated by big money in a lower-turnout June election. Which brings up the $$$ question: What does happen with the suit if Anaheim voters say NO to districting?
Former and new councilwoman Lucille Kring was a slow convert to the districting cause, but she was gradually convinced (as part of Tait’s courtship-pending-endorsement of her) that Anaheim is indeed in violation of the CRVA, and that resistance to the suit is futile. But she stubbornly insists there should be no more than FOUR districts and FOUR councilpeople (along with an at-large mayor.) Really, CAN she insist on that?
And what will we end up with – Mayor + 4, as Lucille wants? Mayor + 6, as Tait proposed in August? Mayor + 8, as activists like OCCORD insist is best? How complicated will the special-election ballot be?
What I think is most important:
Presumptuously, as a white “outside agitator” from Huntington Beach who cares about strengthening democracy throughout Orange County, I propose the following:
1. It’s highly desirable, but SECONDARY, for there to be more Councilpeople of Latin and other races; candidates and voters of Latin and other races should step forward; and they probably will when they feel it’s not a waste of effort.
2. It’s highly desirable, but SECONDARY, for there to be more Councilpeople who come from other neighborhoods than the wealthy Hills and the Colony and know what the issues are there; candidates and voters from those neighborhoods should step forward; and they probably will when they feel it’s not a waste of effort.
3. What’s most important, and will make those other two things possible, is for it to COST SIX OR EIGHT TIMES LESS to run for Council, so that a regular guy or girl can manage to make it without the backing of Anaheim’s corporate interests, or the unions, or vast personal wealth. Generally it has cost the average Anaheim councilperson $200,000 to fight his or her way into office. (This year we saw two off-the-charts outliers – Jordan floating in on $400,000 of corporate money, and Lucille managing to come in second with not much but name recognition, endorsements and shoe leather.)
No person of average means can manage $200,000 to run for council without kissing serious corporate ass. But divide the town into eight districts, and the cost comes down to $25,000 – doable for an honest person with friends who believe in them! Not only that, forget about the money – if 140,000 registered Anaheim voters are divided in eight, that makes 17,500 voters, and it’s just possible to knock on their doors and meet them if you start early enough. (Imagine that, Lucille – only 1/8 of all those dog bites you got!)
And then – voila – Anaheim gets policy made for the majority of its citizens, NOT at the beck and call of the largest corporations and/or the unions!
Which brings up one last question or problem: If the “districting” we’re talking about is, as some seem to prefer, what they have in Santa Ana – where each district or “ward” gets its own candidates but they then have to run citywide – then everything glowing I just portrayed disappears. Let’s NOT do it Santa Ana style.
Districting and its Discontents
This might all be academic if Anaheim is ruled in violation of the CVRA, but there are people who feel strenuously, for various more and less compelling reasons, that this district elections reform sucks, that it will divide the city into hostile fiefdoms, and that it will rob each voter of his God-given right to vote for a slate full of councilpeople. Orange Juice fan “Laundromat Viewer” has created HandsOffOurVotingRights.Com, a compendium of those grievances, and resources and companionship for those who wish to fight districting. I assume Laundromat Viewer will be voting nay, when the question comes to the ballot.
In general agreement with Laundromat Viewer, but stoically resigned to the unwinnability of the suit and the inevitability of districting, is our friend Cynthia Ward. She and many others look at the cost of running for office decreasing eight-fold and see the opposite of what I see – where I see the average person having an eight times better chance of competing with Disney, they say “No, it’ll just be eight times easier for Disney to buy eight councilmembers.”
Huh?
Disney and its allies dropped $400K on Jordan Brandman without blinking an eye. That is nothing to them. So is $50 K – also nothing to them. Things don’t change for the big players, for the Goliaths. But the Davids would have a chance finally. I don’t see how this is not self-evident.
Cynthia, a fine writer and honest conservative, betrays some of the elitism native to her ideology when she attempts to flesh out her worries, her worries of how lower-class, “blue-collar” candidates are likely to be more susceptible to corporatist blandishments than are those “to the manor born” :
Council Districts will do nothing to help disenfranchised neighborhoods launch their candidates, because the special interests that already control Anaheim will simply blanket those smaller Districts in mail and drown out the efforts of some poor schmuck who thought he could cover the ‘hood in photocopied handouts with volunteers.
If you think the establishment crowd cannot game this, think again. They will find a local in a District they need to control, someone stepping up with leadership qualities that locals clearly respect and follow. They will groom him/her. Invite them to sit at a Chamber table for a few luncheons, The Mouse scores them seats for Candlelight (or invites them to serve on the SOAR Advisory Board) someone has last minute tickets for the City’s box at the Honda Center, etc. This little blue collar worker has never had that level of attention in their life, and with very little time and investment they have someone dazzled at being part of the “in” crowd.
Been there, done that, and am sadly watching others I care about being seduced with the same exact courtship. And when those who have been so good to you explain how this project is really great for the City, well you listen, because you trust them. Districts will not change that. It will just give us more leaders to influence.
Really. Because they’re “blue collar” and live in a “hood” they’re more corruptible and naive than a candidate “of means,” one with breeding and schooling who comes from the right quarter. We all just have to depend on the noblesse oblige of the rare Tait or Galloway. I don’t think so.
And then these doubters kvetch that each district will become its own little fiefdom, each councilperson only caring about their own district and horse-trading with each other for a park here, a park there. Seriously, nothing will ever be perfect, and all politicians need to be kept on a short leash, but does this really seem worse, and not a whole lot better, than what we have now?
A Word to the Whites from Dr. José Moreno
A lot of us get tired of race being injected into this, but the way the law is written, the California Voting Rights Act, required the lawsuit to be framed in racial terms. The districting reform, however, is about a lot more than just race.
Dr. Moreno, one of the initiators of the suit, was telling me the other day that white people really should take a second look at districting if they think it’s meant only to give a leg up to Latinos and other minorities. They need to look at it bearing in mind that within a decade WHITE PEOPLE will be a minority in Anaheim too, and districting may very well be what helps them keep a few WHITE folks in office and the town not turn into another Santa Ana. (This is my paraphrase of the good doctor.)
He points to the last election as yet another demonstration that the white majority won’t elect a Latino candidate; I think there were reasons that Leos didn’t make it, and VERY good reasons that “Chavez Lodge” didn’t, and nobody can even remember the name of the Latina that ran. But we both agree that all people need to start looking beyond race and consider whether that candidate’s positions (and character) work for you or not. Ironically, Latinos may very well see that their best candidate is the bold progressive activist Duane Roberts from West Anaheim; while fearful racist whites (I mean, those whites who ARE fearful and racist) might choose the half-Latino law-and-order corporatist Steven Albert “CHAVEZ” Lodge!
The Best Outcome
It would be nice to see Jordan Brandman keep his promise and show himself to be more his own man, less a Pringle puppet, than many of us suspect him of being. But whether or not he keeps his word, the special election to choose districting should be held early THIS year – 2013 – so there’s plenty of time to implement the new districts. And it’ll be up to us small-d democratic activists to make sure it passes.
And WHILE WE’RE AT IT – Take Back Anaheim should be resurrected for the New Year, and launch a petition drive to put two more questions on that ballot: last year’s “Let the People Vote” on corporate subsidies, and Mayor Tait’s proposed civilian police review commission.
And all this can be done with Mayor Tait’s encouragement from his bully pulpit, the tireless organizing skills of plenty-of-time-on-her-hands-now Galloway, and using the sorely-needed cash of the prodigal OCEA.
AND they should hire not only Tea-Party firebrand Tim Whitacre again, but the brilliant campaign manager who helped push Sharon Quirk-Silva (and probably, ironically, Jordan Brandman) over the edge in the Anaheim flatlands last month – Jason Mills!
[Update: Just as I wrapped this up, I heard from an insider who is much more pessimistic about ANYTHING positive happening in the next four-six years. This source fears that the court will give great leeway to the stalling tactics of the council majority, and THOSE are looking like they could be drawn out WELL past 2014. I’ll let my optimistic article stand though, because we all need a little hope…]
“Corporations are people, too my friend!”
I remember the name of the Latina candidate, the invisible candidate Jenny Rivera. She and the other low key latino candidate got 15% of the vote. A lot of us were so eager to have a Latino elected, that any Latino sounding name was appealing. Thanks Cynthia for stopping the Chavez Lodge deceit! As long as we do not vote in the numbers reflecting our demographic size, the district system is a reasonable alternative. Electing a Latino does not necessarily mean that the concerns of our community will be adequately addressed. One of these current concerns is represented by the United Survivors of Anaheim (USA) , formerly Anaheim Cruzaders, regarding police brutality *. The discussion of whether and when to implement district elections, may take a long time. In the meantime, if the explosive factors that prompted the July riots are not addressed, we may regret not addressing them now.
* http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2012/12/united_survivors_of_anaheim.php
Jennifer Rivera is the answer.I remember it because it sounds like Jenni Rivera, a very well know Mexican singer. Jennifer has used the title of “law student” the last 2 elections so I’ll assume that (if she runs again) it will be either “attorney” or “6 year law-student” in her occupation description.
The lawsuit was right and those who are against it are scared of sharing a little power.
Jordan takes his orders from Pringle and anybody who was fooled into thinking it will be different got punked big time. Letting the system run itself is what Jordan seem to say at Los Amigos is saying I won’t fight your fight because it will weaken my master’s hold on the city. D-OH!
The OC weekly laughed and criticized the lawsuit, I’m sure probably calling those bringing the lawsuit fools.
They are not fools, they are heroes.
However, any immediate change to districting elections alone won’t necessary allow for non-Latinos to remain on the council. If the election is changed to a district election where voting is at-large then the issue of inadequate representation still exist.
It is quite probably that Brandman will closely follow Pringle’s designs. He will also become a close ally of Kris Murray. Although as a smart and young politician, he may have taken notice of Scott Baugh’s visit to Los Amigos today, courting the hispanics votes. We may end up with a few GOP latino candidates, especially when the impeding immigration reform is implemented. His future career may end up at that point.
I am still naively amazed that no mainstream media has picked up the story of the perceived corrupt influence of Pringle, and the massive support provided by the Disney company to Bradman. If the Chavez Lodge story made it to the Huffington Post, the Pringle/Disney one is much more relevant.
Let’s hope that the OCW takes this story up again, and gathers more attention to this detrimental situation.
Jose, I guess you heard that Jenni Rivera, the singer, died today in an airplane crash.
Odd you mention Jenni Rivera. She died today. RIP.
Your three arguments for districting would be stronger for your hometown since (again) there were more ballots cast by voters in Huntington Beach than in Anaheim
Hmm, there’s that … but HB is nowhere near as spread out or demographically/economically diverse. Still, I’m not fighting it there. HB could sure use SOMETHING making it less expensive to mount a campaign.
Vern, you totally misunderstood what I was saying my friend. I did not mean to infer that a blue-collar worker would be MORE likely to succumb to the seduction of Disney/Chamber/Pringle money just because they are poor. What I am saying is that nobody is immune to that kind of attention, I know it turned my head for a time, I have seen it turn the heads of others (honest people who did not even realize they were compromising their values until it was too late) your assumption that all poor people are noble and pure, and make ethical candidates who run for the good of the community is naive. Just as there are decent rich white people in the hills (see Tom Tait for prime example) there are blue collar workers in West Anaheim that will sell out their hoods to the highest bidder, and they live right alongside the noble poor man who wants to run and make a difference. It’s funny that liberals accuse conservatives of stereotyping, but I see it more in you lefties than over here on the right,
Not all poor are noble, not all rich are crooked and greedy, and not all Colony people live in large Victorian mansions. In fact, if I hear the Colony called a wealthy enclave again I am going to scream. Yes there are some in my area (mostly the Realtors) who have a few bucks put away. Others bought large but trashed homes back before we tarted up the area with the name “historic district” and were nothing but the inner city. Really, I know someone whose house is probably worth three quarters of a million today, (one of the biggies on Broadway) but when he bought it was a mess, barely livable, and they used to pick shot gun shells off the lawn after Saturday night. It took a lot of hard work and perseverance from those brave souls to move in to a gang infested war zone, many with small kids, and hang tough with Neighborhood Watch and flashlight walks, and make this a decent place to live, For that they are accused of “gentrification.” Anyway, quit equating the Colony with the Hills, the vast majority of my neighbors are working class, and English is their second language. Because our streets developed over time instead of all at once like a subdivision, the Colony has diversity in the population, but also in the architecture and density. Vern, you saw my house, it is a big, white elephant of a place, standing proud on the corner (and no I cannot afford it) but right next door to my 1908 house is a set of bungalow courts from the 1920s, I think every one of the tenants in those 20 or so units is on Section 8. (and they are awesome neighbors who are quiet and polite and never throw loud parties and I love them.) Beyond that is a market-rate apartment building from the 1980s, then another 1920s bungalow, I think a rental and I have never heard English come out of the open door. To the other side of me is a tiny little Spanish casita owned by white gay professionals who could totally afford to live in the hills but like the character of their little cottage, so we are all over the place. How would a district even begin to “represent” that assortment of characters? The premise of district voting counts on stereotypes, that a neighborhood primarily occupied by Americans of Mexican heritage will vote for a Mexican candidate is as obscene as assuming that white guys vote for other white guys just because they are white. I want to believe that we vote for the best person for the job without looking at skin color or gender, etc. but maybe I am the one being naive.
Anyway, I did take some time to talk to Dr. Moreno about the lawsuit, and while there are a lot of subjects he and I will never agree on, I do agree with him about the lawsuit in large part now, at least his reasons for it make a lot more sense than they did before our conversation. But I do still see the downside. We have hands-down the most selfish bunch of snots that ever graced our Council dais, and the idea of giving them all little personal kingdoms makes me sick.You know the next step will be, “I need to be near ‘my people’ so I want a budget for a field office” then they will want staff for the field office, (Murray can just keep using Barrios and Associates) and then they will start swapping, give me a community pool and you can have your Police substation…where does it end? There is a lot not to like about it, but mostly it stems from the grade A assholes who currently rule the roost, Mayor Tait’s participation exempted from that statement. In the end what we think doesn’t matter, the current majority will stall, and the courts will settle this to the satisfaction of the ACLU, and we as voters will have lost our opportunity to have input in the process, because there is nothing that says the courts have to take into consideration anything this Citizens Committee is drafting anyway.
I understand that the City is now asking Dr. Moreno and the ACLU to put the lawsuit on hold while they study this, but he asked repeatedly for the City to study the issue and they refused to even consider it, If they are only now going through the motions because a lawsuit has been filed, then they lose the opportunity we once had to consider districts amicably.
On that rather pessimistic, note, have a good evening, see you Tuesday at the swearing in.
Your first paragraph – I’m glad you didn’t mean that poorer people are more easily corruptible, but I think you can see that’s what it sounded like you were saying. I’m glad you realize that there’s honest people, naive people, and corrupt people in all income brackets. Conversely, you’re fighting a straw man, I don’t know anyone who says the opposite – that the poor are all honest and the rich are all corrupt.
Your second paragraph – I didn’t mean to say that the Colony is all wealthy like the Hills, I was just trying to keep my paragraphs short. Before November people could point and say 4 out of 5 councilpeople were from the Hills; now there’s 2 from the hills and 3 from in or near the Colony (right?) A lot of extremely well-connected people live there, even if their neighbors are not all rich. The point is the council is still not geographically diverse.
Sorry we failed to connect in response to your inquiry, but thanks for the website mention! Family obligations have kept me away from the area and site upkeep, but I hope to catch up after the holiday.( Prior site traffic figures explain the lack of complaints! ) For site pubilicity the old phrase ” I couldn’t even get arrested in this town” comes up, but that’s probably a lousy choice of words in Anaheim right now!
Despite failing to connect, I hope to share some info here. My goal in making the site was to be informational and to STIMULATE thought and dialog vs serving as a poster child for reactionaries.(My fear, NOT the intent of your extensive article!) One item possibly mistaken for a ‘grievance’, was instead a suggestion for the RE-Activation, of Leadership Anaheim, a program of years past initiated JUST TO address the drought of qualified candidates from across Anaheim, which somehow morphed into a Youth Program, and out of public attention.
To answer your speculation about my vote, I would prefer something LIKE ‘cumulative voting’ ( not by itself perfect) where voters can ‘spend’ their votes on a single candidate OR among several. This is a new concept that has been tried in several cities across the US, which HAS been ACCEPTED by the court as a remedy to underrepresentation, and, most importantly, has NONE of the COSTS, contention, or voting loss, of districts. It also may have advantages in Anaheim, where ‘under representation’ is NOT physically concentrated, as districts are more compatible with areas defined BOTH physically and demographically.
Public discussion has neglected comparison of alternative solutions, to emphasize ‘the urgency for action’ and a ‘fait accompli’ choice of NUMBER of districts and boundary ideas. I hope the Citizens Committee will equally address OTHER useful alternatives, and not ‘go through the motions’ as some have criticized.
It was said ” White voters oppose districting from fearing power loss as ethnicity changes in the city” WHAT POWER IS THERE TO LOSE? With Corporate spending once again propelling their annointed into office, the only ‘power’ is sadly GREEN, not white. The supposed districting advantage of a smaller target for citizens smaller $$ bullets, neglects that the opposing LARGE $$$ artillery has no ammo limits (Citizens United), and may strategicaly focus that, on only 1 of 2, or 2 of 3 seats.
My main beef with district division, is that future benefits are ‘hoped for’, but LOST voting access is GUARANTEED. Too many residents from to the HOURS of Council public comments, seem to have been focused NOT on the ‘reform’ by districting, but the over-expectation that districting is the sole route for immediate delivery of improvements wanted in their neighborhoods. Their LOSS of voting control never comes up. What would prevent benefits ? Follow the money. Although the city finances (with UN-met needs)are NOW somewhat stable, impending costs from: recovery from assuming loans of the former Redevelopment Agency, recent surrender of the Gardenwalk Hotel tax, costs of The New Streetcar, and the COSTS of implementing (and maintaining) Districting ITSELF, ALL place INCREASING demands on a SHRINKING pie.
The complaint that “My neighborhood should look as nice as (Disneyland / Anaheim Hills, etc) implies blame to an imbalance of fund allocation between areas. BOTH those areas pay ADDITIONAL assessments to Landscape & Lighting Districts FOR those extras – Do ALL residents now also want, NEW ‘districts’ that COST THEM MONEY? I doubt residents would want or could afford that.
Similarly, a districted council could not ‘redistribute’ block grant funding away from the Hills, because THERE IS NONE. Per a 2010 report, A.H. has ‘no current projects’. My guess, because A.H. income levels DISqualify them as ‘troubled areas’ that block grants were DESIGNED to address? So without anything to ‘redistribute’, PLUS the NEW costs of Districting implementation, are we closer to neighborhood benefits or further away? Our extra council votes will be GONE either way.
Any solution from the voters, settlement or the courts will need BETTER participation from the community, to work especially in developing/supplying viable candidates, perhaps helped by re-activation of Leadership Anaheim or a similar effort. With the analytics narrated on the OJB about the SQS victory over Chris Norby, the importance of TIME and EFFORT is critical, even with large $$$ on BOTH sides.
Something that ticks me off personally as well as impacts the issue of ‘underrepresentation’ is the shameful LACK of candidate forums this election cycle. Now that we have 2 years to recover(?) if anyone would like to bat some ideas around about formalizing the candidate forums to insure the voters have an adequate basis(?) of comparison in future elections, drop me a line at handsoffourvotingrights @yahoo.com – thanks!
Correction- Anaheim Hills pays Mello-Roos assesments, the Resort Area has Landscape and lighting Districts. Similar, not the same. Sorry I didn’t catch that earlier.
The ruling voiding the $158 million tax subsidy, focus the attention on Brandman. Eric Carpenter of the OC Register writes “ Anaheim officials could either appeal the court’s decision or, perhaps, bring the item back for a new vote…Incoming council member Jordan Brandman has expressed his support of the tax subsidy as good for the resort district and good for Anaheim. So if the council were to take a new vote, the tax subsidy would likely still have a majority in favor”
I wonder how the DPOC defines its positions on city related issues, as Brandman run as a democrat. Do they get involved at the city level or ignore relevant and explosive issues affecting major cities, like Anaheim? Maybe Greg could offer some insights on the political positions involved.
I attended tonight’s Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections. At the public comments, the first speaker shared the positive experience of Pasadena with district election, then the OCCORD director expressed his empathy with the committee being in a conundrum, assigned to explore solutions while the lawsuit follows its course. Mr Chuchua was more direct, and told them to stop wasting time and taxpayers money, and settle the lawsuit. I followed stating that as a latino I feel that the city council composition does not adequately represent latinos, and that the new council should consider saving taxpayer money by settiling the lawsuit.
The latinos members of the commision present at that moment jumped on me, that latinos have been represented, recently by Ms Galloway. Later I found that they are the ones appointed by Ms Eastman. The other latino who came late to the meeting was also against districting; he is the one appointed by Ms Murray. Overall the majority of this commission is not pro-district, reflecting the political vision of the council members who appointed them.
There were informative presentations by a Loyola Law School professor on the California Votitng Rights Act, who explained that voting at-large in a racially polarized voting environment, the at large system can impair political power of racial or language minorities. Presentations by City of Vista and City of Modesto representatives were also interesting, pointing out to the importance of voter registration and participation in addition to the electoral system. These presentations will be available in the city website.