.
This is all we know so far: Judge Miller granted a three-week stay, for the anti-democracy forces of Anaheim to try to prove that their Santa Ana dog food-style faux districting plan will satisfy the California Voting Rights Act.
Why did he grant that stay? Will the next hearing be open to the public, as this one turned out to be despite previous announcements? How much did each side get to say? I’ll fill this post in as I learn more over the day!
UPDATE, 3pm
Just spoke to the ACLU counsel. The Judge apparently spaced out about having today’s hearing in chambers, and held it in open court after all. The next hearing, three weeks from now, will definitely be in open court. Today’s only lasted 20-30 minutes.
Judge Miller granted an extra three weeks in order to “allow the City to finalize its change in candidacy requirements.” What we know as Santa Ana-style faux districts. The plaintiffs insisted that this reform was NO reform at all, as it would lead to no better representation for Latinos (or anyone else.) The City said pshaw to that, and that their model was justified by an “EXPERT REPORT.”
LOL, “expert report.” That WOULD refer to the notorious Demographer’s Report which my Juice-Brother Diamond has been demolishing all week. I asked the counsel and yes, he doesn’t miss a word on this blog, especially Greg’s latest work, and their thinking and arguments will be quite similar. So this is good.
We have a fairly good opinion of Judge Miller, who last made the news putting the kibbosh on the Costa Mesa Righeimer council’s attempt to slip their anti-worker charter onto the June special election ballot despite missing the deadline. (Result, the charter vote had to wait for the high-turnout November election, where it was resoundingly defeated.)
The next hearing will be July 30, 9AM, Ronald Reagan Building, Dept 15 on the 5th floor, and YOU ARE ALL WELCOME THIS TIME! You know I’ll be there….
Great, I’ll move my comment to here:
I would like to think that this delay was put in place is to allow me time to view and critique Kris Murray’s statements at the City Council — if and when the city posts the video — but I suspect that a different reason may have been cited. (Anyone know what he gave as the reason?)
Gustavo Arellano posted a story on this topic this morning entitled “Hearing Today Over Lawsuit Asking for Anaheim District Elections–YAWN…” Its second sentence:
(When did Gustavo start using the royal “we”?)
Personally, we (as in me) feel that Latinos should be able to determine who represents them. If it turns out that Gustavo moved back to “his beloved Anaheim” and they elect him, that’s their business. That’s what the lawsuit’s about — and apparently what makes Gustavo yawn.
(What doesn’t make Gustavo yawn? Someone standing up to him — as Moreno has done. That’s the one unforgivable sin.)
Anyway, I’m glad that he — or is it they — “doesn’t mind” the ACLU winning their voting rights suit. That’s mighty big of him/them.
The Bloviator can’t help but to include us in virtually any of his brain droppings. Even Vern shows better class, although his hijacking of Chris Epting’s Facebook share of my profile about him to bring me up was insulting to Chris and just pathetic.
When exactly did Moreno stand up to me, Bloviator? Our only real interaction was last year, when he and Los Amigos told Chapman University that they would not participate in a Latino educational summit if my alma mater kept me as their keynote speaker because I dared criticize their Passion Play. Just like you, Moreno couldn’t help but to make an issue that had nothing to do with him into a referendum on his glories. And just like you, everyone who mattered laughed their ass off and ignored his pettiness.
Let me explain this simply, Gustavo:
(1) You wrote an article.
(2) Your article sucked.
(3) Your friends are apparently afraid to tell you.
(4) I’m not.
Yeah, that’s when they stood up to you, although my sense (secondhand) is that Moreno and his friends may have a different understanding of the facts. You’ve certainly shown, though — and I’m not calling you “petty” over it, oh no — why you’d want to go after Moreno. I haven’t done any analysis of your writing to see whether you shifted your slamming of Moreno and Amin David and others into a higher gear after what you apparently believe is a snub attributable to them — but it would be sort of interesting to do that, wouldn’t it?
I mean, all of your writing is there in the Weekly’s archive; all it would take is to tote up every time you took a swipe at Los Amigos or OCCORD or whatever else you think is, um, too “progressive and pro-union and anti-Disney” (wasn’t that how you put it this morning?) and maybe score them for intensity of vitriol, and then we could see whether your intensification of your criticism of them took a sudden jump after you blamed them for getting you removed (or whatever, I wasn’t paying attention) as Chapman’s keynote speaker.
What do you think — should someone do that research? Wouldn’t it be interesting? Of course, even if it turns out that crossing you led to all sorts of bad press, it wouldn’t mean that you’re petty. I mean, I’m sure that “everyone who mattered” would agree on that — to your face.
Nice talking to you!
Actually, Bloviator, I’ve been slamming Los Amigos ever since they did the devil’s deal with Gigante, slandered Duane Roberts, pushed away Josie Montoya (whom I’m sure you don’t even know who she is) and when Amin David called Claudia Alvarez—whom I have no love for at all—a “puta” for accepting grocery store money during the strike last decade. Of course, you weren’t around for any of it—and neither was Moreno. Unlike you, we at the Weekly have only been driven by the truth, no matter how unpopular it may make us. Unlike you, we can give a damn whether our writings make us the flavor of the month to political opportunists.
The Bloviator makes no sense. It’s all just word count diarrhea.
Hey, thanks for the long-overdue laundry list:
(1) “The devil’s deal with Gigante” — seems to me that maybe you lack some perspective there.
(2) “Slandered Duane Roberts” — oh, come on. What did they say that “slandered” him. You’re a reporter, you’re supposed to know what “slander” is.
(3) “Josie Montoya” — I’ve heard the name. I don’t recall the details. It’s frankly not something I’d be that interested in dredging up in the middle of an actual serious and significant fight that some Gustave Arellano-equivalent in 2090 or so is going to say was of historical significance.
(4) “Claudia accepting grocery story money” — yeah, people shouldn’t call women “puta” — although you should be the last to complain about the use of nasty language — although accepting money from a company facing a strike sounds like the sort of thing that might provoke it.
No, you’re driven by personal score-setting and ambition — which is a shame because when you’re keeping away from local politics and showing yourself on the national stage as a feature columnist, you’re actually quite good. That you believe (and think others will believe) the bile you’re spewing here is what’s going to trip you up. Out of respect for what you could have been, I’ll take no satisfaction from that when it happens.
I’ll provide more details in an upcoming story, but for now the biggest fallacies in Gustavo’s account of Moreno, Amigos, and his
lostChapman gig are these: Moreno wasn’t the first, final, or loudest voice opining that Gustavo may not be an appropriate choice as keynote speaker for a conference examining the Latino educational achievement gap, and most importantly he EMPHATICALLY TOLD CHAPMAN, when they asked, THAT LOS AMIGOS WOULD *NOT* BOYCOTT THE EVENT IF THEY KEPT ‘TAVO.You already have the story wrong. Gustavo was never booted from speaking at Chapman. A fuck up in the first sentence. Congrats!
How sad it is that Moreno is reduced to using this rag as a proxy.
Gustavo’s wrong that they ever said they wouldn’t come if he spoke. Is he gonna keep claiming that?
That’s a hilarious criticism. When’s Gustavo going to stop using you as a proxy?
Moreno doesn’t give me (nor, I presume, Vern) instructions, directly or through intermediaries. I happen to like and respect him — and largely (though not entirely) agree with him. But my recollection is that Gustavo’s longstanding grudge against him is based on false information — as Vern just explained.
We as in the Weekly. Seen any stories to the contrary? In the KCRW interview, Moreno lumps all previous Latino council members as subservient to the Resort cabal segment of the ruling class, conveniently omitting that Chavez, among them, was blessed by Los Amigos. This kind of evasive rhetoric makes him prime for a future city council bid!
BTW, the city put out a press release a while ago.
“ANAHEIM, Calif. (July 9, 2013) Today, in the case Moreno v. City of Anaheim, Judge Franz Miller of the Orange County Superior Court held a status conference to review the City of Anaheim’s proposals and timelines to consider changing the City’s electoral system. Included today was a discussion of recent Anaheim City Council action to adopt an ordinance to immediately create residency districts for City Council elections, and to place proposed charter amendments before the voters regarding residency based districts, as well as an increase in the size of the City Council from four to six on the June 2014 ballot.
After listening to both sides, including a description of the ordinance and proposed charter amendment for residency districts and the proposed charter amendment to increase the size of the City Council, the Court further stayed any proceedings until July 30. The purpose of this stay is to provide the Anaheim City Council time to act on the second reading of the residency district ordinance at the July 23 City Council meeting, so that it would be adopted in final form. On July 30, the Judge will hold a status conference to again determine whether to entertain a further stay, potential dismissal, or consider setting a trial date and scheduling hearings on the other pending motions.”
Bloviate away.
Glorioski, San Echón — who is part of Gustavo’s Weekly “we” besides himself? You? You want to own a piece of “we don’t mind the desired outcome of the ACLU [lawsuit]” — as in “we don’t mind putting an end to race-based voter suppression? Come on, man, think of your post-Weekly reputation. Don’t let him get all that “above the fray” post-racial neo-liberalism all over you.
You have some sort of a labor background (at least as a sympathizer), right? Even if it doesn’t bother you that Gustavo uses “progressive, union-friendly, [and] Disney-hating” as curse words — as if wanting Disney to play fair means “hating” them — you do understand that people with political power try to make deals, right? That they sometimes endorse political candidates based on promises and hopes — and then sometimes get betrayed (see, e.g., Lucille Kring) — doesn’t discredit some group like Los Amigos. It’s not even trying — and standing “above the fray” throwing stones from a position of privilege — that is discrediting.
You should already know this, of course.
P.S. The Demographer’s Report will be discredited easily. Someone wrote a whole series on that in the past week.
I brought up Chavez. You evaded that.
I think, Gabriel, that the part where Greg did NOT evade the Chavez thing (which in turn is your quibble with something Jose apparently said on the radio) is where Greg said:
“…you do understand that people with political power try to make deals, right? That they sometimes endorse political candidates based on promises and hopes — and then sometimes get betrayed (see, e.g., Lucille Kring) — doesn’t discredit some group like Los Amigos.”
And I grant that you would know more about Chavez than either of us. Mayor Tait speaks highly of him, as his best ally before Galloway.
No, I didn’t “evade” it, Brother Echón. At worst I overlooked it, but I thought that I had covered it in my reference to Kring.
I presume that at the time Los Amigos thought that Chavez was worth supporting on balance — even perhaps despite his having been too close to Resort District interests. Why would they do that? Well, if you mean 2006, maybe because the alternative was Lucille Kring — who beat Chavez for second placeby 21,783 votes to 21,578. My guess is that Chavez was a better choice, but people can disagree. If you’re talking about 2002, another possibility is that Chavez made promises to them that he didn’t keep — so they made a bet and it didn’t pan out.
Poking fun at them from the safety of after the fact, especially if one didn’t wade in among the candidates with a shot at winning at the time, is juvenile. There’s not necessarily any shame in backing a horse who later turns out to be a dog — at least they got into the game and tried to choose the best likely path. (I like the idea of making two sets of endorsements: one if you care about who wins and one if you just want to make a statement. But just evading the reality that certainly people are possible winners and one should try to have a preference between them is timidity posing as bravery. It’s a luxury of those who purport to be above the fray.)
In 2012, Vern thought that Kring would be OK as a matter of realpolitik because she made good promises and he didn’t want Brandman to win. It turned out that she was completely untrustworthy, but that’s not Vern’s fault — and Kring’s duplicity in office has had the benefit of discrediting people like her. He would have liked to support Chuchua and Roberts (maybe he did end up with Chuchua), but he understood that that was like abstaining in the race, given Duane’s lack of evident support — which was borne out by Duane’s last-place finish.
I hope that that slakes your thirst for me not to have evaded your points.
Nah, Kring doesn’t cover or explain the critique. We are talking about the rewriting political history dishonestly time and time again. Misrepresentations warrant journalistic responses. And who else is going to do it? Not this blog.
I support single-member districts. I don’t support the opportunism that has sullied the potential reform. That has been unfortunate.
Anyway, *YAWN*
In the meantime: Vern, hurry up and flesh out that hit piece you have warming up about why I reported on many “Spanish-surname, Spanish-dominant” parents who organized to retain a principal in Anaheim but were brushed off by the school board much in the same spirit as the CAC recommendations were brushed off by the “Murrjority.”
I look forward to it.
RIght – o, brother. Couple more important things to finish first though.
It really sounds like you guys just want Los Amigos to say, “We’ve made some mistakes in the past, a few bad calls that we regret now.” Would that make a big difference to you? I could try to get them to do it.
And take away my fun? Bastid.
GSE, what does “support single-member districts” even MEAN to you? The battle is taking place right now — and you’re not only sitting on the sidelines but you’re shooting spitballs at the people who are actually actively engaged in it!
Is there reason to criticize Los Amigos? I’m sure that there is; there is reason to criticize everyone and every group. But you’re tilting at the windmill of “opportunism” here? NOW?
For god’s sake, grow up. Be a man, grab a shovel, and pitch in. The time is now. (I promise to fight with you later if that’s what you want.) Right now it’s “which side are you on, boys, which side are you on?”
There’s certain people who if they checked me, I’d give a shit about it. You’re not one of them.
Fine: ask one of them if you should carp at someone in the middle of a civil rights fight — or grow up and put that aside for a while. Or, if you just can’t, at least don’t parade around saying how admirable you are for being uninvolved.
We could give a shit as to what Los Amigos says, just like we can give a shit what anyone else may say. If you do good, we salute; if you do bad, out come the bats.
Well, in that formulation, what Los Amigos “does” is force district elections on the city by lawsuit; what they “say” or “don’t say” is what happened ten or twenty years ago. So you don’t give a shit about that. So put away your stoopid bats.
As usual, the Bloviator doesn’t understand history, nor does he want to bother with it—just like Jose Moreno. Chavez wasn’t a candidate of convenience for Los Amigos: he was one of them. Hell, Chavez and David were palling around in 2006 in the fight against Allan Mansoor. But why inconvenience the Bloviator and Moreno with facts?
I know that he was elected in 2002 (along with Bob Hernandez) — during a time of substantial love for firefighters in the wake of 9/11 — with the support of the public safety unions. Did he join Los Amigos after that? Wouldn’t surprise me — it would be politically astute. But from what I can tell, going to the Los Amigos meetings does not necessarily make one “one of them.”
So where were you when people were fighting against Allan Mansoor in 2006? Real-world adult politics, rather than juvenile squalling, sometimes means establishing coalitions of convenience to fight for a common cause. Sometimes this can lead to lasting friendships despite political disagreements — which is a good thing for our system.
So your complaint about Chavez and David “palling around” while opposing Mansoor — what exactly is your problem with that?
The Bloviator STILL cannot accept simple facts. Look at Chavez’s bio, where he says he’s a Los Amigos member—need any more proof for that? Look up old clips where David is praising Chavez right after his election, clips that say Chavez is a Los Amigos member. You can try to change history all you want, but the great thing about history is that it doesn’t change—and it doesn’t take kindly to those who try to manipulate it toward their own ends. Congrats! You’re as pendejo as those who try to claim the KKK in Anaheim duped a bunch of innocents to don robes.
So you’re talking about 2002 rather than 2006? OK, feeb (I’ll stick to English-language insults for now) — why would you hold Amin David responsible if Richard Chavez turned out not to be as good by 2006 as David had hoped and expected he would be back in 2002, at which time I suppose David knew him only from Los Amigos? Hell, at one time I thought you were a responsible journalist, but people and situations change!
(I remind the reader that at this point Gustavo is actually attacking a comment that Jose Moreno apparently made saying that Richard Chavez had been too beholden to Resort Area business interests (or whatever) as being inconsistent with Amin David’s praise of Chavez before he took office. Yes, that’s what leads to this eruption on the unchanging nature of history.)
A final point: as any actual historian will tell you, goofball, while in some sense “history” does not change (as in, “the moving hand writes and having writ moves on”) our access to historical events changes and our understanding of those events in light of developments in new theory changes.
The former will be most obvious to you (or if not you, to readers) when you think of archaeology or of the discovery of new letters buried in some attic or archive. The bones and the writings were always there (“history doesn’t change!”) but our access to them does.
A great example of the latter would be the many benefits that ethnic studies, gender studies, and labor studies have brought to our understanding of social science by “rewriting history” from the perspective of groups that were not its previous focus.
A competent historian also maintains perspective and priorities. Pulling a small fact out of a pigeonhole and claiming that it is the definitive guide to history is bad analysis.
By the way, go say hi to our new writer Katherine Daigle, who is going full-tilt Republican in these pages as “Irvine Valkyrie,” and explain to her again why — using the tools of History! — your rag tilted the election by falsely asserting that she wasn’t a Republican but was an “Agran plant.” As long as we’re digging up old bones, we might as well go after the ones stuck in your throat.
If you don’t like what the city council is putting before the voters, then there is plenty of time to put initiatives with other choices on the ballot too.
Sure. Or we could save the money and let the courts do their job — as they will — and let the city pay Plaintiff’s court costs (as well as its own.)
I expect that that latter prospect doesn’t bother you, as a tax-and-spend (to keep minorities from equal political participation) conservative.
The courts do not write legislation, that is not the job of the courts.
What is the problem with allowing the people the right to vote?
What is wrong with the people putting alternative choices on the ballot to counter the politician’s self-serving measure? Cost? (Freedom is not free; there is a cost that must be paid over and over again)
cook, this is not legislation. This is a remedial measure that would be — at this point I’ll say will be — imposed as a way of stopping the city’s intransigence. If you don’t think that that’s the job of the courts, you need to study up before we can continue the conversation.
The purpose of putting alternative choices on a ballot is to confuse voters — which the political campaign will do. Because these would be — completely unnecessarily (as you’ll see in Part 4 of my series) — competing rather than complementary measures, it gives the city an extra way to beat back an initiative by getting more votes. (We recently had this situation in last year’s election with Prop 30 and Prop 38, but at least Molly Munger had her heart in the right place. This would be the sort of situation that would have occurred if she’d put Prop 38 on the ballot just to kill prop 30.)
The court is under no obligation to pretend that it doesn’t know what’s going on as it assesses the various party’s degree of good faith.
Freedom of choice and the right of the voters to vote on completing ideas is COMPLETELY UNNECSSARITY?
I must be misunderstanding your meaning, easy to do with text messaging on a blog.
No, cook — making the two voting measures conflict is completely unnecessary. One can write them so that they conflict (and only one can pass) or so that they don’t (and both can pass.) The city is trying to ensure that only one measure can pass.
It’s a transparent way to set up another hurdle against real voter-residency districting. The court will recognize it as such — and therefore as damning to the motivations of the city, as if more damnation were required.
Wow, guys.
It is both amusing and revealing in seeing the power of ego here. Some activists share the same “we” seeking outcome but have strayed from their own brown thinking beliefs. Questioning the means that each other uses to either maintain their own standing, depress another’s recognition while seeking more power just seems so arrogant, self centered and damaging. I’m reminded of a song phrase, “check yourself before they wreck yourself,” but we are all grown ups and make our own choices.
For the record, I have always supported the lawsuit and true district elections and while I’m not naive in knowing that this is for some people a way to elect progressive thinking candidates, even if means a Latino loses. I think Dr Jose Moreno mentioned this in a council meeting(reading between the lines) and I think he proved this with the recent nod appointment on the AUHSD(which overlooked a latino appointment candidate) so it’s sort of not a big yawn to mention this as revelations, instead what most political astute people see.
Then, I remember Chavez not getting his support from pre-Soar groups but from public safety unions, before him Hernandez and Lou Lopez before him.
Lastly, my recommendation (take it as you will) is to put some oversized boxing gloves and settle this like civilized grown ups. There appears no end to this and while Greg and I are politicly different, I hate people who bully with name calling.
A boxing match is old school, it stops the name calling from distant keyboards, puts a check on egos, and might be stress relieving too. Imagine it, profits going to a non profit. I’ll be the referee.
He’s like 20 years younger than me, Joe. Can’t I just debate him?
I’d consider sumo wrestling, though. Never done it, but there’s always a first time.
It was once suggested that the former “Administrator” of this blog go three rounds in the ring with his rival from Irvine. Of course Dan cited some srt of injury as to why “He’d love too but….doctors orders you know”. I think there was a Matt Cunningham vs. Kenllaysnotdead undercard. Dsomething about SPS as a ring girl. Look it up.
It should not surprise our friends at the Weekly that they are challenged by people who disagree with their opinions. The eventual implementation of the CVRA in Anaheim may profoundly change the politics as usual, dominated by powerful business interests, and open up the playing field for the disenfranchised minorities. It is a very relevant issue for many Anaheim residents, and the role of the local media is important. The OC Weely is considered an alternative paper, run by a nationally known Anaheim born editor, and their opinion carries weight.
I still don’t understand their ambivalence on the remedy pursued by the ACLU lawsuit, based on their criticism of Dr Moreno and Los Amigos. I would like to know their plans on“ to truly caring about minority representation leading Anaheim.” Unfortunately Duane finished last at the last election. As my suggestions, I invite Gustavo to read my last comments addressed to him in the Pringle post.
Fernando Guerra, a professor of Political Science and Chicana/o Studies , is featured on today’s Google News, on Anaheim’s voting system. An excerpt of this article:
“Political misrepresentation in the city is the focus of a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The organization, representing the Latino residents, claim the at large violates the California Voting Rights Act.
“This clearly violates the voting rights—it is diluting the votes of Latinos in the city. And the information is overwhelming to show that. From a social science perspective there is no doubt that the Latino vote is being diluted in Anaheim,” said Dr. Guerra.
“To me, the ACLU will win this because it’s a clear violation the problem is it will take time and resources and it continues to create tension amongst the city.
“There’s an old, old political adage, “power is never given, it is taken.” Power either has to be taken by the voters or the court system to say you can’t have this unfair system.”
http://www.cafwd.org/reporting/entry/anaheim-votes-to-have-hybrid-election-model-next-june
“This clearly violates the voting rights” ???
How does the right of each and every voter voting for the candidate of their choice violate California law?
I think you are mixing up the requirement that each district be drawn in a manner that makes them fair and balanced. And fair and balanced does not mean stacking the deck in favor of Latino’s or any other group.
It has been explained and it’s in the ACLU’s brief. You either haven’t been trying to figure it out or you have been trying not to figure it out. I’m not repeating myself again. Read up on “winner-take-all” municipal voting systems; this ground is well-plowed.
To simplify, let’s put in this way: when Anaheim Hills is in the numerical minority at some point in the future, even despite its greater wealth, its voters will be glad that they can choose Kris Murray as their Council Member (should they so wish) rather than the rest of the city deciding that Anaheim Hills should be represented by Lorri Galloway — or by Julio Perez, should he move there.
“winner-take-all” is legal.
Most elections are winner-takes-all.
If those voters in Anaheim would like to have district only elections, they have the right to put that question on the ballot.
Explain to me, in simple terms, what you think my position is.
Are you opposed to the existence of a U.S. House of Representatives? Do you think that we should all vote for 435 of our favorite candidates and not have districts at all?
Is this the weekend open thread?
Why, did you find some small dead animals out in breitbart world?
Greg, the US House has its rules written into the Constitution, diff from the Senate, and diff from the President. It is what it is.
I don’t have a problem with your position; it should be on the ballot for the voters to decide.