It looks like the answer will be over $2 million of Anaheim taxpayers’ money, possibly as much as two and a half million. That’s the answer to the question, how much did the kleptocratic council majority opt to waste fighting a futile battle against the California Voting Rights Act, just in order to postpone the day (to probably 2016) that folks can run for council, and have a fighting chance, without access to at least a couple hundred thousand dollars.
Oh, and let’s not forget to add to that: What was it, $100 K or more to go through that sham of a “Citizens Advisory Committee,” which was intended as a delaying tactic, but blithely ignored when the honest members went off the reservation and recommended putting districting on the ballot. And now things have turned out exactly how COUNTLESS of us predicted.
I focus on Kris and Gail in my title because they were the common denominator: Together with then-councilman Harry Sidhu they torpedoed Mayor Tait’s effort to put the question onto the Nov. 2012 ballot, an effort that WOULD have rendered the suit moot and given Anaheim district elections THIS coming November (assuming the measure won.) Then, LAST year, together with turncoat Lucille Kring, they sank the Mayor’s effort to put it on this coming June’s ballot. And LASTLY, the immediate direct beneficiaries of this delay are Kris and Gail, both running for second terms this year as CERTAINLY the only two candidates with access to such buttloads of corporate cash.
The amount of Anaheim taxpayer money to ultimately have been spent on this delay is still a little vague: we know there’s been $1.2 million of legal waste on the City’s side, and you guys are going to have to pay an undetermined amount to the ACLU plaintiffs which can be reasonably guessed to be something like the City’s own costs – hence, between 2 and 2.5 million altogether. But to Kris and Gail, or to SOMEBODY, this has been worth it. Worth at least 2 million of your Anaheim taxpayer dollars.
Naturally, Kris Murray Strenuously Disputes This Characterization.
The voluble – the monotonously voluble Councilwoman Murray anticipated the firestorm of criticism and began yesterday’s meeting by leading City Attorney Michael Houston through a series of questions meant to demonstrate the absolute necessity of this $2 million-plus legal battle. This was absolutely the first opportunity, Kris questionably argued with Mike’s assistance, that the city could possibly settle without risking losing its autonomy to the Court, without having some judges dictate, for an indeterminate length of time, how sovereign Anaheim conducts its elections.
Poppycock, responded Mayor Tait, the council’s token human being. If the majority had sided with him at either juncture and put districting on the ballot (and it had passed) the suit would have become moot, millions would have been saved, and we’d already have democracy this year. Houston, buffeted by both sides but knowing that the majority butters his bread, responded with uncertainty but did bring up a legal opinion coming from the plaintiffs that it is possible for a judge to order this charter city into CVRA compliance.
In actuality that was one of several conflicting legal opinions floating around, but the plaintiffs have made it clear to me that putting the question on the ballot in either Nov 2012 or this June WOULD in fact have put an end to the wasteful lawsuit. And in fact that’s been clear all along, as the same folks clamored at both points for exactly that to happen.
In Case You Were Wondering, As I Was…
This means two questions that HAD been planned for June’s ballot won’t be there: The council majority’s attempt to foist Santa Ana-style faux districting (residency-requirement only, but running at large) has been dumped; and the question of whether or not to expand the council to Mayor-plus-SIX has been put off till November, with the districting referendum.
SO you’ve got the STATUS QUO for another three years – FOUR councilmembers elected at large. And obviously Murray and Eastman are running for re-election to their seats, the only two seats open. What brave and worthy soul will attempt to overcome their huge monetary and name-recognition advantage? We’ll be finding out soon now that everyone knows the lay of the land. But one person we’re all looking at is Dr Jose Moreno, plaintiff in the suit and hero of democracy, who can run if he wants now that the smoke has cleared. WATCH THIS SPACE.
Oh … and the $2 million Pachyderm-in-the-Foyer Question…
What if, everyone asks, Anaheim voters say NO to district elections this November? What happens then? Nobody seems to know the answer to that question. And one chip the plaintiffs seem to have bargained away in yesterday’s settlement is that they can’t bring this back to court if things don’t go their way. And yet, if sovereign charter-city Anaheim is out of compliance with the CVRA, it is out of compliance with the CVRA. Hm. Virgin legal territory.
Recent polls show that a majority of Anaheimers DO want the heightened democracy of district elections. BUT we know how easily the public can be swayed by an expensive, slick propaganda campaign. Will that happen, against district elections, this fall, and who would be behind it? I’d thought the kleptocrats had sort of caved after having bought their extra four years, but Murray made it clear yesterday that she is still adamantly opposed to districting, which means her handlers – the Disney-Pringle axis – are still adamantly opposed to it (despite the ambiguous Kalogridis letter of August 2012.) So, if they really do fight reform, what will their arguments be?
Matt Cunningham’s Dead-Blog-Walking.
Of course, hardly anybody reads Matt Cunningham’s discredited, Chamber-funded bloglet except for mainly us blog junkies who find him irresistibly reprehensible, but it IS still online. If you paid any attention to it before last month, you’ll agree that it wasn’t ALL about Teddy Bear Mutilations; in fact, its number one purpose seemed to be discrediting, agitating, and fear-mongering against district elections.
Which means two things: the thousands spent paying Matt to spin this crap, the taxpayer money funneled through the Chamber for that purpose, can be added to the total public cost of defending Murray’s and Eastman’s seats; AND this is also the place to look for clues to what the kleptocracy’s arguments against democracy will be.
And it was mainly three things:
- Districting will tear the city into “competing fiefdoms” – an argument that doesn’t seem so scary when countered with “HOW COULD IT BE ANY WORSE THAN NOW?” As in, how could it be any worse than a Council that would shove the Angels Stadium giveaway down taxpayers’ throats?
- Other big cities that have district elections ALSO have problems. Um… Yeah. Duh.
- And then it mostly came down to discrediting districting proponents. Matt’s blog has always been at least half about calling names and attempting guilt-by-association. Knowing that Anaheim still has a Republican voting majority, he has emphasized that many (if not most) districting advocates could be considered left of center. Pay dirt! It’s a communist conspiracy, to give the people who don’t deserve a voice more of a voice. He even found that one girl who used to be part of the district-advocating group OCCORD put something sympathetic to Hugo Chavez on her Facebook wall on the day that dictator died. Powerful stuff.
I think we can handle all that.
Remember, remember, This November…
It’s good that the people of Anaheim will get to vote on how their future elections will be conducted, and I can only hope as an outsider that they make the right choice. But I’ll tell you one thing – no, THREE things Anaheim voters should remember when they look at the same ballot and choose their councilmembers for the next four years:
- Kris Murray and Gail Eastman prevented you from being able to make this decision, on how your elections are conducted, back in Nov. 2012.
- Kris Murray and Gail Eastman AGAIN kept you from being able to make that decision in June 2014, severely limiting your choice of candidates in Nov. 2014.
- Kris Murray and Gail Eastman thought that preventing you from being able to make these choices was worth spending OVER TWO MILLION OF YOUR TAXPAYER MONEY.
That’s it for now. Carry on. Nelson out.
Excellent work. I think that we can sum up their strategy with this ad from SOAR PAC inviting people to a VIP backstage fundraiser at the publicly owned Honda Center:
The idea is that it doesn’t matter what they do so long as no one will have enough money to run against them. It could well work. (Or it could well backfire.)
Beautiful Sonata Vern,…..Hit all the high notes, built it to a big crescendo and brought it home. Standing “O”!!! Bravo.
good article
wow, deadwhitemale and gericault in agreement? then it must be true.
HOW COULD IT BE ANY WORSE THAN NOW?
A compelling argument for those terrified of change. of course those most terrified of change are the kleptocrats whose shenanigans have finally been exposed.
Just ask the people in Tehran. Especially those who believed in the leftist views of Saeed Soltanpour .
Yikes! Cunningham coughed up three anti-Jose Moreno hairballs today.
The Kleptos are worried.
Teddy Bear is pretty hilarious.
If the case wasn’t meritorious, why is the City settling? It’s costing them over $1 million to do so. Are they just stupid?
If the case WAS meritorious, it was because the City wasn’t doing something it was supposed to do and/or was doing something that it wasn’t supposed to do. Either one of those justifies their filing the lawsuit — and then the City is to blame for stretching it out until the prospect of depositions made it unbearable.
As for Jose Moreno “not lifting a finger” to push for districts within his school district (which excludes Anaheim Hills and is therefor much more ethnically homogenenous, making such a case harder to win) — what he’s saying is that Moreno didn’t file a lawsuit. Of course he didn’t — HE’S ON THE SCHOOL BOARD! How does Matt think that would work?
Seems like you’re bristling to announce that Moreno will run for council this year. When he does, it will just confirm what we wrote for Scariest People 2012:
“the lawsuit is so ahistorical and riddled with errors it comes off as the self-serving springboard it is for Moreno to run for a seat in 2014.”
Damn Gabo, you’re right. I had forgotten how “ahistorical” that stoopid lawsuit was. Like for example when the plaintiffs wrote “at least two Anaheim Councilmen were Klan members,” while in fact, as Gustavo pointed out, “No, there were THREE!”
Kudos to you two for catching such important ahistoricalities. You’re right, Jose better not even THINK of running after THAT faux pas.
You know, I mostly do like you (and Gustavo too, for that matter), which is why it saddens me when you come off as a juvenile imbecile.
“Ahistorical and riddled with errors.” REALLY? Then how come Anaheim is settling it, thereby forcing them to pay $1-2 million in fees and costs to the ACLU?
“Oh, if only the ACLU had listened to you and Gustavo and dropped the suit,” right? But they didn’t, because they knew that the suit was utterly sound under voting rights law — and that the supposed “ahistorical” elements were unimportant distractions (at least for those easily distracted) and the “errors” with which it was “riddled,” to the extent they existed at all, were unimportant.
Your view of the case was ignorant and wrong because you guys may know sociology and history you do not know law. That you still have the temerity to sling out advice as if you did know tort from Tortuga should embarrass you. And if Moreno runs for a seat — good. And if your petty grievances against him lead you to spend ink and pixels opposing him, that should embarrass you too.
Have G & G actually said the lawsuit shouldn’t have been filed, or should have been dropped? I’m not sure they ever figured out what they were trying to say about it.
Except to be smart alecks. And put down Jose who made the mortal error of once suggesting that there might be a better speaker about education than Gustavo.
It’s not that hard to figure out. The ACLU lawsuit was written as sloppily as one of your articles. And political plaintiffs who whitewash civic history in a self-serving manner deserved to be observed.
Pues, observe away, hermanos!
Let me repeat myself, GSR:
You should be able to answer that challenge — right? Is it because Kris Murray really really loves the ACLU?
As for “whitewash civic history”: OK, make your best case for that proposition. This will be fun.
Sorry Bloviator, I didn’t read your comment. The lawsuit settlement has a number of factors: the tide of other cities doing the same, depos, concessions given etc.
None of that changes the Weekly’s evaluation of the argument put forth by the plaintiffs. It’s ahistorical and self-serving. Had there been different plaintiffs and a more honest appraisal of Anaheim’s Know Nothing ways, then you have something less cynical with the same results.
In fact, given the breakfast club’s past shenanigans (read the Weekly) responsible watchdogs would reserve a cautious eye for the promises they make in terms of life under district elections.
What’s fun is you thinking that June would have been better for the vote. November is a better ballot date for obvious reasons. Even Jerbal understood that!
Taking your last point first: I’d have wanted to see it put it onto the ballot in June (“should this go into effect starting in 2014?”) and then again in November (“should this go into effect starting in 2016?”) if necessary. That’s perfectly permissible. Make fun of me again, dope.
Your “ahistorical” argument is sheer ignorance. Your real beef is with voting rights law, which allows for lawsuits for discrimination based on ethnicity but not class. In legal terms, you’re upset at “Carolene Products footnote 4.” And that’s fine in theory, but ludicrous in legal practice. (And you’re too ignorant of how civil rights law works to be ashamed — but then again your don’t have to please anyone but your boss, right?)
If by “self-serving” you mean that Moreno did something good for the citizens of Anaheim and they might be grateful for it, I can only imagine how much contempt you must have had for Martin Luther King Jr. and Thurgood Marshall. How “self-serving” were THEY, huh? AND GANDHI!
District elections won’t be a panacea — and no one has promised that they would be. Powerful interests will still try to corrupt the system. It will just be a lot harder to do it — and it will be easier to fight. No thanks to you and your boss.
Cue the shrieks of “he’s comparing Moreno to King and Gandhi!” LOL
Mr. San Roman, I find your opposition to the ACLU legal challenge to be sort of, well, quibbling.
I actually oppose the ethnicity thinking behind the lawsuit, and yet found myself friendly to it . Why? Because I think district representation in Anaheim is both salubrious and inevitable.
But, really, who cares if Moreno is self-serving? Who cares how many Anaheim Kluxers dance(d) on the head of a pin? Nothing to do with districts.
FYI – I am ALWAYS survey the political landscape with a cautious and skeptical eye.
Since the Bloviator just bloviated a bunch of words and arguments as if they were mine, I’ll address you, Zenger, instead.
I don’t oppose the CVRA nor a suit against Anaheim along those lines. Hell, I told Moreno myself (and we have talked about every point of contention we have) that I believe that AnaMexis are politically disenfranchised. (I’ll be voting yes for districts on November 4, btw)
Yes, I have incorporate class into my understanding of things and it’s a flaw of the CVRA to not address class as a protected class. None of that stopped advocates from making ‘big money corrupts the system’ arguments in favor of districts that would give the little guy a chance.
Different plaintiffs and a better writeup. Folks who don’t know the realpolitik of Los Amigos will find out soon enough. When the next unarmed homeboy gets shot by police after the reform, then folks will have to start thinking a little more critically about shit.
There is a very troubling clause buried somewhere in the ACLU complaint, and also in the settlement with the city. This clause requires anyone supporting districting to also back Jose Moreno and/or any other Los Amigos-backed candidate. In fact it requires any Latino candidates in the future to be approved by Los Amigos and attend their meetings. The only problem is I can’t find this clause anywhere. But it’s obvious that our friends from the Weekly, Gustavo and Gabriel, HAVE seen it, which is why they’re so disturbed about Jose and the Amigos being involved in this and somehow taking advantage of it. I hope that maybe Gabriel will point out where we can find that clause, so we can all object as strongly as he and ‘Tavo.
“Different plaintiffs and a better writeup.”
May have achieved the same thing. I guess I’m missing something personal here.
If it’s a victory, savor it. If it’s a defeat, tell me why.
Writing directly to a third-party rather than the one with whom one has a dispute? It’s sort of childish, but I can go along with that.
Mr. Zenger: in case you’re unfamiliar with it, “Bloviator” is a name that Gustavo made up as an alternative to trying to engage me in any sort of rational argument. If he didn’t buy ink by the barrel, he’d just be a cringing punk — or perhaps he’d be more modest, humorous, and endurable — but that’s his way of pretending to be a “cool kid.” Gabriel will do Gustavo’s bidding, happy as he is to have a forum.
The only quotation marks in my piece are used for two proposed summaries of ballot language, the words “ahistorical” and “self-serving” (where I am directly quoting him), and a reference to what has been called “the most famous footnote in law” (one that shaped our modern Civil Rights jurisprudence), to help him understand that he did not understand.
Gustavo has been fervently straddling the issue of the lawsuit like it is a mechanical bull on a weakening coil, and GSR seems to have adopted his position — including not taking a position and trying to change the subject to ancient or aged political disputes — prior to this comment. I’m glad that he’ll be voting “yes”; I’d be surprised if he was so taken with his oppositional role that he’d do otherwise.
The question of how one would incorporate class into a civil rights law is a significant and contentious one. It seems theoretically “right,” but would also open up the door to immense amounts of new litigation, and would be highly liable to abuse. Who has the money to make use of the courts as much as they want? Wealthy people who would use supposed class interests — such as the “jobs!” argument we see being used in Anaheim — to promote their pet projects. The general view seems to be that it would be the Mother Lode among Cans of Worms — and that’s even before we get into takings issues — and while appealing isn’t likely workable. (An intriguing contrary view was in Columbia Law Review, Vol. 101 or 102, but I’m aghast to learn that I can’t find a free index online.)
I don’t blame GSR for not knowing about this argument among legal scholars because that’s not his area; I do blame him for his lack of humility on the subject and his willingness to — well, there’s really no better word for it than “bloviate.” He has no freaking idea what a “better write-up” might entail or what “different plaintiffs” — who would likely have had the “same lawyers” who were the ones who “wrote the complaint” — would have had to do with it.
He’s right that shooting “unarmed homeboys” is unacceptable and tragic and that no amount of plausible reform would likely prevent it entirely — but he overlooks that this reform itself is going to be our best swing at changing that, because someone on City Council will have little choice but to carry the ball in City Hall.
One would think that he’d be more grateful — even if not gracious.
Thanks for this little chat, David.
I’ve been writing about districting without mentioning race for so long that I did it in this story without even thinking about it.
Of COURSE when you empower the people with less money and connections, you’re gonna also be empowering disproportionately more dark people. And that’s great.
Oh, great. Now I’m a conduit for a conversation that is obviously going nowhere.
Can’t we just agree that on the whole, districts are a good thing for Anaheim?
OK with me!
I am still stuck on “Hero Of Democracy”. Nobody can accuse Greg of not being generous.
Are you AGAIN giving Greg credit for an article by me? There’s more writers here than just Greg, you know.
Yes, I WAS feeling generous.
Vern, I think that he’s just baiting you.
I also think that he’s an inattentive reader, but in this case I think that he’s just baiting you.
From the length alone, I should have known. But, I stand by that comment even if Jubal wrote it.
I guess my point is this: in reality, I am a lot closer to agreement with Diamond (and Nelson) on most issues than realized, it’s just that so much of your commentary drips of partisan bullshit. I feel obligated as a discussant to point that out.
Furthur (sp), I too often feel that this great forum has become “Blue County”. A Divisive, polarizing venue for extreme views. A little moderation goes a long way. Hell, a little moderation and better management could have gotten Greg Diamond a seat in Sacramento for four years.
NOTE: There is a good hint in there. And I am sure Dan is on Google now, reserving “Blue County”.
I am not Blue. I am more burnt umber.
David, do you agree with with “a little moderation and better management” I would have won the State Senate seat? Mr. nameless keeps saying that. I think (and thought, and never said otherwise) that without a Huff scandal or a successful massive sneak attack at the end (one too late for him to match), 45% was my theoretical maximum in SD-29. Spending more than I did would just have brought more Huff money down here — and possibly have taken out Sharon as well. Interested in your views.
Now as to nameless: this is about as much a patchwork Republican red, Democratic blue, Libertarian gold, Green Party green, moderate purple, and whatever color we’d like to assign the mercantile-royalists (maybe bronze or brass?) as any political site I’ve ever seen. I think that most of our comments come from those on the center-right to right, both reasonable and un. Was Red County really the inverse of that?
I don’t mind your challenges, nameless; I object to your entering the rough-and-tumble, slash-and-burn of political argument while staying in hiding. For all I know, I see you every week or so — yet I don’t know who you are. You may get some sort of a thrill from that, but given that I am not exactly the British Army or J. Edgar Hoover or even Chris Christie, you don’t really need to protect your identity.
I like pseudonymous posting in theory, but in OC that sort of chickenshit has been the absolute bane of the blogosphere. So, I’m glad for your support when I have it, but my objections to what you do here has little to do with the political content and much more to do with the form.
“David, do you agree with with “a little moderation and better management” I would have won the State Senate seat?”
Of course not.
“yet I don’t know who you are”
Of course you do. We all do.
E-mail me with the info (use an intermediary if you must) because I don’t know who “nameless” is. (I know other of his pseudonyms over time, but that’s not the same thing.) The around and incensed Mr. Chmielewski would likely pay big money for that information (but he won’t get it from me.)
Thanks for backing up my political judgment. I’m sure it was no bother.
That’s okay. His/her “secret” is safe with me.
I think I said “could” not “would” but that more or less supports my point.
You should change the rules then, or simply BAN me. that seems to be the popular practice in this medium of debate. As for the “Bane of the blogesphere” comment, that’s a little bit like saying the outhouse smells like shit.
I can’t believe that Demagogue would receive this treatment for not using his name, but again that supports my earlier notion.
Banning is Vern’s decision. The only person with even a “soft” ban is Fiala, who is over the top and unfortunately can’t avoid being further over the top once tolerated. I blame him no more than I would the fabled scorpion.
Your dedication to your right to fling personal and uncorroborated shit at people from a position of anonymity is impressive; you clearly really believe in your cause. But I don’t understand that cause. I don’t get the sense that you even understand why I have the objections that I do.
My views on this have changed (and intensified) over the past half year, partly due to Ryan’s challenging me about toleration of Demagogue for doing much what I criticize you for doing. He had a point.
I think that the anonymous, sock-puppety, vicious arts in most blog sections makes decent (even if sometimes insulting, as you see from my interactions with GSR today) political discourse, which we normally DO have here, impossible. Comments in Matt’s blog and Art’s blog are wastelands. It’s not intrinsic in the nature of blogs that they be that way.
Might I permitted to “post” an article as a guest contributor under my handle like Demagogue ?
I have some heated opinions on a subject germane to one which has been explored and “debated” in the social media venue (of which I play NO part, nor, feel is in the least bit productive).
I would refrain from personal attacks, but strike HEAVILY against what I feel to be derilection of duty.
Let’s see “patchwork” defined.