.
.
.
The camera never lies. The same can’t be said of the Anaheim City Council majority.
1. What happened on Tuesday, Dec. 8 — the “Day the Council Ripped Up the Map”?
Last night was supposed to be the second and final reading of the ordinance that would adopt the Judges’ Advisory Committe’s Recommended (aka “People’s”) Map for Anaheim’s new districts and set the sequence of elections for the district. Most of us who supported both the Recommended Map and scheduling Districts 1, 3, 4, and 5 for the 2016 election and were upset at the Council’s tentative vote, three weeks ago — to adopt the map but schedule Districts 1, 2, 4, and 5 — expected to lose that vote. It was totally rotten that the sole Latino majority election pool (or Latino CVAP) district would not be able to choose its own representative until 2018 — but at least it would be done. Then people could start preparing for next fall’s election.
The joke’s on us. The Council did what only the most cynical among us thought that it might do: reject the judges’ recommended map. But not even the most cynical among us thought that they would do so only at the last minute, after having tentatively approved it without objection. Had we been told by some oracle that that’s what would happen, though, we might have been able to predict that they would:
- Do it without any good reason;
- Lie about not having a good reason;
- Make up a bogus threat of litigation to justify the change;
- Ignore that the only objection to the “1, 3, 4, 5 proposal” by Mayor Tait and Councilman James Vanderbilt had been fixed;
- Decide to put off any final decision on the map until late February or early March;
- Ignore every single relevant thing that the panel of learned judges had said in their report to the Council;
- Claim to be better representing the interests of Latinos than Latinos themselves could do;
- Choose a path that probably puts Latinos into the minority of four out of the city’s six new districts;
- Eliminate almost half of the time that opponents to the Council Majority would have to prepare for the 2016, while they themselves could already decide, well ahead of time, on what map they should approve;
- Hope that the eventual decision this week’s U.S. Supreme Court about weighting district electoral will eliminate the need for representation of non-voting Latino children and legal alien non-citizens in equating district sizes.
And that’s exactly what happened last night. We might have been able to predict it because (1) it requires lying, (2) it’s unethical, (3) it’s cheating, (4) it may be illegal, (5) it is much more likely to lead to litigation than the threat they pretended existed, and (6) they personally won’t have to be the ones to pay for that lawsuit. So why not expect it?
Then, of course, there’s the always reason that underlies all of those: they’re doing what Disney wants them to.
2. What was the situation before the item came up at the meeting?
At the first reading of the ordinance, the Council majority presented a supposed reason for not wanting to have an election in Recommended Map District 3: because Districts 1 and 2 hadn’t had a representative on City Council for a long time (despite that Lucille Kring was much closer politically and in every other way than geographically to District 2 than to Ponderosa-area dominated District 4.) Of the three remaining districts, they would not have wanted to put off an election for District 4 because it is Kring’s home district. So that left the most Latino district, District 3, and the third-most Latino district, District 5, which also hadn’t had representation on Council for a long time (despite that Councilman James Vanderbilt has been living close to the border of District 3 and District 5 and is politically much closer to District 5.) So all of those factors outweighed the case for District 3 — that District 3 is the one whose choices have most tended not to be elected to the City Council.
The biggest reason for excluding District 3, however, is that Latino civil rights leader Dr. Jose Moreno lives in District 3 — and the majority, apparently reflecting the preference of their patron the Walt Disney Corporation, really does not want Dr. Moreno to be elected to the City Council. And if it has to happen at all, better later than sooner.
For those readers who may doubt this, read Jordan Brandman’s defense of his vote. He says that it’s due to a feud between him and Dr. Moreno. It’s a personal matter to him, and he’s willing, without using the words, to be petty about it. It’s such a bizarre statement that it has led many to believe that it was his best way to deflect responsibility for his vote from Disney.
The last relevant thing that happened, though, before this item came up, was this: Councilman Vanderbilt announced what had been rumored, that he was moving — and indeed had moved — to a district west of Euclid. (It’s presumed to be District 2, where he has worked for a long time.) Frankly, it’s a better place for a conservative (even if decent) Republican to seek office under a district system than heavily Democratic, liberal, and Mexican District 3.
This meant, of course, that District 2 would have a a representative on Council — in fact, as of now it already does! — and that unless it has a 2016 election District 3 would lack one a year from now when Brandman leaves the Council. Problem solved! Change the 2 to a 3 and we’re done!
But that’s not what happened.
3. The possibility of a solution enrages the majority and pushes them to extreme measures
When it came his turn to speak, Brandman — who seems to love springing dramatic surprises on the public from the dais — ignored that Vanderbilt had just solved the freaking problem that he had identified as of the first reading. He said that he had decided that it wasn’t the sequencing of the elections that was the problem, but the map itself! And so, he said, that he wanted to go back to the drawing board and choose another of the 30 submitted maps.
In other words, the ostensible problem was solved, but not the real problem. The real problem is that — now that Districts 2 and 6 will have representation on the Council a year from now and District 3 won’t, the logical solution is to HAVE ELECTIONS IN DISTRICTS 1, 3, 4, and 6 — but THAT WOULD MEAN THAT DR. JOSE MORENO MIGHT BE ELECTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL!
And that is obviously a non-starter!
Brandman’s speech, linked to at the end of this post, literally does not make sense after Vanderbilt’s announcement. Let’s address the portions relevant to District 2 vs. 3 first. He says:
The proposed map is the epitome of the perfect being the enemy of the good. It forces this council to choose between ensuring that historically underrepresented communities have the opportunity to vote for their candidate of choice in 2016 and geographic equity.
No! No, it doesn’t! The “underrepresented communities” of Districts 1 and 5 will vote for their own candidate next November. So will the “underrepresented Latino community” of District 3, which the Voice of OC says made James Vanderbilt its fourth choice in 2014, and the “represented only by hostile Lucille Kring” Latino community of District 4. District 2 and District 6 have sitting members on the City Council right now — and both of them serve terms that extend to December 2018. THERE IS NO FORCED CHOICE HERE! EVERYONE WINS (except for the people attempting to abuse their power to keep Dr. Jose Moreno from office)!
Brandman also says:
I think it is clear at this juncture that the map and election sequencing as proposed in the ordinance before us is not in the best interests of the City of Anaheim
Election sequencing, yes. But not — if it ever even was — the map itself! But that brings us to Brandman’s second argument, which took up a large (and disproportionately dramatic) part of the meeting.
4. AS THE JUDGES EXPLAINED — locking in FOUR Latino minority districts is bad!
Kris Murray, at several points, said that she could not understand how having two Latino CVAP majority districts rather than one could be considered a bad thing. I don’t think of her as being stupid — could be wrong there — so either she didn’t do her required homework in October or else she’s flat out lying.
The panel of retired judges explained explicitly why two Latino majority districts were worse than one Latino majority district, one Latino “near-majority district” of 47% Latino CVAP (which the demographers testified may well be a Latino CVAP majority district by now!) and one “moderate Latino plurality” district of 43%: it gave Latinos a substantial advantage in two seats and a fighting chance in a competitive district — District 5 — in a third!
By “packing” — an election term of art for cramming as many ethnic or racial minorities into a one or a few districts so as to ensure that they don’t have a chance to compete for majority rule — Latinos into two districts, and having four districts with white majorities or pluralities, the “two-Latino-CVAP-majority” districts virtually assure that, if an election is decided along racial lines, Anaheim will have no more than two seats on the City Council out of seven. That’s not just a non-Latino majority, it’s a non-Latino supermajority!
Latinos demanded three competitive districts out of this process, they obtained it with the Recommended Map, and now the 100% white Council majority is trying to take it away.
That’s why MALDEF said that they would like two Latino-CVAP-majority districts, they never said in their letter that they would sue over it! They said that they might sue over NOT INCLUDING DISTRICT 3 IN THE 2016 ELECTION — THAT was the explicit demand and threat made in their letter — but not over the second highest district being 47% Latino CVAP rather then 50%. Jordan Brandman essentially slipped a unloaded gun into MALDEF’s hand, pointed it at his own head, and screamed that he had to give into demands that they were not making. Even maximally cooperative City Attorney Michael Houston, who had struggled to bolster Brandman’s demand that they were giving into litigation pressure, had to admit that there was no real threat there. But Brandman and Murray kept at it as if there was a real threat.
I’ve written a lot about this very issue before — Oscar Reyes refusing the accept the Demographer’s attempt to amend his map, while Latinos help up their “WE WANT 3 DISTRICTS” signs behind him, was the key moment in the entire process — and I expect that I’ll be writing a lot more about it again. I just leave the reader with this exercise:
Who do you believe is looking out for Latino interests: the Mayor and his (half-Latino, after all!) ally on Council — or the woman, Kris Murray, who tried to ensure that ALL ELECTIONS WOULD CONTINUE TO BE VOTED ON AT-LARGE in the city?
Here’s the real litigation threat: if the members of the Council majority sticks with their position, they will be sued. And if it can be shown that they were acting out of animus and self-interest, they may be stripped of their legislative immunity and sued individually. I’m informed that other attorneys are researching this possibility right now.
5. This is a stunt to delay opponents of the Council Majority from preparing for an election.
The worst problem here is that the majority may also be doing this to tilt the table for the net election. Here’s a comment I left in Voice of OC, with which I’ll close:
I think that people are missing the point. This is probably about trying to fix — or at least tilt the table to favor Kleptocrats in — the 2016 elections.
The pattern is now clear: Murray and Brandman come up with a proposal knowing that Kring has previously committed to agree with whatever they say, so long as it doesn’t involve harm to Kring. So THEY KNOW what the new district lines will be. They know where they have to have “Chavez” Lodge move (or “move”) from RIverside County to be positioned to run.
Their opponents, though, have NO IDEA — after the astonishing disrespect shown last night not just to Anaheim’s Latino community, but to the work product of the independent (and honest) panel of judges — of what might happen.
That means that, with the required three public hearings not beginning until after revised government CVAP figures come out in late January, they’ll have delayed the process by about three months — but only for their opponents.
It’s a shabby use of public funds for personal political gain. We’ll see whether it is illegal as well. Either way, their main sponsor Disney will have to be held accountable for their servants’ actions.
I don’t know if the organizations most likely to sue over Brandman’s move plan to sue over this issue as well as other claims. But I will certainly propose to the Board of CATER that we be prepared to do so.
I don’t believe the agenda item, as written, permitted the motion passed.
I’ve given that some thought. Let’s discuss it offline.
At the next meeting, put 5 numbered bingo balls in a jar. Have someone randomly picked from the audience draw them out without looking and put them in 5 cups on the table. Now see what the numbers on the bottom of the (scrambled) cups are. The lowest 2 (EITHER cup# or Ball#) get to vote in 2018. No meddling by the Council or ANYONE ELSE with an ax to grind. NO DELAY, NO expensive lawyers, or even GROUNDS for a suit. It’s not Powerball, but it’s not POLITICS, either. None of the balls or cups is “More Latino” than another. Oh, but YOUR neighborhood needs attention ? Guess what ? SO do all the others. Oh, but YOU worked hard to pass Measures L and M ! Well, surprise, get USED to it – WHAT do you think you will be doing with DISTRICTS, if you don’t just go back to complaining on your couch? And the MORE the process gets delayed, HOW will ANY of YOU learn enough about the City and Council to BE a candidate (More seats need MORE candidates, right?) who isn’t MORE of a useless seat warmer than the ones YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT? Next problem?
Silly. When hundreds of millions are on the table you don’t leave anything to chance.
Silly me, I thought it was about Democracy and enfranchisement, but as usual, you are right. LOL. (Is that the SAME table from the Angels “negotiations” ? WHERE did they find it? lol. )
Hey, the table has a string tilt to it – everything on it keeps sliding down to the end where Pringle’s clients sit.
Is that because some of the legs are cut off, or are they just crooked or weak ?
The two legs at the far end of the table are crooked but they also have been cut off just enough to be of use to the guy who sits at that end. We call the legs “Murray” and “Brandman,” respectively. Everything inevitably rolls downhill.
Greg, you make a good point about the Evenwel oral argument. I had the same thought. If the conservative position prevails in that case, and the decision comes out in the next couple of months, then the Anaheim districts would be drawn according to CVAP. Interestingly, census counts do not include information about citizenship but the American Community Survey does. And I believe it’s the ACS data for January that Brandman, Murray, and Kring are waiting for. Also, the Justice Dept. position, as expressed at the oral argument, is that only census counts should be used for drawing districts and not ACS estimates from sampling (reliable as they may be).
Interesting, Ed! Thanks. I haven’t listened to the oral argument — so I’m going to hope that you can answer a complex question or two.
As you know (but for the benefit of any reader who doesn’t), raw population is used to determine the size of the districts, which should be substantially equal for non-Congressional races and as precisely equal as possible for Congressional ones. The American Community Survey is used to determine the membership of the district population in various demographic categories that have historically invited discrimination.
Use of TOTAL population, rather than voting age population (let alone Citizen Voting Age Population, aka “CVAP”) to determine the population of districts has long been considered a constitutional requirement. My understanding is that the plaintiffs in the case want the size of districts to be determined by the population of voters, rather than (as it is sometimes put) the number of bellybuttons — the latter including children, non-citizens, and felons. So, for example, a relatively “older than 18” district (such as District 6 in Anaheim Hills) would get the same number of votes as a district that was relatively “younger than 18” (such as District 3 in Central Anaheim.)
Am I right to think that this addresses only the question of the size of districts and not their ethnic and racial composition, which could still be determined by CVAP? It would be a huge change either way; I’m just wondering HOW huge.
Well, I doubt that I know any more about this than you do, but if I understand your question, requiring or permitting states to use CVAP to draw state and local districts would mean that you could have districts of greatly different populations and in Anaheim (and in Texas, where the Evenwel litigants are from) that would mean that non-citizen and non-voting age Latinos would see their representation diluted (the latter group because Latino families tend to have more children than non-Latino ones). But I’m sure you see that point, so I have probably misunderstood your question.
“RECALL KRIS MURRAY”!!!
‘Cut The Head off The Snake’.
Even the “GANG of 10″(for whom don’t live in the city of Anaheim,can take part)…now since the ‘council majority'(council three way)…has made the will of the people,for whom voted to pass Measures ‘L & M’…by such an overwhelming margin,never seen in the history of ‘city-wide’ measures,then the long process of picking a “Preferred Map” to give to the City Council,all going well so far…then the ‘GANG of 3’..say NO….”you need,2 ‘latino’majority council districts”…okay then,by the time,the process starts all over again,picking a’new map, which “WE The People”,should resubmit(AGAIN) the preferred ‘Oscar Reyes Map’.. at that point Kris Murray, will be in ‘the past’ haveing been recalled and will not be there to vote on the final map.
My guess is that if there were a recall it would be consolidated with the June primary election; a special election before that would probably be impractial. Even a June election would have to be settled by early/mid March (I can’t recall if it’s March 11, 14, 16, or what.)