.
.
.
Sanchez, Mendoza
The Orange Juice Blog has come into possession (over one of our underground transoms) Saturday’s pre-endorsement vote from state Senate District 32, a controversial 58% in favor of keeping embattled Senator Tony Mendoza, who is battling multiple credible charges of sexual harassment AND retribution from former female aides.
We’ll add more background and analysis to this, but we thought we should share who voted to endorse Tony (we were most surprised to see the name of progressive Congresswoman Linda Sanchez, Loretta’s sister) as well as who failed to cast a vote.
After all, as “Emerge California” wrote in a letter to delegates just before the vote, abstentions or staying home from the vote would be tantamount to voting to keep him:
…Given that Senator Mendoza is currently the subject of a sexual harassment investigation, we ask that you that you vote for “No Endorsement” at the Pre-Endorsement Conference or submit your ballot in advance of the pre-endorsement Caucus with a vote for “No Endorsement” in SD 32. It is premature to be endorsing in this race while the results of the sexual harassment investigation are unknown.
Pero no – look at all the LA county and Buena Park Democrats who voted for Tony or cast no ballot helping Tony get his majority:
That’s voting to endorse Tony: Sean Ashton, Gustavo Camacho, Miguel Canales, Josefina Canchola, Ivonne Centeno, Katherin Chu, Barbara Contreras Rapisarda, Lorraine De La O, Delta Duvali, Margaret Granado, Victor Manako, Jorge Martinez, Antonio Mendoza, Murad Minasian, Ursula Parra, John Perez (NOT the famous one), Kathleen Reyes, Marcel Rodarte, Vivian Romero, Congresswoman Linda Sanchez, Monica Sanchez, Juan Serrano, Tammy Shafer, Emilio Sosa, Mohammed Taj, Mary Ann Tipton, Ken Trumkul, Jesus Urquidi, Ana Valencia, Aurora Villon, Ray Wong, and Mary Zavala.
And somehow managing to not cast a ballot, thus enabling all the yes votes to constitute a majority: Alexandra Ananian, Anthony Avila, Assembly Majority Floor Leader Ian Calderon (Jordan Brandman’s old boss!), Vanessa Delgado, Benjamin Escobedo, Lizette Escobedo, Vikki Galarza-Martinez, Miguel Garcia, Pedora Keo, Gino Kwok, Jaime Lopez, Carlos Magdaleno Sr, Angelita Medina, Frine Medrano, Xochitl Medrano, Congresswoman Grace Napolitano, Jennifer Osorio, Anantha Ramachandran, Melissa Ramoso, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, Ana Victoria Santana, Mario Trujillo, and Oscar Valladares.
(And how is there nothing but a blank space next to the name of Congressional candidate Jay Chen?)
So this vote, too large to be no endorsement, and too small to be a definitive endorsement, goes forward to the larger Party at the February 23-25 convention in San Diego (by which time an investigation will be concluded.) And such is the power, apparently, of incumbency, and the fear, apparently, of a politico already known for retribution, that it dwarfs the power of the #metoo moment. Juice Brother Greg, can you weigh in with more details and analysis?
If the Democrats in Sacramento don’t take these allegations seriously, who will? This is nonsense. This is party over the public interest. Their supermajority matters more to them than anything else. This is shameful.
What a slap in the face to those that have come out. What if it were their daughter? Would they still vote for Mendoza?
Since some anonymous idiot on the FibOC wrote “Vern has a post shaming people who voted for Tony Mendoza. Still no reaction to Julio’s firing and two posts DEFENDING Julio. Hypocrisy!”
… it sounds like I should reprint my “reaction to Julio’s firing” for the third time here. Again. For the third time:
“…Now that [the investigation] has been done, and we can reasonably assume that the allegations were true, I can safely say that it was wrong to take sexual advantage of a position of power as he did. I hope that this sort of behavior soon becomes the mythology of a distant past, and applaud the victims who came forward to put a stop to it…” ***NOTE TO THE ILLITERATE – THIS IS A JUDGMENT AGAINST JULIO’S BEHAVIOR.***
I wrote more, looking back on Julio’s career, but the essence of course was that the Labor Fed was right to fire him after the proper investigation.
I just read Scott Lay’s column for today and it speaks to this:
So the answer to why Linda Sanchez did this is: having him land between 50% and 60% of the votes was orchestrated and (I infer that) she is one of those who drew the short straw.
I know I am living in a fantasy world, but what ever happened to doing what is right? Makes me disgusted to see so many just vote for their guy no matter what he did. What they are basically saying is we don’t care about these victims and what they have been through. We only care about what side he is on. Amazing.
What they’re doing is preparing for the possibility that he may be exonerated, in which event they WOULD want to endorse him. So making sure that he lands between 50% and 60% is a way of “kicking the can down the road” for a month while things play out. If he’s exonerated, he’ll likely be endorsed at the convention — and if he really did something wrong, there’s nothing wrong with that. If he’s not exonerated, he won’t be endorsed.
I hate this stupid CDP rule that leads to these sorts of manipulations more than I can adequately express. It’s also the reason that no one can now compete for the party endorsement at next month’s convention — whereas if the two No Endorsement votes had simply not voted at all, Chen (and the others) would be able to see a party endorsement. (But of course that is a less significant matter.)
How many allegations? When did these acts occur? How many State Employee’s were involved? How many civilians? Give out the Salacious Activities Involved or Alleged?
Did Linda know any of those involved in the allegations personally?
Most of what you’re asking for is not yet public information, other than one accuser was a young woman assigned to his office by I believe the Senate itself. I expect that Linda Sanchez has been briefed on what’s generally going on, but would not know the details. She knows Mendoza, I’m sure, but I don’t know if she’d know any complainants.
The political rhetorical question is: Is this a Al Franken or a Donald Trump moment? Big difference in what and how it should have been responded to, .IOHO! In the movie “Body Heat” -William Hurt and Kathleen Turner…..the Attorney said: “the 5 year old girl had never seen a man with an angry body part…” – So, what is Mendoza accused of….?
I put links into my stories, Winships, so that you can look that up without me having to write a novel. Look for the link near the beginning of the story.
*The De Leon charges are nonsense…gibberish and doubtful. De Leon is running for office and looking for votes …..so-called bi-partisan votes. If there are charges…like those against Hertzberg “He hugged me inappropriately”. Was that all or did he ask for oral copulation? Did he rub his body part…..semi or hard against her person with impunity? Just want the facts ma’m! All this stuff needs more than rumor, innuendo and assorted doubting Thomas questions. If anything like this happened: We need to know what the accuser said back to them. Like, “Hand’s off creep!” or “If you think that’s what I am….I quit!” or “I’m filing charges with the local cops right now!” Come on folks……did we play Spin the Bottle with Annette Funicello when we were 12 and she was 11? Hell yes! The bad news is, she never accused us of sexual abuse!
Cause her mom was standing right outside the closet. Sounds a lot like Roy Moore? That’s your take!
I didn’t say much did I? I’m content to wait for the investigation. But people wanted to know how the vote went, somebody sent me the results, and (actually asking Greg’s opinion) we decided it was worth posting.
Btw. Connor Traut called me, and wonders why his name and that of his roommate Jordan Warner are not on the list. He is looking into whether they were not counted, who else may not have been, and whether that changes the result. Connor and Jordan voted “no endorsement.”
Vern – Thank you for your assistance last night re the vote count for SD32. I have since confirmed through three different party representatives involved in this process that my vote, as well as Jordan Warner’s, were both correctly counted as “No Endorsement” for SD32. It appears some lists, likely including the pictures in this article, were not up-to-date when counted, which did cause some confusion when initially having been counted. However, the final official tally did include mine and Jordan’s names and vote. We have lived, and been registered to vote, in Senate District 32 for about a year now. A special thank you to Florice Hoffman and Sergio Carrillo for independently assisting with this confirmation.
On a personal note, I commend each and every Delegate who voted “No Endorsement” for Senate District 32. Our State Senator Tony Mendoza is unfit to represent us in the California legislature. As a School District Trustee residing in his Senate District, I join many of my constituents in calling for his resignation. I support those who were victims of the Senator’s sexual harassment, and cannot in good conscience cast a vote for him at our Party’s endorsement in San Diego in February, or at the ballot box.
As an SD-32 resident, Connor, what do you think of Vanessa Delgado, the Mayor of Montebello who has just entered the race?
And — if you’re at liberty to say — what can you tell us about the degree to which the vote was, as Scott Lay reported, “orchestrated” so that the final decision could be reached at next month’s convention. Did you see evidence of such orchestration?
My big thanks go to the people (mostly around the CDP Progressive Caucus, so far as I can tell) who worked to get the signatures of 20% of the delegates to challenge Mendoza so that he had to participate in the pre-endorsement meeting AT ALL! Without them, Mendoza would have skated through impervious to challenge.
Greg – I am aware of a few qualified Democrats considering running in SD32, all of whom are elected officials and are all women. I hope Senator Mendoza has a Democrat opponent and that opponent is a woman. I have not met Mayor Delgado nor do I know much about her track record in her city, but should she be the most qualified and viable candidate, I would heavily consider supporting her. What are your thoughts about her?
And re the Party, the percentage results released appear to be correct and the vote tally submitted to the State Party was correct. It does appear that there were errors where outdated lists of Delegates were distributed to some by error. From my narrow inquiry, there appears no foul play or “orchestration” in the vote re SD 32, simply a slightly outdated delegate list having been shared to those outside the official vote count. I emailed in my ballot the day before, so I am not aware of the day-of happenings witnessed by those who were in attendance for the live vote.
I agree with you that those who worked to get the signatures deserve major thanks for stepping up and doing the real work to make the challenge possible.
Good job.
Nicely said and thank you. I am sure that the victims with very little voice appreciate your vote.
What do the T N And NB mean?
“TONY,” “NO ENDORSEMENT,” and “NO BALLOT.”
Today, Mendoza, dogged by six credible #metoo allegations, has finally and suddenly resigned, opening up the senate district that includes our own Buena Park. And did he go bitterly! Part of his parting-shot letter:
“I refuse to participate any further in the farcical ‘investigation’ against me that ignores the Senate’s own rules, invents processes, criteria and standards as needed, ignores due process and constitutional rights to self-defense all for the purpose of playing to election year politicking.
“I shall resign my position as Senator with immediate effect as it is clear that Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon will not rest till he has my head on a platter to convince the ‘MeToo’ movement of his ‘sincerity’ in supporting the MeToo cause…”
More here http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article201577959.html along with some of the stories of what he’s been accused of.
I think that Mendoza likely crossed a line justifying his removal. But he’s right that in some cases the line is blurry. I haven’t been in the “making sexual advances to women other than my wife” game for eleven years now, but the notion that making “unwanted” ones is by itself a sex crime is extremely wrongheaded. If one were certain than an advance were “wanted,” then it wouldn’t be an advance, it would be a response to an invitation. So just like I have to put up with unwanted advances from both women and gay men from time to time, women — unfair (because more frequent and more threatening) as it is can’t require men to be entirely precognitive.
Surely, some advances are presumptively unreasonable. If a woman is under “half one’s age plus five,” or whatever that formula is, then in the absence of some very strong hints that an advance is invited it is imprudent for a man to make it. If it’s in a workplace situation in which one is in a supervisory position, it’s probably imprudent at all. If it’s in a situation where a woman has reason to feel physically threatened, it’s unreasonable. If it involves taking Trumpian liberties with a woman who has expressed no interest, it’s unreasonable. But men don’t have to be able to determine ahead of time whether a woman will say “yay!” or “eww!” Removing people on that basis would be a bad policy — although again I doubt that that’s what was at hand here.
Other fast-evolving norms such as the limits of hugging or putting a hand around a woman’s waist for a photo, or of engaging in mild ribaldry in social situations, or sharing social lubricants like wine or beer in workplaces — well, those require what’s called “lenity”: if the line wasn’t pretty clear, you don’t apply today’s level of punishment to actions that were considered acceptable at the time. The line for hugging (without pelvic grinding) was not clear even a year ago; the line for butt-grabbing, by contrast, already was.
Here’s a PDF of the summary of the outside investigators report on Mendoza from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4383481/Summary-of-Investigative-Factual-Findings.pdf