Former Antioch Mayor Don Freitas will run for the City Council in District 3. Photo source: Facebook posted on June 12, 2022. Map: City of Antioch
Don Freitas to seek District 3 seat after Ogorchock gerrymandered out
By Allen D. Payton
In a post on his Facebook page on Tuesday, July 2, 2024, former Antioch Mayor Don Freitas announced he will seek election to the city council in District 3, this year.
He wrote, “Let me state that I am a candidate for the Antioch City Council, District 3 seat on November 5th, 2024. As a life long resident of Antioch I have had the privilege of of [sic] representing our community in a number of elected and appointed positions such as Mayor from 2000 to 2008.The direction of our City by the current Mayor Lamar Thorpe and some members of the present Council for the last several years has been an unmitigated disaster. And today, the Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury has factually documented many of the issues facing us in a report entitled “Challenges Facing the City of Antioch”. It is a must read!!! I am asking all registered voters in Antioch to ‘vote for change’ in this election. We need new leadership that is concerned about the betterment of our residents instead of the political ambitions of a few elected officials that have effectively damaged our community…And on November 5th support much needed positive change in Antioch.”
Freitas was referring to the Civil Grand Jury’s investigation into three areas of concern including turnover in city leadership, city employee vacancies and possible Brown Act (state open meeting law) violations by Mayor Lamar Hernández-Thorpe and Councilwomen Monica Wilson and Tamisha Torres-Walker, as outlined in a January 2024 letter from the Contra Costa District Attorney to Antioch’s Acting City Manager.
The District 3 council seat is open since incumbent Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock is precluded from running for re-election as the current council majority of the aforementioned three members gerrymandered her out of the district while redrawing and approving the council map in March 2022. They drew the boundary line between Districts 3 and 4 around the neighborhood in which Ogorchock lives, moving it into District 4. In Nov. 2022 she ran unsuccessfully against Wilson, who continues to represent District 4. (See related articles here and here and City Council Districts Map here)
Before the 69-year-old Freitas was elected to the city council in 1998, he served 16 years on the Contra Costa Water District Board of Directors. In 2008, he lost re-election as mayor to Jim Davis in a four-way race with two write-in candidates (including this reporter). In 2012 Freitas retired as the County’s Clean Water Manager and attempted a comeback in the race for mayor but placed third in a four-man race behind Wade Harper, who was elected, and the late-Councilman Gary Agopian. (See related article)
Prior to Freitas serving on the city council, his wife, Cathryn, served as a councilwoman from 1986 to 1994. Freitas graduated from Antioch High School in the Class of 1973 and from U.C. Davis in 1978. The couple has one adult son, Patrick.
Efforts to reach Freitas for further comment were unsuccessful prior to publication time. Please check back later for any updates to this report.
Mayor, council Districts 2 & 3, clerk, treasurer and trustee Areas 1, 3 & 4
By Allen D. Payton
The nomination period for local offices in Antioch including mayor city council Districts 2 and 3, City Clerk, City Treasurer and Antioch School Board Trustee Areas 1, 3 and 4 opens on Monday, July 15, 2024. The nomination period runs through 5:00 pm Friday, August 9, 2024. The election will be consolidated with the statewide General Election on Tuesday, November 5th, 2024.
Papers for offices that are up for election for city candidates will be available at the City Clerk’s office inside City Hall, 200 H Street in historic, downtown Rivertown and for school board candidates at the Contra Costa Elections Office, 555 Escobar Street in Martinez.
Source: City of Antioch
“The 2024 General Election has officially begun,” said Kristin B. Connelly, Contra Costa Registrar of Voters. “Candidate Filing begins Monday July 15, and our Candidate Services team is ready to help our residents who are looking to serve their communities in an elected position.”
If an incumbent does not file to run for office by the deadline on August 9th, the filing period for that office will extend until 5:00 pm on Wednesday, August 14, 2024.
Interested candidates for Antioch School Board can schedule an appointment through email at candidate.services@vote.cccounty.us or by calling 925-335-7800. Walk-ins are accepted, but service is subject to the availability of staff. Appointments are available on weekdays from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm. Filing documents and information will be provided to interested constituents at their appointment. The process takes 20 minutes.
AUSD Trustee Areas Final Map 2022
For further information on the General Election and key dates, go to www.contracostavote.gov
The following candidates have announced for the election in November:
Mayor of Antioch – Incumbent Lamar Hernández-Thorpe, Ron Bernal
District 3 City Councilmember –Antwon Webster, Don Freitas
See list of all offices up for election in Contra Costa County in November, here.
Kristin B. Connelly, County Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters and Dawn Kruger, Civic Outreach and Engagement Specialist, Contra Costa Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department contributed to this report.
First-of-its-kind measure to help build and preserve more than 70,000 homes
Contra Costa County would receive $1.9 billion
By John Goodwin, Assistant Director of Communications & Rebecca Long, Director, Legislation & Public Affairs, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
The Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) on Wednesday, June 26, 2024, adopted a resolution to place a general obligation bond measure on the November 5 general election ballot in each of the nine Bay Area counties to raise and distribute $20 billion for the production of new affordable housing and the preservation of existing affordable housing throughout the region. BAHFA is jointly governed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)’s Executive Board and by the BAHFA Board, which is comprised of the same membership as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).
The bond could create 72,000 new affordable homes – more than double what would be possible without a bond. Without more funding, only about 71,000 affordable homes will be built or preserved in the Bay Area over the next 15 years – a status quo that is failing to meet the needs of the people who live and work here.
Currently, the Bay Area doesn’t have enough homes for the people who live here. As a result of the region’s housing shortage:
In 2022, 37,000 people were unhoused in the Bay Area.
1.4 million people—23% of Bay Area renters—spend over half their income on rent.
High rents and home prices force people to live far from work, making congestion and pollution much worse, and putting a major strain on working families.
Too many Bay Area residents live in overcrowded and unsafe housing.
Vital employees and community members are leaving the area.
Wednesday’s unanimous vote by the BAHFA Board marks the final discretionary step in the process to place the measure on the November ballot. Under state law, each Bay Area county will now take a non-discretionary, ministerial vote to place the measure on the ballot in that county, in accordance with election deadlines.
The BAHFA bond measure currently would require approval by at least two-thirds of voters to pass. Voters throughout California this November will consider Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 (ACA 1) — which would set the voter threshold at 55 percent for voter approval of bond measures for affordable housing and infrastructure. If a majority of California voters support ACA 1, the 55 percent threshold will apply to the BAHFA bond measure.
“Today’s vote is the culmination of so many years of effort by so many people all around our region,” observed BAHFA Chair and Napa County Supervisor Alfredo Pedroza. “The Bay Area’s longstanding housing affordability problems affect all of us, our friends, our neighbors and our family members. This vote is about preserving opportunity for everyone.”
Source: BAHFA
The proposed BAHFA bond measure calls for 80 percent of the funds to go directly to the nine Bay Area counties (and to the cities of San Jose, Oakland, Santa Rosa and Napa, each of which carries more than 30 percent of their county’s low-income housing need), in proportion to each county’s tax contribution to the bond. In consultation with its cities and towns, each county would determine how to distribute bond funds to best meet its jurisdictions’ most pressing housing needs. These distributions would include:
Contra Costa County: $1.9 billion
Alameda County: $2 billion
Marin County: $699 million
Napa County: $118 million
San Francisco County: $2.4 billion
San Mateo County: $2.1 billion
Santa Clara County: $2.4 billion
Solano County: $489 million
Sonoma County: $553 million
City of Napa: $246 million
City of Oakland: $765 million
City of San Jose: $2.1 billion
City of Santa Rosa: $242 million
The remaining 20 percent, or $4 billion, would be used by BAHFA to establish a new regional program to fund affordable housing construction and preservation projects throughout the Bay Area. Most of this money (at least 52 percent) must be spent on new construction of affordable homes, but every city and county receiving a bond allocation must also spend at least 15 percent of the funds to preserve existing affordable housing. Almost one-third of funds may be used for the production or preservation of affordable housing, or for housing-related uses such as infrastructure needed to support new housing.
Source: BAHFA
The California Constitution currently does not allow bond funds to be used for tenant protections such as rental assistance, but planned investments in new housing and affordable housing preservation will protect tens of thousands of low-income renters and vulnerable residents.
The BAHFA Board also adopted, on Wednesday, resolutions approving the Authority’s Business Plan and its Regional Expenditure Plan, which explain the prioritization for use of the funds that would be directly administered by BAHFA.
Oversight and accountability provisions to be included in the BAHFA bond measure include the creation of a special bond proceeds account; establishment of a Citizens’ Oversight Committee that would review the expenditure of bond proceeds and report to the BAHFA and ABAG Executive Boards on whether the funds were spent appropriately; an independent annual performance audit; a requirement that all bond-projects be consistent with state laws on labor standards; a requirement that administrative costs not exceed the amount prescribed in state law; and a prohibition against any public official who voted to send the ballot measure to the voters bidding on any work funded with proceeds from the bond.
The ABAG Executive Board voted unanimously at its April meeting to adopt a resolution approving BAHFA’s Business Plan and its Expenditure Plan, as well as to endorse placement of the bond measure on the November ballot. In her remarks preceding the vote, ABAG President and Napa County Supervisor Belia Ramos noted, “This is a remarkable milestone moment for our region. Housing stability is essential for our community to thrive, and this proposal is a once-in-a-generation opportunity.”
Community Ambassadors meeting. Photo: CCC Elections Division
“Contra Costa County is home to one of the safest, most secure, and transparent election systems in the nation.”
By Contra Costa Elections Division
In light of a growing tide of election misinformation, the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department is taking a stand. The Elections Division is launching a far-reaching marketing and community engagement campaign this week to reassure voters of election integrity and security by shining a light on the comprehensive steps taken to deliver on that promise.
“Elections are more secure than ever and we’re proud of Contra Costa County’s reputation for fair and secure elections. We have to make sure our voters know about the work we’re doing and have the information that inspires faith in our elections,” says Kristin B. Connelly, Contra Costa Registrar of Voters.
Asked for examples of election misinformation in Contra Costa County, the Election Division’s Community and Media Relations Coordinator Dawn Kruger responded, “Unfortunately, we’ve seen and heard lots of misinformation on social media and media comment sections as well as at community meetings.
Some of the most common misconceptions and questions we get are about voter registration requirements, voting by mail, how we prevent voter fraud, and how we secure election technology.
Thanks to the 48 election security safeguards we have in place, elections are more secure than ever, and we want to show voters everything the Contra Costa County Elections Division does to protect their vote. That’s why we’ve compiled all the information voters may want to know and made it available to the public. Voters can get clear and accurate information and responses to some of the most common questions about election security at www.secure-election.org/facts.”
Source: CCC Elections Division
Marketing Campaign
A multi-faceted marketing campaign is in place to deliver that message. In addition to county-wide advertising in print, television, radio and digital media, the campaign also includes the recruitment and training of nearly 100 election ambassadors who have volunteered to carry forward the election integrity message through social media channels and speaking engagements around the county. A companion website, www.secure-election.org, has also been launched, which includes a comprehensive collection of videos, fact sheets, Q&As and social media graphics illustrating how Contra Costa County protects its elections. All this is complemented by opportunities for the public to observe election activities and the county’s award-winning Certified Election Observer program.
“While trust in Contra Costa County elections is high, we’re facing a growing tide of mis- and disinformation that confuses voters and undermines the legitimacy of our elections,” said Kruger. “This voter education campaign fights those myths with solid facts and information, equipping volunteers in our community with a host of tools to help put the real story out there about how safe elections are.”
Contra Costa County was one of 10 election divisions nationwide to be awarded a grant to improve its election processes and chose to pilot this voter education work. The ambitious and robust campaign is expected to reach every resident of the county multiple times and in different ways, hammering home the many steps and precautions in place to ensure only eligible voters vote, that every legitimate vote is counted, and that the county’s election system is secure from fraud. The campaign is predicated on transparency, inviting the public to look more closely at how elections are handled and the exhaustive efforts to protect them.
The first wave of election integrity advertising will run June – July and a second wave will run September – October. These advertisements will coincide with the ambassador’s social media efforts and speaking engagements. Any organization interested in scheduling an ambassador speaking engagement can email info@contracostavote.org. For more information about the campaign and election security, visit secure-election.org.
“The measure exceeds the scope of the power to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative” – CA Supreme Court
“Today’s ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory…the California Supreme Court has put politics ahead of the Constitution” – Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability
By Allen D. Payton
In response to a lawsuit by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state legislature, the California Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled, today, Thursday, June 20, 2024, the measure known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act amounts to an illegal constitutional revision and removed it from the November election ballot. However, proponents vowed tocontinue to explore their legal options and efforts to minimize
According to Ballotpedia, “The initiative would have amended the California Constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes. The initiative would have also required new or increased taxes to be passed by a two-thirds legislative vote in each chamber and approved by a simple majority of voters. It would also have increased the vote requirement for local taxes proposed by local government or citizens to a two-thirds vote of the local electorate. The increased vote requirements for new or higher taxes would have not applied to citizen-initiated state ballot measures. As of 2024, state tax increases require approval by a two-thirds vote in each chamber or a simple majority vote at a statewide election
In addition, a ‘yes’ vote on the measure would have supported “amending the state constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes and to require new state taxes proposed by the state legislature to be enacted via a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval and new local taxes to be enacted via a two-thirds vote of the electorate.”
However, according to the Associated Press, “The biggest impact…would have been that the measure threatened to retroactively reverse most tax increases approved since Jan. 1, 2022. Local governments warned they would have lost billions of dollars in revenue that had previously approved by voters. And it would have threatened recent statewide tax increases.”
Proponents
Proponents of the measure, Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability, self-described as “a bipartisan coalition of homeowners, taxpayers and businesses committed to ensuring California remains affordable for families and accountable to its voters,” led the campaign in support of the initiative. The campaign explained the initiative, saying, “The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act will give voters the right to vote on all future state taxes and holds politicians accountable for new fees and other increased costs paid by working families and all Californians. The measure increases accountability by requiring politicians to spend new or higher tax revenue on its intended purpose. It will provide much-needed relief to families, farmers, and business owners, helping them to combat the growing cost-of-living crisis facing all Californians.”
According to the NAIOP, the measure would have given “voters the right to vote on all future state taxes and holds politicians accountable for new fees and other increased costs paid by working families and all Californians.” It would have increased “accountability by requiring politicians to spend new or higher tax revenue on its intended purpose. It will provide much-needed relief to families, farmers, and business owners, helping them to combat the growing cost-of-living crisis facing all Californians. The Act doesn’t cut any current state or local government funding. It simply gives voters the right to vote on all future tax increases and stops working families from paying billions more in “hidden taxes” imposed by unelected bureaucrats. They are currently gathering signatures and will need $70 million in fundraising efforts to pass the ballot measure in November of 2022.”
Supporters Respond, Will Seek Legal Options, Continue Efforts
In response to the court’s ruling, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) campaign issued the following statement from Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) and Matthew Hargrove, president and CEO of the California Business Properties Association:
“Today’s ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory. Governor Newsom has effectively erased the voice of 1.43 million voters who signed the petition to qualify the Taxpayer Protection Act for the November ballot. Most importantly, the governor has cynically terminated Californians’ rights to engage in direct democracy despite his many claims that he is a defender of individual rights and democracy. Evidently, the governor wants to protect democracy and individual rights in other states, but not for all Californians.
We are disappointed that the California Supreme Court has put politics ahead of the Constitution, disregarding long-standing precedent that they should not intervene in an election before voters decide qualified initiatives.
Direct democracy and our initiative process are now at risk with this decision, showing California is firmly a one-party state where the governor and Legislature can politically influence courts to block ballot measures that threaten their ability to increase spending and raise taxes. Using the courts to block voters’ voices is the latest effort from the Democrats’ supermajority to remove any accountability measures that interfere with their agenda – a failed agenda that continues to drive up the cost of living with little accountability and few results.
This ruling sends a damning message to businesses in California and across the country that it is politically perilous to invest and grow jobs for the future.
In light of this ruling and the state’s large budget deficit, a huge amount of tax increases are on the way that are sure to make California’s cost of living even higher.
We will continue to explore our legal options and fight for the people’s right to hold their government accountable through direct democracy.”
———–
Opponents
The measure was opposed by Governor Newsom, CA Attorney General Rob Bonta, FSCME California, SEIU California State Council, California Special Districts Association, California State Association of Counties, and League of California Cities. Graham Knaus, executive director of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), said, “This deceptive initiative would undermine the rights of local voters and their elected officials to make decisions on critical local services that residents rely upon. It creates major new tax loopholes at the expense of residents and will weaken our local services and communities.”
Bonta had relabeled the measure’s title to, “Limits Ability of Voters and State and Local Governments to Raise Revenues for Government Services. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.” The summary he required to be included on signature petition sheets read as follows: “For new or increased state taxes currently enacted by two-thirds vote of Legislature, also requires statewide election and majority voter approval. Limits voters’ ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by raising vote requirement to two-thirds. Eliminates voters’ ability to advise how to spend revenues from proposed general tax on same ballot as the proposed tax. Expands definition of ‘taxes’ to include certain regulatory fees, broadening application of tax approval requirements. Requires Legislature or local governing body set certain other fees.”
In spite of that, supporters were still able to gather the required signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. The signature gathering occurred in 2022.
Court’s Decision
According to information about the case #S281977 entitled LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. WEBER (HILTACHK) on the state Supreme Court’s website, it “presented the following issues: (1) Does the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) constitute an impermissible attempted revision of the California Constitution by voter initiative? (2) Is this initiative measure subject to invalidation on the ground that, if adopted, it would impair essential government functions?”
The court wrote in its unanimous opinion, “we conclude that the TPA would clearly ‘accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision’ of the (state) Constitution. The measure exceeds the scope of the power to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative.”
“It is within the people’s prerogative to make these changes, but they must be undertaken in a manner commensurate with their gravity: through the process for revision set forth in Article XVIII of the Constitution,” the decision continued.
The court concluded by “directing the (CA) Secretary of State to refrain from taking steps to place” the initiative “on the November 5, 2024 election ballot or to include the measure in the voter information guide.”
However, Section 3 of that Article clearly reads, “The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.” Coupal of the HJTA was asked to explain what the court is referring to and what other approach or process should the proponents have followed. He did not respond prior to publication time.
MARTINEZ, CA—State Assembly candidate Anamarie Avila Farias announced, Thursday, June 13, 2024, the endorsement of Contra Costa Assemblyman Tim Grayson (D-15) for her campaign to represent Northern Contra Costa County in the State Legislature.
“Anamarie’s experience in our local communities, especially her service on the Martinez City Council and Contra Costa County Board of Education, has prepared her to be an effective voice for us in the Legislature,” said Assemblymember Grayson. “I’m looking forward to partnering with her as we fight for Contra Costa’s share of state resources and policies that help working families get ahead.”
“Tim Grayson’s a voice of reason and purpose in the Legislature,” said Anamarie. “I’ll bring a similar attitude to making state policies: Results over rhetoric, progress over politics.
“I really appreciate Assemblymember Grayson’s support and look forward to working with him.”
Avila Farias was the second-place finisher in the March Primary election but the top vote-getter in the field of three Democrats and faces off against the Republican candidate in November’s election. Democratic voters outnumber Republicans 52%-19% in District 15’s registration numbers. If elected, she would be the first Latina to serve Contra Costa in the State Legislature.
She has an extensive record serving her community and setting state policy. She currently serves as a Trustee of the Contra Costa County Board of Education and has consistently pushed for improved public education in Contra Costa schools. She also served on the Martinez City Council from 2012-2016.
Avila Farias is running to represent California State Assembly District 15. The district encompasses Antioch, Pittsburg, Bay Point, Crockett, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Concord, Clayton and portions of Brentwood and unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County.
Allows felony charges and increases sentences for certain theft and drug crimes, including fentanyl
Sacramento, CA – California Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D. announced that an initiative became eligible for the November 5, 2024, General Election ballot on June 10, 2024.
In order to become eligible for the ballot, the initiative needed 546,651 valid petition signatures, which is equal to five percent of the total votes cast for governor in the November 2022 General Election.
A measure can become eligible via random sampling of petition signatures if the sampling projects that the number of valid signatures is greater than 110 percent of the required number. The initiative needed at least 601,317 projected valid signatures to become eligible by random sampling, and it has exceeded that threshold today.
On June 27, 2024, the Secretary of State will certify the initiative as qualified for the November 5, 2024, General Election ballot, unless it is withdrawn by the proponent prior to certification pursuant to Elections Code section 9604(b).
– Allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs, including fentanyl, and for thefts under $950—both currently chargeable only as misdemeanors—with two prior drug or two prior theft convictions, as applicable. Defendants who plead guilty to felony drug possession and complete treatment can have charges dismissed.
– Increases sentences for other specified drug and theft crimes.
– Increased prison sentences may reduce savings that currently fund mental health and drug treatment programs, K-12 schools, and crime victims; any remaining savings may be used for new felony treatment program.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased state criminal justice system costs potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually, primarily due to an increase in the state prison population. Some of these costs could be offset by reductions in state spending on local mental health and substance use services, truancy and dropout prevention, and victim services due to requirements in current law. Increased local criminal justice system costs potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually, primarily due to increased court-related workload and a net increase in the number of people in county jail and under county community supervision. (23-0017A1)
According to Ballotpedia.com, the political action committee supporting the measure, Californians to Reduce Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft, has raised over $7.2 million to support the effort. Of that amount $2.5 million was contributed by Walmart, $1.0 million from Home Depot, $500,000 from Target, $300,000 each from 7-Eleven and California Correctional Peace Officers Association Truth in American Government Fund.
The Secretary of State’s tracking number for this measure is 1959 and the Attorney General’s tracking number is 23-0017A1.
The proponent of the measure is Thomas W. Hiltachk of the Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk law firm. They can be reached at (916) 442-7757. The address for the proponent is 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 600, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Hosted by Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department at Antioch Senior Center, 415 W. 2nd Street, in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown.
