Attorney claims current system “dilutes the ability of Latinos to elect candidates of their choice”; offers “Evidence of Racially Polarized Voting in Antioch”

By Allen Payton

At their Tuesday night Jan. 23 meeting, the Antioch City Council will vote to give their intent to convert from at-large to district elections beginning this November. The action is in response to a letter from a Walnut Creek attorney Scott J. Rafferty threatening a lawsuit if the council doesn’t make the change.

The current system of at-large elections means each City Councilmember is elected by the registered voters of the entire City. District elections in Antioch will result in dividing the city into four equal sections by population, and only those who want to run to represent the specific district must live in that part of town. With Antioch having an elected mayor, that position will still be elected city wide.

According to the staff report, in his letter received on November 17, 2017 Rafferty “asserts that the City’s at-large electoral system dilutes the ability of Latinos (a protected class) to elect candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of Antioch council elections.” He thus asserts “that the City’s at-large council member electoral system violates the California Voting Rights Act” (CVRA).”

Rafferty, representing the Bay Area Voting Rights Initiative (BAVRI), explained the background for his letter, in which he wrote, “In 2001, the Legislature determined that the use of at-large elections (by cities and districts that are characterized by racially polarized voting) dilutes the influence of minority voting blocks.”

Yet, the City has elected Latinos to the Antioch City Council, for over 25 years, including former Mayor Mary Rocha, former Mayor Pro Tem Manny Soliz, former Councilman Ralph Hernandez and current Councilman Tony Tiscareno.

Offers Evidence of Racially Polarized Voting

However, Rafferty offered some statistics and graphs demonstrating how each candidate for Antioch Mayor and City Council in 2016 did better among voters of their same Race. His report states, “the 2016 election results shows [sic] that, with very few exceptions, every white candidate did better the fewer minority voters were in the precinct. Similarly, African American candidates fared far better in the communities with the largest number of black voters. The Latina candidate (referring to Rocha who unsuccessfully ran for re-election) had a marked advantage in the Latino precincts. At the precinct level, there is substantial evidence that Antioch voters disproportionately vote for candidates of their own race.”

Then Rafferty offered details about specific candidates, writing, “For every one percent black voters increased in a precinct, Lamar Thorpe’s margin increased .57%. In Latino precincts, Mary Rocha got .37% greater margin for each added one percent Latino voters. (Ken) Turnage’s lead in non-minority precincts increased .67% for each additional percentage of voters who were white.”

He provides further “Evidence of Racially Polarized Voting” in his letter, which can be viewed, here: Rafferty Letter re Antioch District Elections

Other Benefits of District Elections

Rafferty argues that even if there isn’t racially polarized voting, there are other benefits to district elections. “Single member districts reduce the cost of elections, both to candidates and to the city. Districting will substantially reduce the entry costs of running for office,” he writes.

Arguments Against Districting

Then he argues against district elections writing, “Districting sometimes reduces the electoral strength of the very groups that it is designed to help. If Latinos do vote as a bloc, and comprise 15% of voters, they may exercise…decisive influence in the election of every member. Relatively few cities that have converted to single member districts have seen a significant increase in minority office holders. The greatest risk is that there will be no qualified candidate willing to stand for election in a new district. In such a case, the remaining members appoint, which completely disenfranchises voters in the new ‘minority’ district.”

Rafferty further writes that, “Districting can also force the community to choose among incumbents or other well-qualified candidates, when all could have been elected in the at-large system. The transition sequence may also have adverse effects. In a staggered system, the incumbents serve out their term. In the first election, the districts with the largest minority populations generally choose district members first.” He cites Elections Code Section 10010(b) which states “sequence must consider purposes of CVRA and preference by members (residents?) of the districts.”

He concludes that “Although the incumbents in Antioch are not closely clustered, none inhabits the high-minority area (assuming the registrar’s precinct racial data is accurate)” and that “It is extremely  likely that a formal analysis will confirm that Antioch experiences racially polarized voting, which dilutes the electoral influence of the city’s protected racial and language groups,  particularly Latinos.”

Could Affect Current Incumbents Up for Reelection This Year

The proposed resolution for the Council’s consideration states, “the adoption of a district-based elections system will not affect the terms of any sitting Council Member, each of whom will serve out his or her current term.” However, both Tiscareno and Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock are up for election in November. If they both reside in the same district, they would have to face each other in the election. But, if either of them live in the same district as either Mayor Pro Tem Lamar Thorpe or Councilwoman Monica Wilson, or both, they could not run this year, as there will be no election held in those districts. The other option for Tiscareno or Ogorchock is to move into one of the districts that are up for election.

Other cities in the county have been targets of similar threats from Rafferty and an attorney from Southern California, including Martinez and Concord. That latter city voted earlier this month to change to district elections, to also avoid a lawsuit.

The California Legislature in amendments to Elections Code Section 10010, has provided a method whereby a jurisdiction can quickly change to a by-district election system and avoid the high cost of litigation under the CVRA, known as a “safe harbor” from such lawsuits.

So, on January 9, 2018, the City Council met in Closed Session to consider the threatened CVRA litigation and, after weighing the legal implications and potential costs of such litigation, and without admitting the validity of the contentions raised in Rafferty’s letter, directed the City Attorney to move forward with the resolution of intent to transition from at-large to district-based elections. The action is in compliance with a 45-day deadline (and a 30-day extension) in order to take advantage of the “safe harbor” allowances under state law. Under this “safe harbor,” the City is required to hold five public hearings within an additional 90-day period. The hearings will offer Antioch residents the opportunity to make comments to the Council on the composition of the districts and to provide input regarding the content of the draft maps and the proposed sequence of elections. The final public hearing will be when the Council votes to consider an ordinance establishing district-based elections. The Council will decide at Tuesday’s meeting when they will hold those public hearings.

If the council approves the change to district elections the city will have to pay up to $30,000 to Rafferty for his fees and costs, as well as pay a demographer and possibly other consultants. Otherwise the City could face the “extraordinary cost” of defending against a CVRA lawsuit and risk “losing such a lawsuit which would require the City to pay the prevailing plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees.

Public Will Get To See Maps, First

However, the resolution includes a provision for the public to see the proposed map of the districts, first stating, “before the City Council’s consideration of an ordinance to establish district boundaries for a district-based electoral system, California Elections Code Section 10010 requires all of the following:

1. Prior to drawing a draft map or maps of the proposed boundaries of the districts, the City shall hold at least two public hearings over a period of no more than 30 days, at which the public will be invited to provide input regarding the composition of the districts;
2. After all draft maps are drawn, the City shall publish and make available for release at least one draft map and, if members of the City Council will be elected in their districts at different times to provide for staggered terms of office, the potential sequence of the elections shall also be published. The City Council shall also hold at least two additional hearings over a period of no more than 45 days, at which the public shall be invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft map or maps and the proposed sequence of elections, if applicable. The first version of a draft map shall be published at least seven days before consideration at a hearing. If a draft map is revised at or following a hearing, it shall be published and made available to the public for at least seven days before being adopted.”

The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 W. 2^nd Street in historic, downtown Rivertown or can be viewed on local cable channel 24, or via the City’s website by clicking here.

Today, Friday, January 12, 2018, Patrick Vanier, Supervising Prosecutor in Santa Clara County, and a candidate for Contra Costa County District Attorney issued the following statement:

“When I announced my candidacy for District Attorney last spring, I made it clear that my candidacy was not about me, but about bringing real reform to the office of District Attorney and instituting best practices to bring Contra Costa County’s criminal justice system into the 21st Century.  I was the first to declare my candidacy to challenge former DA Mark Peterson and I am proud to have started the dialogue for change.

A little more than a month later, Mark Peterson resigned from office.  Upon his resignation, the County initiated an appointment process to fill the vacancy. I was honored to be selected by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors as a finalist in that process.

During the appointment process in the summer and fall, I again made it clear that if a person was appointed who can bring progressive leadership to the office of District Attorney and will modernize and standardize how cases are prosecuted, I may not seek election.

Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors voted to appoint retired Judge Diana Becton to be District Attorney. (See related article) Although I was disappointed in not receiving the appointment, I respected the Supervisors’ decision as they recognized the importance of selecting a candidate from outside the dysfunction of the current office. While I was in this race to win, as I felt that I possess the skills this County needs, I also realize the importance of ensuring that change does indeed occur.

Over the past several months I have been following the developments within the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office under District Attorney Diana Becton.  I believe she has undertaken a course of action to run the department in an honest and ethical manner and will utilize the latest technologies, data analytics, and community prosecution models to prevent crime and prosecute cases. I want this County to be focused on ensuring that change continues.

For these reasons, I have decided to withdraw from the race for Contra Costa County District Attorney and fully support and endorse Diana Becton.

I want to thank my supporters for their unflagging support and encouragement and I will be urging them to support Diana Becton.”

On his campaign website, Vanier said he offered “progressive leadership” to the people of Contra Costa County. With him out of the race the remaining candidates, currently are the appointed incumbent, Interim Contra Costa DA Becton and Contra Costa Senior Deputy District Attorney Paul Graves, who entered the race last spring to take on Peterson, prior to his resignation and has the support of most law enforcement organizations in the county. If no other candidates enter the race the winner of the Primary Election in June will be elected. According to the County Elections Office website, the filing period for the election begins February 12 and ends March 9.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

Today, Wednesday, December 6, 2017, District Attorney Diana Becton issued the following statement:

“It’s official: today, I filed my papers to run for District Attorney of Contra Costa County.

“I was selected as District Attorney by the Board of Supervisors to restore faith and trust in the District Attorney’s Office in the wake of scandal. I have rolled up my sleeves and I am hard at work. I am committing to restoring integrity to the office. I am confident that I will succeed. I am a collaborative leader who knows how to get things done.

“We cannot continue to look at the criminal justice system in a vacuum. We need a broad, universal approach to how we prevent crime, make our communities safe, and treat everyone fairly.

“As a longtime judge of the Superior Court in Contra Costa County, I am proud of my reputation for hard work, fairness, and integrity. I will bring these qualities to the campaign trail – and to the job.”

In September, Becton was appointed by the Board of Supervisors to fill the position made vacant by the resignation of Mark Peterson. She joins Contra Costa County Senior Assistant District Attorney Paul Graves and Santa Clara County Supervising Deputy District Attorney Patrick Vanier who announced their campaigns and entered the race prior to Peterson’s resignation. The Primary Election will be held June 4, 2018. If no candidate receives a majority of vote, the top two candidates will face off in the General Election in November.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

New state law has moved up the date to start petition in lieu of filing fees to December 14th

Attention to those Contra Costa residents looking to run for office: The date to start collecting signatures to run for office has been moved up two weeks and will begin on December 14th.

Candidates seeking to run for state, federal and county offices in 2018 have the ability to start the process early and gather signatures of registered voters to reduce the filing fee. Each qualifying signature brings down the final cost for filing.

A bill recently signed into law changed the state’s Election Code and moved the timeframe for candidates to collect these signatures in lieu of the filing fee.

The Contra Costa Elections Division is offering appointments to interested candidates on weekdays from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm. Documents for those with appointments will be prepared ahead of their appointment time.

The process should take no more than 20 minutes. Walk-ins are always welcome. To schedule an appointment please request a date and time at candidate.services@vote.cccounty.us or call 925-335-7800.

The filing fees vary by office. Information about the filing cost for specific offices is available on the Contra Costa Elections Division website at www.contracostacore.us.

Signatures collected in lieu of fees count toward any signature requirement for that office.

More information about the filing process is also available online at www.contracostacore.us.

Top priority as Secretary of State is to restore voter confidence in open, secure and fair elections

WALNUT CREEK, CA – On Thursday, Oct. 19 just prior to last weekend’s state Republican Party Convention, small business legal advocate, entrepreneur, and small business owner Mark Meuser announced his candidacy for California Secretary of State. The office, currently held by Alex Padilla, boasts a dismal national ranking of 43rd in voter turnout and is ranked almost dead last by The Pew Charitable Trust’s Election Performance Index. Padilla was elected in 2014 and can only run and serve for a second four-year term.

When asked why he was running for Secretary of State, Meuser replied, “A few months ago, I heard a news story that there are currently 11 counties in the state that have over 100% voter registration. I learned that it is the Secretary of State’s job to enforce all election laws in this state. As I studied the issue, I realized that the current Secretary of State has failed to enforce the basic election law requiring the removal from the voter rolls those who have died and moved.”

“If the Secretary of State has failed to enforce such a simple election law, what other election laws has he not enforced? Just how secure is our vote here in California?” Meuser asked.

“Participation in California elections remains criminally stagnant, relying on the appeal of current candidates or issues to buoy voter turnout instead of an innovative Secretary of State who uses every tool to enhance not only registration, but civic engagement,” he added.

Polling shows that 30% of Californians who aren’t registered to vote don’t bother, due to lack of confidence in elections and politics, while 36% of those actually registered cite lack of interest in politics, elections, or candidates for inconsistent voting.

“Californians continue to communicate clearly with their elected representatives and yet, nothing changes. My unique background and training have taught me to listen to people, craft simple solutions to the complex issues they’re facing, and work tirelessly to help them overcome those challenges,” said Meuser.

“Our Secretary of State needs to be someone who is looking out for all Californians by enhancing civic engagement in every community while increasing transparency. That’s why as Secretary of State, I will improve voters’ confidence in our elections, modernize the registration process for businesses, and enhance the People’s ability to use their initiative process.”

“The current Secretary of State’s office is antiquated and clearly still stuck in the Stone Age,” said Meuser’s spokesperson Derek Garner.

Meuser is a small business legal advocate, native Californian, and a small business owner, committed to fighting for honest and fair elections.

From a young age, Meuser was an entrepreneur. At age 12, he would pick cherries in the morning and operate a street-side stand during the afternoon. He was also hard at work taking care of orphaned animals, bottle-feeding sheep, pigs, and cows. Meuser believes that these years of developing character through hard work were important, formative years in his life. By age 15, he was in a management position at a local restaurant and by age 21, he purchased his own pizza restaurant. While his restaurant business was thriving, Meuser began studying law. He graduated with honors from the Oak Brook College of Law.

To better help small business owners handle California’s complex regulatory environment, he opened The Meuser Law Group where he operated a diverse civil litigation team that represented both individuals and small businesses. The 43-year-old is now with the Dhillon Law Group in San Francisco.

According to Ballotpedia, Meuser ran unsuccessfully in 2014 against then-incumbent Mark DeSaulnier for the State Senate in the 7th District, which covers most of Contra Costa County. Then in 2014 he formed the Bay Area Republican Political Action Committee and funded it with $10,500 of his own money running ads in the Antioch Herald and TV ad production. It is no longer active.

For more information on Mueser’s campaign visit www.markmeuser.com. The election for Secretary of State will be held during the Primary, next June. Then the top two candidates regardless of party will face off in the November election.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

 

Nicknamed for county school board member; Brown “not convinced it’s a widespread problem…”

By Allen Payton

A bill sponsored by Assemblyman Jim Frazier to increase penalties on candidates who lie on their ballot statements was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown on Sunday, Oct. 15. The bill, AB 894 was introduced in response to the ballot statement by Contra Costa County Board of Education Trustee Jeff Belle during his 2014 campaign, in which he wrote that he had earned a degree in political science, when he had not been awarded one by his alma mater.

The county District Attorney’s office prosecuted Belle who could have been fined a maximum of $1,000 for the violation. However, both sides agreed to a diversion program of community service, instead. (See related article).

Belle, through his attorneys, argued that he had done all the course work to earn the degree and even walked during graduation ceremonies, but that due to not paying some fees it was never conferred on him.

Frazier, who represents portions of Eastern Contra Costa County where Belle resides, was elected and also represents portions, wanted to increase the maximum penalty to $5,000. The legislation passed easily through both the Assembly and the Senate.

But, the governor didn’t believe it was necessary, stating in his veto message for the bill, that he was “not convinced that this is a widespread problem in California elections or that this bill would be much of a deterrent.”

That leaves in place the current maximum fine for lying on a ballot statement that is sent to all voters in a district. It also means that there is a greater, maximum fine of $1,000 and penalty of up to three years in prison for lying on a candidate’s nomination papers which remain with the elections official and is not made available to the public. Frazier considered that backwards.

An attempt to reach the Assemblyman for comment for this report was unsuccessful.

Belle’s term in office ends in 2018 and the election will be held next November.

By John Crowder

John Cox is a Republican candidate for Governor of California.  On Wednesday, October 18, Herald staff was invited to meet and interview him while he spent some time campaigning in Contra Costa County. Following are the results of that interview.

Herald:  Why are you running for governor?

Cox:  Our state has become unaffordable for many people.  The business climate is bad.  We’re chasing businesses out of the state, rather than attracting new business.  Less businesses means less competition, and this is part of what drives higher prices.

Growth is essential for our state, and you can’t have growth unless you have affordability.

Taxes are excessive, and the money that we are giving to our government is not being used efficiently.  We need to repeal the regressive, gasoline tax hike.

Yes, we need to have better infrastructure, but we can do that with existing funds.  We just need to use them efficiently.  That won’t happen until I’m governor.  Right now, there is no interest in seeing government entities such as Caltrans run efficiently, and that’s working against the California taxpayer.

On top of this we have a homeless problem, a lot of which is related to mental health, but also an affordable housing shortage.  These costs add up, housing, food, gasoline, taxes, making it harder for families to thrive.

Herald: Tell me a little about your background.  You haven’t always lived in California?

Cox:  That’s true.  I’ve lived here for the last ten years, in the San Diego area.  But, I’ve had family in California for the last 50 years.

I grew up in Chicago.  My mother was a Chicago public school teacher who moved to Fresno after she retired.  I came to California mainly for family, but also for the weather.

I’m trained as both a Certified Public Accountant and as an attorney.  My business is real estate.

Herald:  It’s expensive to run a state-wide campaign.  Have you invested your own money in your campaign, and how much do you expect to have to raise?

Cox:  I’ve invested $3 million of my own money in my campaign, and I think that demonstrates my level of commitment.  So far, we’ve raised $350,000 on top of that, all from individual donors.  We’ve just announced the members of my finance committee, about 50 people.

For the primary, we have a budget of between $8-$10 million.  We’ll have to raise another $20-$25 million for the general election.

One thing I’d like to emphasize, though, is that money, as important as it is, is not the final determinant.  It’s ideas.  My ideas will resonate with the average Californian.  We currently have over 100,000 followers on Facebook.

Herald:  What is your experience? Have you ever held elective office?

Cox:  I’m not a professional politician, and so I haven’t held office in the past.  I am a businessman, and I believe that it is the skills I developed in that arena that are sorely needed in the leader of our state government.  Many people in our country feel the same way; 19 of our governors are business people.

I built businesses.  Like other business leaders, I know how to manage people, how to set goals, and how to use resources efficiently.  With 40 years of business experience, I’ve also learned how to separate pretenders from doers.

No one person can have the answer to everything.  But business people know how to seek advice from those that know more about their special areas of expertise.

In our current climate, all too often, decisions taken by our government are influenced by cronyism.  That’s one thing I can’t stand.  My career has been based on having the best people, and using the resources that I have efficiently.

People want a governor who will take care of their money.  I want our state to be sustainable, for the future of my 12-year-old daughter.  So, I have a strong interest in seeing our state run well.

Herald:  What issues, specific to Contra Costa County, are you concerned about?

Cox:  For one thing, housing costs are outrageous.  We need more affordable housing, smart housing.  Part of this is driven by the CEQA process.  It’s become a way to hold up developers.

A lot of regulations don’t make sense, and further drive up costs.

Many people here in the Bay Area commute.  As I mentioned earlier, the gas tax hike will hit those who can least afford it, the hardest.  That’s why I’m chairman of Give Voters a Chance, the gas tax repeal effort.

Herald:  Are you familiar with the Delta Tunnels controversy?

Cox:  Yes, I am.  The tunnels project is an unnecessary, pork-based project.  Instead of building tunnels, we should be building reservoirs.

Herald:  What are your views on education?

Cox:  Education is one of my biggest issues.  I was the school board president of a parish school when I was 24.  As I mentioned, my mother was a public-school teacher in Chicago.  She saw, first-hand, the problems that develop when cronyism takes hold.

The education system we currently have is not run for the parents or the kids.  It’s run for the union bosses.  We need to lessen the power of the unions to continue to push for policies that work against our children.

We need to put the parents in charge.  One of the ways we can do this is to have more competition.  We need more options for parents, the ability to send their kids to charter schools, or private schools.  The politicians already have this ability, yet they’d deny it to the poor kid whose parents can’t afford private school, and are stuck in a failing school simply because of where they live.  This is political corruption at its worst.

I support the idea of vouchers, giving the decision on where funds go directly to the parents, and letting them make the choice that is best for their child.

On the same day as the interview, during a press conference in Sacramento with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Cox announced his support for a ballot initiative to repeal the recently approved state gas tax increase, according to a San Francisco Chronicle article.

For more information about Cox and his campaign for Governor in next year’s election, visit www.johncoxforgovernor.com or follow him on Facebook.