Meredith, Alyssa
From: Dominic Lopez Moonheart
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2023 4:19 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Districting the Burbank City Council
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Burbank City Council I'm emailing you today to put my opinion in for for changing the council from an at large system to a district-based system | 100% support district-based elections but The youth also supports the mayor to be elected at large The youth believes that the city council should be six districts and not five with a mayor at large to allow constituents the ceremonial title to be elected Like the cities and mayors of Riverside City, Moreno Valley, Menifee, Desert Hot Springs, Inglewood, Long Beach, Carson, Pasadena, Pomona, Whittier, San Dimas, Torrance, Apple Valley, Colton, Fontana, San Bernardino City, Barstow, Chino, Upland, Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Orange City, Santa Ana, Anaheim, Stanton, Tustin, Westminster, Encinita, Oceanside, Santee, Solana Beach, Carlsbad, Chula Vista, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, National City, Poway, San Marcos, Vista, Moorpark, Ojai City, Oxnard, Simi Valley, Lompoc, Santa Maria, Buellton, Solvang, Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, El Paso de Robles, San Luis Obispo Bakersfield, North Las Vegas, Las Vegas City and Henderson to name A few the young voters and the youth believe that a ceremonial title as well as the person who presides over City Council meetings should be elected At large Instead of appointing the mayor for 1 year like the city council has been doing and believes the mayor should have a 2 or 4 year term so If we could please study having six districts and a mayor elected at large Sincerely
Dominic Moonheart
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Thomas J. Savino <
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 1:30 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: "How we got here."
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
We Burbank citizens, conversing on Nextdoor, have realized that we need answers to our questions.
1. We need to know the identity of the person or persons who put Burbank on notice that Burbank was violating the California Voting Rights Act. Who is he, she, or who are they?
2. What is the "potential" violation of the California Voting Rights Act that the "Burbank voter" who put Burbank on notice cites in the threat to sue?
3. Does this person or group have representation by a law firm and if so what is that law firm and how may they be reached?
4. How does our current non-district voting system block or limit representation of "Latino voters" and how will the proposed districting voting system ensure Latino - are any group - will not have their "power" "diluted?"
Additionally, Nextdoor contributors fear there will be resentment of citizens in one group over citizens of another and conflicts regarding potential City Council decisions on Burbank projects given the green light that will benefit one district at the expense of excluding benefits for each of the other districts. What is our City Council's take on that issue?
Thank you. (I'm unable to attend meetings. I'm unable to participate in zoom meetings, at this time).
Thomas J. Savino
Parish Pl
Burbank, CA 91506
Meredith, Alyssa
From: David Gordon
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 10:47 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Clark, Kimberley
Subject: Letter in Opposition to the District Based Voting Proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To: Honorable Council Members
From: David Gordon, former Mayor & Councilmember
Re: District Based Voting Decision
You all have an important decision before you considering whether or not to adopt a district based voting process for the people of Burbank. I urge you all, in the strongest terms possible, to reject adopting any version of district based voting. Not only is the basis for this consideration bogus and completely unfounded by facts and a century of successful at large voting practice, but it is, and will be, a failed approach for all of Burbank's citizens.
District based voting has not worked well where imposed in other Burbank comparable cities and is being legally challenged by other impacted jurisdictions. Adopting district based voting will egregiously disenfranchise all of Burbank's voters, fracture long established, cohesive neighborhoods and, most ironically, further diminish minority groups' collective ability to elect representatives of their preference to the Council.
The entire process of introducing and promoting this dramatic change in electoral protocol to the people of Burbank has been flawed, inadequate and smacks of a well orchestrated promotional propaganda campaign. Despite scheduling several public hearings on how to adopt preferred districting maps, the majority of the public remains uninformed of what district based voting entails and how it will impact them. Taking away the voting rights for full Council representation is anathema to American concepts of democracy. There have been no public hearing opportunities for an informed public to weigh in on whether or not the City should adopt district based voting or join other municipalities battling this threat in court.
I urge all of you to summon the courage and strength to reject adoption of district based voting for Burbank. Whatever the cost or burdens may be they will pale in comparison of abandoning our traditions and values enabling all of Burbank to have elected, undivided representatives of the people, by the people and for the people.
Respectfully,
David Gordon
Meredith, Alyssa
From: D. A. Holtzman
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 11:37 AM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Johnson, Douglas
Subject: This Afternoon's Hearing on Districting (Council Agenda, Wednesday, August 23, 2023, Item E.1.)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
August 23, 2023
Dear Councilmembers,
RE: This Afternoon's Hearing on Districting
(Council Agenda, Wednesday, August 23, 2023, Item E.1.) "Phase II"
I remain concerned about the draft timeline for Phase II (Agenda Item Attachment 5). While a demographics firm may have relevant information to offer, when evaluating election methods, if you are going to appoint or hire people to give presentations or respond to public comments, they should be recognized experts or advocates in the field of election methods. Evaluating election methods requires knowing more than characteristics of populations.
The particular demographer whose firm you have hired to help with districting has repeatedly gone beyond demographics in responses to your questions, and has demonstrated misunderstanding of, and apparent distaste for, Proportional Ranked Choice Voting (PRCV). Surely you do not want to have him lead your evaluation of election methods, or, as you appear to be doing, craft the evaluation process (the draft process/timeline [Attachment 5] is on his firm's letterhead), writing for himself a leading role.
Remember now that demographic firms make a lot of money these days from services related to districting and redistricting (or "selling districts," as I once put it). It is only natural that demographers would be disinclined to favor electoral reforms such as PRCV that do not require or eliminate the need for district maps.
The conflict of interest is obvious. You didn't hire Douglas Johnson or National Demographics Corporation to "lead you through the process' of responding to a lawsuit threat. That would have him or the firm practice law without a license.
For making presentations and responding to public comments, you could appoint more than one expert or advocate. I would be pleased to serve as an expert/advocate for achieving proportional representation through Ranked Choice Voting. Or, you might choose Paula Lee who spearheaded the adoption of a pro-PRCV position by the League of Women Voters of California. Her father, I believe, was mayor of a city in our county. So, beyond her deep understanding of the policy arguments pro and con regarding PRCV, I bet she is sensitive to the needs of municipal governments.
1 Phase 1
As a redistricting commissioner, the main problem I see with how you're approaching drawing districts is that you do not appear to be drawing districts. In my opinion, you should not simply be deciding among maps submitted by stakeholders. You should be able and open to making revisions to maps during your meetings, with staff or consultants available to enter your revisions into your mapping software and show and analyze the results in real time for all to see, in the council chamber and online. (I haven't seen much of that happening.) Also, you must offer reasons for your ultimate map. If you simply select a submitted map, you must identify who submitted it (and if you know, why). Otherwise, the record will be incomplete and you can be accused of backroom dealing.
Finally, the city attorney and demographer appear to me to have been inserting extraneous material into their responses to your questions. If you ask the city attorney a yes-or-no question, it would be nice if he didn't answer "yes, but I wouldn't advise it" unless his advice is on legal, not fiscal or policy, grounds. Longwinded answers (again, to me) seem to be unnecessarily extending your meetings.
David Holtzman
Burbank Resident
INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTION BALLOT - RANKED CHOICE VOTING
Candidate list: (names)
Your choices, in the order you prefer them:
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. (...)
2 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Dominic Lopez Moonheart •
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 4:51 PM
To:
Subject: Districting Map For A Minority Majority District for Burbank in 6 Districts Attachments: District Map.png; District Statistics.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello, can I have all the council members and get a printed copy of the district map and the district statistics for tomorrow's City District Meeting. I will be doing public comment on the phone tomorrow to explain my map. Thank You Sincerely
Dominic Moonheari
Copy of Burbank City Template
County City
Tools + Map Statistics Analyze
Precinct Block
Roscoe Blvd
enoaks
Saticoy St
BUR
Vanowen St
Whitsett Ave Glenoaks Bivd
VALLEY Tujunga Ave
GLEN:
Burbank
NORTH
HOLLYWOOD lagnolla Biva
Chandler Blvd
NOHO ARIS
VALLEY DISTRICT
VILLAGE
tura Fwy
STUDIO CITY
23 Dave's Redistricting, LLC.
©M
= DRA 2020° Copy of Burbank City Template
E
Statistics Notes
#Statistics ) Analyze → Compare Advanced
Population Shapes Partisan Lean Demographics (VAP)
DOWNLOAD
ID + Total +/- Total
White Minority Hispanic Black Asian Native Pacific
Un. 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
1 17,918 -0.1% 12,728
74.37% 25.63% 13.13% 1.37% 9.82% 1.16% 0%
2 17,956 0.11% 11,702
63.35% 36.65% 19.43% 5.42% 11.19% 0.83% 0%
3 17,949 0.08% 64.18%
12,399 35.82% 21.25% 4.25% 8.89% 1.16% 0%
4 17,982 0.26% 12,463 59.74%
40.26% 18.98% 6.7% 12.7% 1.43% 0%
5 17,902 -0.19% 13,293 60.4% 39.6% 22.74% 2.26%
12.56% 1.42% 0.23%
6 17,906 -0.16% 12,465 47.46% 32.89% 3.36% 0.56%
52.54% 15.47% 0.08%
17,936 12,508 61.59% 38.41% 21.41% 3.85% 11.78% 1.1% 0.05% Notes
• Precinct Shapes: Census 2020
• Total Population: Census Adjusted 2020
• Voting Age Population: Citizen VAP (ACS 5-year) 2020
• Election Result: Composite of 2016 Pres, 2020 Pres, 2018 Gov, 2018 AG Meredith, Alyssa
From: Bob Schmitt <
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:56 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Redistricting Comments
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
As stated in my July 13 email to all Council members, I noted my redistricting experience in 1983-
84. I was employed by the Office of Lieutenant Governor for the State of Hawaii, as part of a team, to create legally acceptable maps for the entire State of Hawaii. Later I wrote a report in 1990 for the Hawaii Bar Journal: "A History of Recent Reapportionment in Hawaii". This report was sent to all Council members.
It is well-settled that the "CVRA invalidates not only at-large elections that prevent minority voters from electing their chosen candidates, but also those that "impair the ability of minority voters to influence elections."
Issues
1. Was the Council decision to dismiss at-large voting in favor of creating district voting timely or too hasty?
2. Should not the entire public mapping process be considered invalid because the mapping tools only provided population enumeration and neglected any ethnic population components? The National Demographics Corporation has stated the recommended district maps now satisfy the minority/ethnic component of Burbank's population, but isn't that "putting the cart before the horse?"
3. Although the Council states that pending Santa Monica litigation may not directly affect what happens in Burbank, is it not premature for Burbank to continue the redistricting process while the California Supreme Court continues its consideration?
Note that the Court has ordered the parties to brief the issue that is fundamental to Burbank's hasty redistricting decision: "What must a plaintiff prove in order to establish vote dilution under the California Voting Rights Act?"
Note also that Santa Monica and Burbank have similar populations, but that Burbank's Hispanic population is very different than Santa Monica's
4. Seven Burbank districts will result in about 15,000 residents in each district. Glendale is considering dividing its population of 192,000 into six districts, each with 32,000 residents. Each Los Angeles council district now has 260,000 residents! So why seven districts? 1 5. Because the Council's decision to engage in redistricting was primarily to avoid opportunistic litigation and it seems there is unknown voter interest in maintaining at-large elections, should not a decision whether to go forward with redistricting be decided by Burbank voters in an early 2024 election?
Sincerely,
Robert G. Schmitt
Burbank resident
2 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Steve Chessin on behalf of Steve Chessin
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 9:38 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Follow-up to my testimony at your Special City Council Meeting on Tuesday, August 23, 2023
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Mayor Anthony, Vice Mayor Schulz, and Councilmembers Perez, Takahashi, and Mullins.
Below my "signature" you will find a transcript of the testimony I gave at your Special City Council Meeting on Tuesday, August 23, 2023. As promised, here is my contact information:
Email:
Telephone: (this is a land-line so does not take texts) USPS: Steve Chessin, Lloyd Way, Mountain View, CA 94040 I did watch the rest of your meeting. To address the issue you raised about different forms of ranked choice voting, there are really only two models that need to be considered (and that you should ask Los Angeles County to implement):
1. The single-winner "instant runoff" form that the Cities of Oakland, Berkeley, and San Leandro (all in Alameda County), and the City and County of San Francisco, are already using.
2. The multi-winner proportional "single transferable vote" form that the City of Albany (also in Alameda County) is already using.
If Burbank adopts district elections, form (1) above is the one you would consider using. If Burbank stays with at-large elections, form (2) is the one you would consider using. I'd be happy to explain these forms to you either individually or at a study session. (I am familiar with the Brown Act so if any of you contact me individually I will not share that information with any of the rest of you.) I note that form (1) is really a subset of form (2), as "single transferable vote" becomes "instant runoff" when only one person is being elected, so if the County implements form (2) they will also have implemented form (1). And as Mr. Johnson mentioned, software already exists that does both and that could easily be integrated into the County's VSAP system, as long as the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder is willing to do so. But all your resolution needs to say is that you want Los Angeles County to implement the same forms of ranked choice voting that are used in cities in Alameda County.
While other methods do exist for tallying ballots that have rankings (and I could explain them to you if you were interested), these two are the ones that most people, especially electoral reformers, mean when they use the phrase "ranked choice voting".
I can also answer the questions you had about the process of adoption of ranked choice voting by the above cities and by the City and County of San Francisco.
Please feel free to contact me with any other questions you may have as well. --Steve Chessin
President, Californians for Electoral Reform
https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cfer.org%2F&data=05%7C 01%7CKAnthony%40burbankca.gov%7Cef3479bb5b7b42572ca708dba45bddcf%7C648dae31182b4d a299ef2581ab8e8bea%7C0%7C0%7C638284486709753020%7CUnknown%7СTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljo iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQljoiV2luMzliLCJBTil6lk1 haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5s H1YjBNE4UW4YTLkaOQbFHRJ8ESX4kyE2P6zEQsNS0%3D&reserved=0 Lloyd Way, Mountain View, CA 94040
Good evening Mayor, Councilmembers. My name is Steve Chessin. I am President of Californians for Electoral Reform.
I strongly urge you to adopt the resolution concerning ranked choice voting that is in Attachment 2 to this agenda item. The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder has made it clear that without a formal expression of interest by the City of Burbank he will make no attempt to implement ranked choice voting. I note that the resolution does not bind the City of Burbank to adopt ranked choice voting, so there is no downside in passing it. If and when the Registrar implements ranked choice voting the City Council can then consider whether to adopt it, but without such a formal declaration of interest you will never be able to have that discussion.
Of course, the Registrar will probably come back and ask you what kind of ranked choice voting you want him to implement, or with some other reason to delay responding to your request. If that happens, my organization will be happy to help you craft an appropriate response that will leave the Registrar with little wiggle-room in responding to your request. I will send you my contact information via email.
Thank you very much.
2