From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: September 18, 2026 3:43 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer
Subject: FW: City Council Special Meeting of 9-17-2026 re Special Election for the Public Record
From: Denys Oberman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2026 3:43:09 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Dept - City Council <[email protected]>; City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: City Council Special Meeting of 9-17-2026 re Special Election for the Public Record [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button above.
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO THE COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC, AND ENTER INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD
Mayor and Council Members-
In the event that my correspondence did not make it to you yesterday , it remains relevant in connection with this Meeting of September 18th, so I reassert and resubmit.
The more the Council continues efforts to circumvent its responsibilities, the more obvious the intentions of the Council become.
Denys H Oberman
Resident and Community Stakeholder
………………………………………………………………………………
Regards,
Denys H. Oberman, CEO
OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors
19200 Von Karman Ave, 6th Floor
Irvine, CA 92612
Tel (949) 476-0790
Cell (949) 230-5868
Email: [email protected]
www.obermanassociates.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in erro r, please notify us immediately at 949/476-0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange for the return of the document(s) to us.
From: Denys Oberman <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2026 12:13 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]
Subject: City Council Special Meeting of 9-17-2026 re Special Election for the Public Record
Mayor, Council Members –
We understand that, once again, the City
The Consultant retained by the City was quite succinct in recommendations, as well as providing a specific and reasonable scope of assistance that would b e needed from the County.
Instead once again, the City is intent on continued and transparent antics to obfuscate and deter the Special Election from occurring on November 3, 2026.
The City’s recent overly broad request for assistance from the County, wreaks of ill-intent – not only towards the County, but more importantly, towards its Constituents, the Residents/voters. This is reaching the level of punitive, both ethically and financially, to the Constituents/Voters of Newport Beach.
We insist that the City Council follow the direction of the County, as well as that of its consultant, and immediately modify its request from the County so this can be put to bed and the election can proceed—in a timely and reliable manner.
May we remind the Council that, the more it persists with these tactics, the more the voters will be inclined to seek New Leadership .
Thank you,
Denys H Oberman
Resident and Community Stakeholder
Regards,
Denys H. Oberman, CEO
OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors
19200 Von Karman Ave, 6th Floor
Irvine, CA 92612
Tel (949) 476-0790
Cell (949) 230-5868
Email: [email protected]
www.obermanassociates.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, pleas e notify us immediately at 949/476-0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange for the return of the document(s) to us.
1(415) 856-7080
[email protected]
September 18, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC-MAIL
([email protected] )
City Council
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: Yesterday’s Abruptly Cancelled Special Meeting , and Today’s Recently Noticed Special Council Meeting - November 3, 2026, Concurrent Municipal Election.
Dear City Council Members:
We represent the Newport Beach Stewardship Association and former Mayor Marshall Duffield (together, NBSA). This letter should be included in the agenda materials for today’s Special Meeting, which was abruptly noticed after yesterday’s meeting was cancelled for unspecified reasons . In addition, this letter should be included in the agenda materials for the next City Council meeting.
We write to make four points:
First, City officials have repeatedly suggested a standalone municipal election run in parallel to a consolidated election has never occurred before. That is simply untrue.
There are many examples of a “concurrent” election, that is, where a municipality concurrently runs a local election on the same date as a statewide election. One obvious example is the City of Los Angeles, which has codified the practice. Indeed, Section 105 of the City of Los Angeles Election Code provides:
Whenever a City election is scheduled to be held on the same day as a County, State, District, Federal, or local election, but not consolidated with those elections, or consolidated but using separate ballots, the City Clerk shall have the authority to conduct the election in the same manner as provided for in this Code…
There are many reasons why a municipality may wish to hold a separate election, e.g., a local city may prefer to have a separate ballot so matters of local concern are not lost in lengthy consolidated ballot materials.
Another example is the City of Palmdale, which likewise has codified the practice of holding a concurrent election. Section 4.01.020 of the Palmdale Municipal Code provides , in relevant part, that it may “conduct its election concurrently with future statewide general elections (employing a separate ballot from that of the County).”
Long Beach has also run multiple concurrent elections, which it refers to as “Two- Vote Tuesday.” One Long Beach voter told the LA Times that “voting twice was relatively painless” and “pretty easy[.]”1 Another voter told the LA Times: “‘ It was very simple, ’ . . . adding that he didn’t have a problem having to vote twice.” And if that were not enough, Santa Monica also held a concurrent election in November 1990. 2 A concurrent election is not new. It has been settled law for decades that concurrent elections are proper.
Indeed, the California Supreme Court confirmed the same decades ago. For example, in Mead v. City of Los Angeles, the Supreme Court was presented with a situation where two elections occurred in the same city on the same date, and determined there was “no question as to the validity of the separation of the two elections[.]” ((1921) 185 Cal. 422, 424.) In turning away a procedural challenge to that concurrent election, the Supreme Court held “the requirements of the law were observed in the holding of the special bond election” and “it must be held valid[.]” ( Id. at 426.) The City also continues to say it is unlawful to hold a concurrent election, citing Elections Code Section 10402.5. But Section 10402.5 only applies to elections held “pursuant to Section 1002,” and Section 1002 does not apply to elections covered by Section 1003, including a “municipal . . . initiative . . . election.” The City’s City Charter argument likewise fails because Section 1000 only applies to local elections for “the election of officers.” This is not an election of officers, so Section 1000 i s inapplicable.
After repeatedly losing in court, the City has incorrectly told the public that holding a standalone election is “unprecedented” and “unlawful.” What was unlawful was the City Council’s refusal to provide a title and summary. What was unprecedented was the City Council’s refusal to count more than 30,000 signatures and subsequent defiance of court orders.
The City Council should correct its false statements at its next meeting.
Second, the City has failed to disclose the full scope of the adverse legal rulings against it. As just the latest example, t he Staff Report s for the now -cancelled September 17 meeting and the recently -noticed September 18 meeting never mention the Superior Court’s latest order, issued in response to the City’s request for “clarification” of the Court’s prior orders. The omission is telling. City residents deserve to know that the Superior Court provided the following “clarification” in response to the City :
[A]ny issues the City is currently facing are of its own making. Commencing on April 13, 2026, the Court has worked cooperatively with the parties to hear all matters the City contended had to be addressed before the election, scheduling all briefing and hearings with the understanding that, if the Court ruled against the City, the City would be able to take the necessary steps to get the initiatives on the ballot in November 2026. That the City is still indicating that there are problems with its doing s o may be due to intentional actions, poor management and planning, or negligence. But the problems have been caused by the City. The City, not the Court, must address them. (Sept. 14, 2026, Order [emphasis added].)
1 Ruben Vives, In Long Beach, voting twice in same election seems ‘weird’ , Los Angeles Times (June 3, 2014), https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la -me-ln-in-long-beach-voting-twice-20140603-story.html. 2 Julio Moran, ELECTIONS, SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL : Kelly Olsen Claims Victory in Council Race : Absentee ballots: With 700 to 800 votes left to count, veteran Councilwoman Christine Reed appears to have lost. A tenant -backed rent measure also is defeated. , Los Angeles Times (Nov. 15, 1990), https://www.latimes.com/archives/la -xpm-1990-11-15-we-6366-story.html.
The City Council cannot hide adverse legal rulings from the public.
Third, the City continues to resist holding an election. The new strategy is to sow confusion by suggesting it is “too difficult” to hold an election. The City also attempts to shift blame to the Orange County Registrar of Voters (Registrar). For example, certain officials at the City have suggested the City cannot hold an election because Orange County or its Registrar may violate the law by withholding necessary information.
Orange County and its Registrar have mandatory obligations, and the Registrar has repeatedly stated that he will comply with the law. The City is under a court order, and these “tactics” are not well taken by NBSA or the community.
While actively trying to “spin” the truth, the City also is not disclosing material information to the public. As an example, despite certain City officials speculating, without any basis whatsoever, that the City could not possibly comply with mailing deadlines, the City’s own consultants expect to complete the required mailings this week. When pressed for information, the City Attorney was forced to admit in an e- mail:
I have not seen the ballot materials, which I believe are still being prepared, but it is my understanding that the consultant is on track to have them prepared so ballots can be mailed out to the military and overseas voters by Saturday deadline.
The City should inform the public that the first batch of ballots are being mailed this week, along with providing other customary information to the community regarding the upcoming election.
Fourth, the City’s attempts to manufacture a conflict with the County and Registrar are transparent efforts to frustrate an election. The Registrar has been clear, time and again, that he stands ready to comply with all requirements under the law, including providing information so ballots can be mailed. What the City has done is request a sweeping set of services from the County. But the City’s own consultant has confirmed, in a public forum, that not all of those services are needed. And yet, the City continues to ask for them.
Contrary to the City’s suggestion, a county registrar of voters cannot deny a request for information needed to hold a local election.
The City Council should change course. There is a better way.
Sincerely,
Navi Singh Dhillon
of PAUL HASTINGS LLP