RULES COMMITTEE: 4/13/2022
Item: B.1
File ID: ROGC 22-152
TO: Honorable Mayor & FROM: Toni J. Taber, CMC
City Council City Clerk
SUBJECT: The Public Record DATE: April 13, 2022
March 30 – April 7, 2022
ITEMS FILED FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
Letters from Boards, Commissions, and Committees
Letters from the Public
1. Letter from Fred Schermer, dated March 31, 2022, regarding: Constitutional Invocation, Local San José Elections, Recompense.
2. Letter from Lita Kurth, dated April 6, 2022, regarding: What is needed after the wrongful shooting.
____________________________
Toni J. Taber, CMC
City Clerk
TJT/tt
4/7/22, 2:41 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/9 [External Email]
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important FW: Constitutional Invocation, Local San José Elections, Recompense.
Webmaster Manager <[email protected]>
Thu 4/7/2022 2:25 PM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> Cc: Roche, Megan <[email protected]>
Hi Megan,
Please find the original email from Fred Schermer below.
Best,
-matt
Matt Opsal
Communications Team - COVID-19 Recovery
Senior Executive Analyst
City Manager’s Office of Communications
City of San José
200 East Santa Clara Street, San José, CA 95113
P: 408-535-8117
From: Fred Schermer [ ]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 9:14 PM
To: The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]>; Webmaster Manager <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Cc: ; ;
Subject: Constitutional Invocation, Local San José Elections, Recompense.
Mayor Liccardo, Ms. Maguire, Ms. Taber, and Mr. Márquez, On behalf of eligible San José voters and with this electronic letter, I am invoking the US Constitution, requiring the City of San José to abort using the separate-but-equal format for its local elections that violates the rights of voters according to the highest document in the nation.
In the US Constitution, three groups receive powers: the Federal government, the State governments respectively, and the People. An entity not directly given powers in the US Constitution must yield to all that are given powers in the US Constitution. No third level of government is mentioned in the US Constitution, whereas this document must be followed fully by third-level governments such as the City of San José. In effect, this means that the City of San José must recognize two bosses, the State (in general) and the People (in specific situations, via the US Constitution).
Local governments using a separate-but-equal format have been forced by judges to abandon that practice in the past no matter the State regulation; the US Constitution is supreme.
Public Record: 1
4/7/22, 2:41 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 2/9 Currently, the City of San José is engaged in segregating people in districts first and subsequently declares the outcomes of elections held in these districts as equal outcomes. As such, the City of San José oversteps its authority and already a single person invoking the US Constitution makes the City of San José aware of it conducting elections in violation with the highest document of the nation.
In simple words, no game should be contained in our voting system; the US Constitution demands that City Representatives represent a fully-optimized expression of all cast votes in the City. District Voting and At-Large Voting seriously warp the Constitutional right to local representation.
The inferior nature of District Voting is, for instance, visible in the compounding of majority rule with another round of majority rule. First, the majority of voters in a district pick a candidate to represent the collective of voters, and subsequently the majority of the combined group of these representatives suffice to make all Council decisions. As such, a minority expression is often the result, yet falsely presented as if it were the will of the majority of the people. In sharp contrast, majority rule in Proportional Voting is not compounded, it occurs just once, and reflects therefore most optimally the will of the people in the decision making process; it is a system of Full Representation. An example is presented below this electronic letter.
The minimum guarantee that voters are represented in District Voting is 50 percent plus one vote, establishing a majority that picked the representative. In sharp contrast, the minimum guarantee that voters are represented in Proportional Voting by their own choice, in this case with eleven voting members (including the Mayor), is 91.67 percent, a difference of 41.67 percent.
Multiply, for instance, both percentages by the smallest majority decision of just six voting members (which is 54.54 percent). District Voting guarantees to deliver then a decision in favor of 27.27 percent of the voters (.5 x .5454), whereas Proportional Voting guarantees to deliver then a decision in favor of exactly 50 percent of the voters (.9167 x .5454).
These are the bottom guarantees and a stunning gap becomes visible in the flawed District Voting system in place today that must be overcome.
To end up with a majority decision on the current City Council being supported by the majority of segregated voters in districts requires, in one example, that each candidate won their seat on average with 69 percent plus that all decisions are made on average with the support of eight out of eleven voting members. Then, and only then did the political decision receive the support by the majority of voters. That is not how a democracy is intended to function.
In the electronic letter attached below to political science professors at Santa Clara University, you can read other reasons why District Voting operates at an inferior level.
The Constitutional demand is that the City of San José conducts elections for all seats in a single election in which each voter is given a single vote to indicate their preferred candidate to represent them. No other form of conducting elections comes close to optimizing voter representation as delivered with Proportional Voting; it is the better voting system. ——
4/7/22, 2:41 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 3/9 This Invocation functions as a marker to time stamp the moment the City of San José was made aware that their separate-but-equal election format conflicts with the Bill of Rights, to be used by plaintiffs in the future when the City government knowingly continues to hold elections in district format. Financial recompense can then be asked by any and all eligible voters in San José when the City government does not adjust its election format in a reasonable amount of time. One election cycle is considered a reasonable amount of time to adjust to the proper voting system, particularly since Proportional Voting uses the simplest format possible for holding elections.
Please note that Governor Newsom and Doctor Weber, California Secretary of State, Political Reform Division, are cc:d on this Invocation. This Invocation does not apply to elections held by the State, yet they are notified because the City of San José not only assumed powers from the realm of the People, as provided to the People in the US Constitution, but also assumed powers from the realm of the State. As such, State officials have a role to play in ensuring that the local level follows the US Constitution and that the separate-but-equal element is removed from local elections throughout the State. With current State rules in place how to hold local elections, the State oversteps its authority in light of the realm of the People, per the US Constitution. Due to this legal setup, the State of California may become a legal entity from which any and all eligible voters in the State of California can seek recompense as well.
The State has options to sidestep the Bill of Right requirements; cities and counties do not have that State power nor are they considered identical to the State in light of the US Constitution. ——
Many political science professors across the nation have been contacted, such as with the electronic letter shown below. Up to date, no legally negative replies have been received, while positive replies and requests for further information were received, ranging from acknowledging that the voters may indeed have a higher standing than Cities in this matter to those desiring all governmental elections be improved. Again, the voters are demanding just the adjustment of the local elections with this Invocation.
Some replies did mention sincere reservations that can be characterized as legally negative, but in those replies the professors were not able to point to anything other than rules and regulations of a lesser stature than the US Constitution or simply made the claim that This is not how it is done. They appear to miss the Ninth Amendment altogether in which rights retained by the people shall not be denied or disparaged, and they believe (incorrectly) that the State is the sole overarching entity in every local legal matters. In the region, political science professors have been contacted in Santa Clara, Palo Alto, and Berkeley. They would be a good source for the City of San José to investigate this matter, which can be seen as a first sign that this issue of systematic voter infringement is indeed taken seriously. I will forward this electronic letter to the professors in Santa Clara. The professors in Palo Alto and Berkeley are aware that cities in this region are receiving Constitutional Invocations.
Lastly, a request was sent to Governor Newsom and Doctor Weber that would allow cities and counties to implement a voting pilot of three consecutive elections using Proportional Voting.
This request is further supported by the tremendous lack of voter turnout in local elections in California. I urge you to request permission for such a pilot. Not only will you then see that Proportional Voting relieves you from your duty to maintain voting districts and could not be simpler to implement, but that the voters will also respond by showing up in greater numbers than they do today. I am at your service if you have questions about Proportional Voting. 4/7/22, 2:41 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 4/9 I’d appreciate it if you can send a confirmation of receipt of this electronic letter.
March 31, 2022 will be shown in publications on the internet as the date that the City of San José was notified. The website that I will update regularly is:
https://fred-rick.medium.com/citizens-invoking-the-us-constitution-325c17290881 An example of Proportional Voting is provided there as well, in that case for a city with eight council seats. The letter to the professors below contains an example for a city with six council seats.
With my highest regards,
Fred-Rick Schermer
Begin forwarded message:
From: Fred Schermer < >
Subject: A question of following the US Constitution.
Date: March 20, 2022 at 4:40:45 PM PDT
To: , , , ,
, , , ,
, ,
Cc: , , ,
Professors,
I have communicated with hundreds of political science professors across the nation before writing you.
I find myself in a legally intriguing position because I received a decent number of replies from political science professors with none of them legally undermining the position that local governments have no choice but to implement Proportional Voting for city elections according to the Bill of Rights.
We are all familiar with the battle for power between the Federal government and the States, and yet few readily recognize the third realm of powers equally involved in battles of their own, particularly with State governments. It is as if the professionals are blindsided by the two-color domination of the political results on Federal and State levels and never learned to see the third empowered color of We The People. The US Constitution is about governance and about powers.
The power structure of the United States is of course of an extraordinary quality. It is not based on Case Law, and does not have roots dating back to English Law. Rather, it is an Enlightened document, the true anchor of our nation. Political science professors are forgiven when they consider the US Constitution as if it were Case Law since much of our jurisprudence does indeed date back to the medieval legal system. 4/7/22, 2:41 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 5/9 Allow me to establish a simple analogy with the US Constitution representing the first stamp on a sheet of paper. It hands powers to 1/ the Federal government, 2/ the States respectively, and 3/ the People.
Next, the States establish their own stamps on their copies of the already-stamped paper, and they more or less do as they please within the guidance of the US Constitution.
I hope you immediately see where the problems may occur. By ignoring the powers given to the People, the State stamps can get printed on top of areas where States are not entitled to stamp. That they overstepped their powers is, for instance, obvious where separate-but-equal cases successfully pushed back the freedom taken by the States, cities and counties to rule and regulate marriages as they considered desired. The US Constitution did not give these governmental levels the right to stamp and delineate who gets to marry whom of what racial background. Note how these rulings were therefore one of correction, and not one of establishing the law.
The same is true for States coloring in the way local governments should hold elections. They are placing a stamp where it is none of their business to put a stamp.
Let’s discuss an example first where it is fine with Federal or State governments demanding how no party programs are used by candidates in local council or board elections. That can be considered a general rule, not affecting the electoral outcomes for the voters, and as such can be seen as a fair demand. It restricts the candidates from hiding behind and benefiting from widely familiar party programs. It forces candidates to show voters their frank political nature.
Yet to specify how voters can elect their own local officials, and particularly which election formats are verboten, the States overstep their Constitutional powers. They were given the freedom to arrange their own affairs, no more, no less. Please note that the US Constitution does not discuss cities and counties, and it should be obvious that they are not identical to being a State. As such, the realm of power given to the People in the US Constitution (Ninth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment) should remain clear of such governmental overreach. How to vote should be left to local governments, and in particular to the People. When in doubt, the Bill of Rights reigns supreme, and the People can demand(!) that the Bill of Rights is followed and that city officials follow the highest document of the nation first before following State rules and regulations. —
At this point in time, eligible voters are invoking the US Constitution when their local government has a voting system in place that conflicts with the Bill of Rights. Both systems of District Voting and At-Large Voting involve governmental stamps that infringe on voters rights in local elections. Important to note is that these eligible voters cannot make the same stand in light of State or Federal elections. It is only with the not-empowered cities (per the US Constitution) that individuals are fully empowered to demand that cities follow the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights and that they abandon the use of separate-but-equal voting districts and at-large elections.
The People and the States are US Constitutionally distinct but on par. While States should follow what has been declared in the Bill of Rights, the States were also given other rights. The reality is therefore that loopholes are available to States that make it 4/7/22, 2:41 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 6/9 harder for the People to make the same demand they can indeed make of third-level governments.
Citizens of various US cities in various states have served their city officials an Invocation, the start occurred in December 2021 and is on-going until all 30,000 cities, townships and counties are reached or until the 50 States intervene, requiring all local governments to cease holding elections in separate-but-equal or at-large manner. This process is called Local Revolutions (always in bold) and involves internet activists Invoking cities and counties on their own accord (outside their own city or county when having received requests by others, then doing so on their behalf).
—
I am not certain if you are familiar with any other voting systems, but Founding Father Thomas Jefferson already devised the first ever Proportional Voting system. Its intrinsic format makes it enlightened, whereas District Voting and At-Large Voting can be declared medieval. I will give you two quick examples that show why voters are harmed by District Voting. Stronger and further compelling arguments are used in the Invocation letters themselves.
In Proportional Voting, all best candidates are selected and they receive a seat. In District Voting, however, the two best candidates in the entire city may end up running against each other. The second best representative in town is then tossed out. That simply never happens in Proportional Voting.
In Proportional Voting, all undesired candidates simply do not make it to the city council. In District Voting, however, some districts may have nothing but undesired candidates. The voters are not given the chance to boot them all out. The most appealing of the undesired candidates is going to get a seat.
Ceterus paribus, the average representative is of a lower stature in District Voting than the average representative selected via the Proportional Voting method. As such, the District Voting system delivers an inferior outcome. I believe this is reason enough for any voter to request a city abandons its discriminating voting system in which voters are segregated in districts first and subsequently declared each other’s equals. I added an example for a city holding Proportional elections for six seats on the council underneath this electronic letter for your review.
In prior rulings about separate-but-equal, local governments were instructed to use the better system when indeed available; they had no choice in the matter. Proportional Voting is the better system for voters at the local level since it provides an always optimized level of representation.
Professors,
As mentioned, I have contacted a large number of political science professors across the nation (including the one at my Alma Mater) and I received positive and negative replies.
While I do my part in the grassroots movement by sending Constitutional Invocations to cities and counties across the US, the primary goal of my electronic letter to you is to discover the exact legal nature of this specific nexus where local governments are not given 4/7/22, 2:41 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 7/9 US Constitutional powers whereas the voters are given these powers, and where we have already seen that separate-but-equal has no place in the local lives of US citizens. The negative replies I received ‘simply' point to the rules and regulations put in place by the State government, or they say that This is not how we do it. I received negative replies therefore that are less than satisfying, legally speaking. I received positive replies, too, either agreeing with the legal position or wanting even greater reform involving State and Federal elections well.
I am hoping to receive a decent perspective from at least some of you to either support or undermine the position that local governments do not need to use the better voting system. I do not mind if the reply includes the notion of not knowing with certainty.
My highest regards,
Fred-Rick Schermer,
Representing eligible voters who have or who will invoke their US Constitutional powers and are seeking recompense in the near future if their rights are not honored. — — — —
Mockup Example Proportional Voting — Six Seats.
This is the ballot all voters will see when they go to the voting booth. There are no districts, there are no complicated ranking exercises, and gerrymandering is a thing of the past. All voters vote once, no more. In this example, the vote was given to Van Buren, who happens to have the same name as the first President born when the United States had been established.
Notice the A behind this person’s name. Based on their own idea to represent voters best, Vote Alignments can get established, and these Vote Alignments are valid for one election cycle only. The Election Commission appoints the letters, different for each election.
While voting for Van Buren, the voter also reviews which other candidates are contained in the Vote Alignment. It may swing a voter to not vote for Van Buren. In this case, all was fine, and Van Buren is the candidate that the voter wanted.
—
4/7/22, 2:41 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 8/9 Here is the overall outcome that shows the intrinsic functioning of this voting system.
In total, 3600 cast valid votes, and dividing this number by the 6 available seats, we find that each seat has a value of 600 votes.
Three candidates got more than 600 votes and they received a seat straightout: Eisenhower, Roosevelt, and Washington.
Two candidates immediately received a seat as well because Vote Alignment A and Vote alignment C contain enough votes for two seats each. The remaining top vote-getter of Vote Alignment A is our Van Buren. While getting just 375 votes, the required 600 votes were indeed in. The remaining top getter of Vote Alignment C is Kennedy.
The last seat will always go to a candidate for which there are no 600 seats. Reviewing the remaining votes, A (175), B (250), C (75), and D (75), the seat goes to B, and Grant is the top vote-getter in that Vote Alignment.
—
Alignments can be based on anything the candidates consider helpful in obtaining more votes. This may be because candidates are all Latino, or are all grassroots activists, or are all pro-business. It is in their best interest to find a reason that resonates with voters.
There is no benefit otherwise for candidates to promote another candidate. It will actually hurt candidates to promote someone else in a Vote Alignment. The Vote Alignment is put in place to salvage the vote, making the vote go to a similar candidate and not to a candidate the voter did not desire. The Vote Alignments aid the voters, not the candidates.
In this case, it is like having $10 and walking into a store with 20 items for $10. After viewing which items are liked and which are disliked, the individual declares which item is desired. Then, when handing in the $10 bill, the voter receives the item or gets the best fit from that category.
4/7/22, 2:41 PM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 9/9 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Compare this to today. We still have that $10 bill, but now we are forced to go to the State store for our local elections and find a few candidates to pick from. In reality, our choice is between number 1 and number 2 in the polls, and it does not matter if we wanted a different item. There is choice, but of a very limited kind. Our freedom got limited by the State rules and regulations.
If we add all votes that received either their candidate or their second best option, then we see that 1200 + 1200 + 600 + 250 = 3250 votes ended up being used to appoint the six seats.
That is 90.3 percent of the voters receiving their choice or second best option.
If we add up all voters that can point to the specific person they voted for then we have 625 + 100 + 225 + 650 + 375 + 725 = 3325 voters fully satisfied. That is 92.36 percent of the voters.
If we add up all voters satisfied seeing their choice or second best option, then we have 625 + 1375 (A) + 250 (B) + 1275 (C) = 3525 voters satisfied. That is 97.92 percent of the voters.
When there are six seats, then the natural guarantee that voters are satisfied by their vote is
85.71 percent.
With quite the contrast, District Voting has a guarantee in place of 50 percent of the votes, plus one. No wonder so few voters show up in District Voting. In stark contrast, with Proportional Voting, few voters end up going home empty-handed. They come out in very good numbers, even for local elections.
4/7/22, 8:07 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5… 10/10 This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. wanted a different item. There is choice, but of a very limited kind. Our freedom got limited by the State rules and regulations.
If we add all votes that received either their candidate or their second best option, then we see that 1200 + 1200 + 600 + 250 = 3250 votes ended up being used to appoint the six seats.
That is 90.3 percent of the voters receiving their choice or second best option.
If we add up all voters that can point to the specific person they voted for then we have 625 + 100 + 225 + 650 + 375 + 725 = 3325 voters fully satisfied. That is 92.36 percent of the voters.
If we add up all voters satisfied seeing their choice or second best option, then we have 625 + 1375 (A) + 250 (B) + 1275 (C) = 3525 voters satisfied. That is 97.92 percent of the voters.
When there are six seats, then the natural guarantee that voters are satisfied by their vote is
85.71 percent.
With quite the contrast, District Voting has a guarantee in place of 50 percent of the votes, plus one. No wonder so few voters show up in District Voting. In stark contrast, with Proportional Voting, few voters end up going home empty-handed. They come out in very good numbers, even for local elections.
4/7/22, 8:11 AM Mail - Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas - Outlook https://outlook.office365.com/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADhhYzk3NTk1LTBmZDAtNDc4Yi1hN2Q0LTZjNmZjNTk5MT… 1/1 [External Email]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: What is needed after the wrongful shooting
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Wed 4/6/2022 9:04 PM
To: Rules and Open Government Committee Agendas <[email protected]> From: L A Kurth < >
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2022 11:04 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]>; District1 <[email protected]>; The Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo <[email protected]> Subject: What is needed after the wrongful shooting
This is Lita Kurth on Warren Avenue in Willow Glen. I am in agreement with the following statement.
Cordially, Lita
Justice for K’aun Green: San Jose City Council Action
The Ask
We demand
SJPD stop releasing misleading information about victims of police violence ● SJPD stop treating victims of police violence like criminals (such as handcuffing victims to beds and interrogating family members)
● SJPD release the body cam footage as is, unedited, and without captions and any other information specified by SB 1421 in a timely manner
● City of San Jose create a trauma relief fund for the victims of all violence, especially cases of officer-involved shootings
● Elected officials must be transparent and accountable to the people they represent. In cases of Police shootings we demand our elected officials denounce gun violence in all its forms.
Public Record: 2