Ibarra, Evelyn
From: JuliaGomez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June18, 20241:26PM
To: eComment
Cc: Amezcua, Valerie; Lopez, Jessie; Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Penaloza, David; Carvalho, SoniaR.; AnnetteWong; AnishaHingorani; Annie Lee
Subject: PublicCommentreJune18Mtg, CSItemNo. 1andRSItemNo. 17 Attachments: 2024.06.18CAA, UCILawIRC + ACLULtrtoSantaAnareCSItemNo. 1andRSItemNo.
17.pdf
Attention: Thisemailoriginatedfromoutsideof Cityof SantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
A?achedpleasend publiccommentfromChineseforArma?veAc?on, UCILawImmigrantRightsClinic, andtheACLU ofSouthernCaliforniaregardingtoday’sClosedSessionItem1andRegularSessionItem18 (immigrantvo?ngballot measure).
Best,
JuliaGomez, StaffAttorney
ACLUof SouthernCalifornia
1313W 8thStreet, Suite200
LosAngeles, CA90017
o) 213.977.5258
aclusocal.org || facebook || twitter || blog || app ACLUSoCal: STANDFORJUSTICE >> Download our mobile app at mobilejusticeca.org
THISMESSAGEIS INTENDEDONLYFORTHEUSEOFTHEINDIVIDUALORENTITYTOWHICHIT IS ADDRESSEDANDMAYCONTAIN INFORMATIONTHATIS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIALANDEXEMPTFROMDISCLOSUREUNDERAPPLICABLELAW. IFTHEREADEROFTHIS
MESSAGEIS NOTTHEINTENDEDRECIPIENTORTHEEMPLOYEEORAGENTRESPONSIBLEFORDELIVERINGTHEMESSAGETOTHE
INTENDEDRECIPIENT, YOUAREHEREBYNOTIFIEDTHATANYDISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTIONORCOPYINGOFTHISCOMMUNICATIONIS STRICTLYPROHIBITED.
1 Sentviaemail
June18, 2024
SantaAnaMayorandCityCouncil
CityCouncilChamber
22CivicCenterPlaza
SantaAna, CA92701
[email protected]
Re: June18, 2024City CouncilAgenda, ClosedSessionItem No. 1 andRegular SessionItemNo. 17, NoncitizenVotingBallotMeasure
DearMayorAmezcuaandMembersof theSantaAnaCityCouncil:
ChineseforAffirmativeAction, theACLUFoundationof SouthernCalifornia, andthe UCIrvineSchoolof LawImmigrantRightsClinicrespectfullysubmitthisletterabouttheCity CouncilÓsplanneddiscussionsrelatingtopotentiallyamendingthelanguageof theNovember 2024immigrantvotingmeasure (theÐMeasureÑ). TheCityCouncilhasbroaddiscretionover ballotlanguageandisundernoobligationtotakedirectionfromJamesV. Lacy, anindividual challengingtheMeasurein court. Mr. Lacyhasahistoryof unsuccessfullyopposingeffortsto expandthevotetononcitizenresidents, includingthroughafailedlawsuittosetasideSan FranciscoÓsimmigrantvotingprogramandafailedpre-electionlawsuittokeepOaklandÓs 1immigrantvotingmeasureoff theNovember2022ballot. BecausetheMeasureisclear, informative, andisneitherfalse, misleading, norpartialtooneside, theCityCouncilmaysend thecurrentversionof theMeasuretocountyelectionsofficials.
I. TheCity Councilhasbroaddiscretionto draft theMeasure, andacourtmust employa presumptionthat themeasurein neutral.
TheCityCouncilhasbroaddiscretiontoprepareballotlanguage. Yeson25, Citizensfor anOn-TimeBudgetv. Super. Ct. (ÐYeson25Ñ), 189Cal. App. 1445, 1452-53 (2010); Martinez v. Super. Ct., 142Cal. App. 4th1245, 1248 (2006). In contrast, courtsdonotenjoyawiderange of discretionwhenadjudicatingpre-electionchallengestothesufficiencyof ballotlanguage.
Becerrav. Super. Ct., 19Cal. App. 5th967, 976 (2017) (citingYeson25, 189Cal. App. 4that 1453). Rather, althoughacourtmustindependentlyassesswhetherballotlanguagesubstantially 1 Lacyv. City & Cnty. ofSanFrancisco, 94Cal. App. 5th238, 243 (2023) (rejectingchallengetoSanFranciscoÓs immigrantvotingprogram); BobEgelko, ConservativeGroupDropsChallengetoS.F., OaklandLawsAllowing NoncitizenVotingin SchoolBoardRaces, SanFranciscoChronicle (Oct. 10, 2023), https://bit.ly/4cuGSTD.
FYFDVUJWF! EJSFDUPS Ifdups!P/!Wjmmbhsb
DIBJS Tubdz!Ipsui.Ofvcfsu! WJDF! DIBJS Spc!Ifoojh
DIBJST! FNFSJUJ Njdifmf!HppexjoNbsmb!Tupof!!Tibsj!Mfjoxboe!!Tufqifo!Spief!!Ebooz!Hpmecfsh!!Bmmbo!L/!Kpobt+!!Cvsu!Mbodbtufs+!!Jswjoh! Mjdiufotufjo-!NE+!!Kbsm!Npio!!Mbvsjf!Ptuspx+!!Tubomfz!L/!Tifjocbvn+! efdfbtfe
PSBOHF! DPVOUZ! PGGJDF! 876!UIF! DJUZ! ESJWF-! TVJUF! 471! PSBOHF-! DB!: 3979! U! 825/ 561/ 4: 73! G! 825/ 694/ 9157! BDMVTPDBM/ PSH! SantaAnaMayorandCityCouncil
June 18, 2024 Page 2
complieswithstatutorystandards, seeMartinez, 142Cal. App. 4that1248, acourtmaygrant reliefÐonlyuponclearandconvincingproofthatthe \[challenged\] materialsinquestion \[are\] false, misleading, orinconsistentwiththerequirementsof \[Section9051\],Ñ Yeson25, 189Cal.
App. 4that1453 (quotingElec. Code § 9092), seealsoMcDonoughv. Super. Ct., 204Cal. App. 4th1169, 1173 (2012) (citingElec. Code § 9295(b)(2)). Ballotlanguagemaybedeemed insufficientonlyin aclearcase, andÐalllegitimatepresumptionsshouldbeindulgedin favorof theproprietyof the \[drafterÓs\] actions.ÑYeson25, 189Cal. App. 4that1453 (quotingEpperson 2v. Jordan, 12Cal. 2d61, 66, 70 (1938)).
Yeson25exemplifiesthediscretioncourtsaffordtodrafters. In Yeson25, acourtof appealreversedthelowercourtÓsrulingstrikingthefollowingballotlanguage:
CHANGESLEGISLATIVEVOTEREQUIREMENTTOPASSBUDGETAND
BUDGETÎRELATEDLEGISLATIONFROM TWOÎTHIRDSTO A SIMPLE
MAJORITY. RETAINSTWOÎTHIRDSVOTEREQUIREMENTFORTAXES.
INITIATIVECONSTITUTIONALAMENDMENT
Id. at1450-51. ThepetitionersallegedthattheÐRetainsTwo-ThirdsVoteRequirementÑwas misleadingbecauseit suggestedthatpassageof thepropositionwasnecessarytokeepin place thetwo-thirdsvoterequirementtoraisetaxes. Id. at1448. Thecourtacknowledgedthat ÐreasonablemindsmaydifferÑastothesufficiencyof thelanguagebutconcludedthata differenceof opiniondidnotconstituteÐclearandconvincingproofÑthatthechallenged languagewasmisleading. Id. at1454. Becausepreparingballotmaterialsisadifficulttask, draftersareÐaffordedconsiderablelatitude.Ñ Id. at1452-53. Asin Yeson25, atmosttheremay beadifferenceof opinionbetweenMr. LacyandtheCouncilastowhethertheMeasureispartial orbiased. Butadifferenceof opinionisnotenoughtosetasidetheCouncilÓslanguage.
II. Theballotquestiondoesnotneedto bethemostneutralor completequestionandit maylist theeffectsof themeasureby wayof example.
DespitethedeferenceaffordedtotheCityCouncilandtheplainlyneutrallanguage includedin themeasure, Mr. Lacyallegesin hislawsuitthatthelanguageisbiasedbecauseit is 3incomplete. HeallegesÐparentsandtaxpayersÑdescribesonlysomeof thenoncitizenswho wouldbeabletovoteweretheproposedmeasurepassedandpointsoutthatnoncitizenswhoare ÐhomelessorcriminalsÑwouldalsobegrantedtherighttovote.
Thetestforwhetherballotlanguageissufficient, however, isnotwhetherthedrafters couldhaveusedthemostcompleteorneutrallanguage. SeeMartinez, 142Cal. App. 4that1248.
Indeed, courtsroutinelyrejectchallengestoballotlanguagethatsimplyexplainstheeffectof a measure. See, e.g., Greenv. Logan, 2014WL 2446069at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. June2, 2014) rejectingargumentthatrevenue-raisingmeasurewasbiasedsimplybecauseit included examples, butnotanexhaustivelist, of servicesthatit wouldfund); SantaClaraCnty. Bd. of 2 Whetheradraftersupportsoropposesameasuredoesnotlessenthedeferencecourtsgivetotheiractions. Lungren v. Super. Ct., 48Cal. App. 4th435, 440n.1 (1996) (in discussingthediscretiondraftershaveoverballotlanguage, notingthatit isimmaterialwhetherdrafterssupportoropposethechallengedballotlanguage); Martinez, 142Cal.
App. 4that1249 (ÐitistheballottitleÓslanguagethatmustbeimpartial, nottheclaimedmotivesofthecouncilÑ). 3 Lacy, etal. v. SantaAnaCityCouncil, etal., CaseNo. 30-2024-01402208, Pet. forWritof Mandate (Cal. Super.
Ct., OrangeCnty. May24, 2024).
BNFSJDBO! DJWJM! MJCFSUJFT! VOJPO! GPVOEBUJPO! PG!TPVUIFSO! DBMJGPSOJB! SantaAnaMayorandCityCouncil
June 18, 2024 Page 3
Supervisorsv. Super. Ct., 2004WL 1945665at *6 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 1, 2004) (concludingthat ballotlanguagestatingthatthecharteramendmentwouldÐsupersedeÑthedisputeresolution processin thecharterandÐimposeÑarbitrationforuniondisputeswasmerelyanaccurate descriptionof themeasureÓseffect, andthuswasnotfalse, misleading, orargumentative).
Instead, thetestforthesufficiencyof ballotlanguageisÐwhetherit ispartial (orfalseor misleading)Ñ andwhetherthelanguageÐsignalstovotersthecouncilÓsviewof howtheyshould vote, orcastsafavorablelightononeside . . . whiledisparagingtheopposingview.ÑMartinez, 42Cal. App. 4that1248 (emphasisadded).
In Martinez, thepetitionerunsuccessfullyarguedthatthefollowingballotlanguagewas incomplete, misleading, andbiased:
COUNCILMEMBERTERMLIMITSOFTHREETERMS; CITYLOBBYING,
CAMPAIGNFINANCEAND ETHICSLAWS. CHARTERAMENDMENT
ANDORDINANCEPROPOSITION __.
ShalltheCharterbeamendedandordinanceadoptedto: changeCouncilmember termlimitstothreeterms; restrictlobbyistsfrommakingcampaigncontributions, giftsandbecomingcommissioners; reviselobbyistregistrationthresholds; require contractorscertifycompliancewithlobbyinglaws; extendelectedofficialsÓpost- employmentrestrictions; requireethicstraining; andreviserequirementsfor independentexpenditureandcampaigncontributions?
142Cal. App. 4that1247. Althoughthecourtconcededthattheheadingof themeasurecouldbe moreinformativebystatingthatit wouldincreasetermlimitsfromtwotothreeterms, thecourt stressedthatthelanguagedidÐnotneedtobetheÒmostaccurate,ÓÒmostcomprehensive,Óor ÒfairestÓthataskilledwordsmithmightimagine.ÑId. at1248. Thecourtultimatelyrejectedthe challenge, emphasizingthattheÐjudiciary \[was\] notfreetosubstituteitsjudgmentgivenits deferentialstandardof review.Ñ Id.
In thelimitedinstanceswhencourtshavesetasidebiasedlanguage, thelanguagewas 4alsofalseormisleadingandheavilyfavoredoneside. Forexample, in HuntingtonBeachCity Councilv. SuperiorCourt, citedbyLacy, theCourtof Appealamendedthefollowingtext becauseit includedatermthatdisparagedthemeasure: ÐAmendmentof Utility Taxby RemovingElectricPowerPlantExemption.Ñ 94Cal. App. 4th1417, 1425, 1433-34 (2012). The Courtreasonedthatin thetaxcontextÐÒexemptionÓcarriesthewhiffofprivilegeÑbyimplying Ðunfairinfluenceandspecialtreatment.Ñ Id. at1433-34. Thecourtdeterminedthislanguagewas alsomisleadingbecausetheenergycompanytargetedbythemeasuredid payutility taxesÏjust notonwholesalenaturalgasÏandthustheballottitleÓsphrasingwasinaccurate. Id. at1434.
ThecourtthereforeorderedthecitytoreplaceÐexemptionÑwithÐexclusion,Ñawordthatdoes notcarryanoverlypositiveornegativeconnotationin thetaxationcontext. 4 LacyÓsbriefonlycitedthreecasestosupportitsposition. See, generally, Lacy, etal. v. SantaAnaCityCouncil, et al., CaseNo. 30-2024-01402208, PetÓrsÓOp. Br. (Cal. Super. Ct., OrangeCnty. June4, 2024). Oneof thosecases didnotinvolveachallengeundertheElectionsCodeatall. Seeid. at11-13 (citingCitizensforResponsibleGovtÓv.
CityofAlbany, 56Cal. App. 4th1199 (1997), acaseatthemotiontodismissstageinvolvingapost-election challengetoagamblingballotmeasurewheretheBusinessandProfessionsCode, unliketheElectionsCode, specifiestheexactwordingof themeasureandthecouncildeviatedbyaddingsuperfluouslanguage). Theothertwo cases, discussedin thisletter, involvedclearlybiasedlanguagethatwasalsomisleading.
BNFSJDBO! DJWJM! MJCFSUJFT! VOJPO! GPVOEBUJPO! PG!TPVUIFSO! DBMJGPSOJB! SantaAnaMayorandCityCouncil
June 18, 2024 Page 4
McDonoughlikewiseinvolvedlanguagethatclearlycreatedanimpermissiblebiasand wasmisleading. In McDonough, petitionersbroughtapre-electionchallengetoaproposed amendmenttotheSantaClaracitycharter, claimingtheballotquestionandthecityclerkÓs analysisof thequestionwereÐmisleadingandbiasedin favorof passage.Ñ 204Cal. App. 4that 1172. TheballotmeasurewastitledÐPensionReformÑandcontainedthefollowinglanguage:
Toprotectessentialservices, includingneighborhoodpolicepatrols, firestations, libraries, communitycenters, streetsandparks, shalltheCharterbeamendedto reform retirement benefitsof City employeesandretireesby: increasing employeesÓcontributions, establishingavoluntaryreducedpensionplanforcurrent employees, establishpensioncostandbenefitlimitationsfor newemployees, modify disabilityretirementprocedures, temporarilysuspendretireeCOLAs duringemergencies, requirevoterapprovalforincreasesin futurepensionbenefits? Id. at1173 (emphasisadded). TheCourtorderedtheballottitleÐPensionReformÑtobeamended tosayÐPensionModificationÑbecausethewordÐreformÑcharacterizedtheexistingpension systemasÐdefective, wrong, orsusceptibletoabuse,Ñ andthustookabiasedposition. Id. at 1174-76. Thecourtalsoorderedremovedtheitalicizedintroductorylanguagebecausetheterm ÐprotectÑmisledvotersintobelievingthatif themeasurefailedthepublicwouldlosethe services. Id. at1175-77. It wasthisimplicationthatledthecourttofindthelanguageÐpartisan andprejudicial.ÑId. at1176. Thereisnosimilarlanguagein theMeasure. Instead, theMeasure usesthewordÐincludingÑto indicatethattaxpayersandparentsaresomeÏbutnotallÏof the noncitizenSantaAnaresidentswhowouldbeimpactedbythemeasure.
Thechallengedlanguageherealsodoesnotcarryanoverlypositiveconnotationin the votingcontext, justasthetermsÐexclusionÑin thetaxcontextandÐmodificationÑthepension contextarelargelyneutral. In contrast, thetermstaxÐexemptionÑrejectedbytheHuntington BeachcourtandpensionÐreformÑrejectedbytheMcDonoughcourtundoubtedlycreatedbias.
And, asnoted, evenif acourtdeterminedthatthephraseÐtaxpayersandparentsÑcarriespositive undertones, CaliforniacourtshaveemphasizedthatÐaballottitleneednotbethe . . . ÒfairestÓthat askilledwordsmithmightimagineÑandthatÐthejudiciaryisnotfreetosubstituteitsjudgment foracitycouncilÓsjudgment\] given \[the\] deferentialstandardofreview.ÑMartinez, 142Cal.
App. 4that1248.
WeurgetheCityCounciltoconsiderthisinformationduringitsdiscussionsaboutthe ballotlanguage. Thankyouverymuchfor yourtimeandconsideration.
Sincerely,
5Julia A. GomezAnisha Hingorani AnnieLai
SeniorStaffAttorney PolicyManager Director
ACLUof SouthernCalifornia Chinesefor Affirmative Action UCIrvine Schoolof Law ImmigrantRightsClinic
5 GraysonRost, alegalinternattheACLUof SouthernCaliforniaandstudentattheUCLASchoolof Law, providedresearchsupportforthisletter.
BNFSJDBO! DJWJM! MJCFSUJFT! VOJPO! GPVOEBUJPO! PG!TPVUIFSO! DBMJGPSOJB! SantaAnaMayorandCityCouncil
June 18, 2024 Page 5
Cc: Valerie Amezcua, Mayor, [email protected]
JessieLopez, Mayor Pro Tem, [email protected]
Thai Viet Phan, Councilmember, [email protected]
Benjamin Vazquez, Councilmember, [email protected] Phil Bacerra, Councilmember, [email protected]
JonathanRyan Hernandez, Councilmember, [email protected] DavidPenaloza, Councilmember, [email protected]
SoniaR. Carvalho, CityAttorney, [email protected] BNFSJDBO! DJWJM! MJCFSUJFT! VOJPO! GPVOEBUJPO! PG!TPVUIFSO! DBMJGPSOJB!