Anaheim Police would like you to think this military vehicle is for safety purposes, but nothing could be further from the truth. They exist to protect the interests of the establishment, and enforce class disparity. They are escalating their tactics to intimidate the people into silence.(The police dogs are for you also) [MORE] From [HERE] In June, the city was sued by the ACLU, which claimed that Anaheim's at-large voting system marginalizes the city's Latino majority and is not in compliance with the California Voting Rights Act. Moreno v. City of Anaheim. The city was in the process of responding to that litigation when the officer-involved shootings of two suspected gang members in July ignited the recent unrest in our streets.

Through its at-large electoral process, the city has made it nearly impossible for Latinos, who make up more than one third of the electorate, to be fairly represented on the city council.  Anaheim city government is comprised of a four member city council and a mayor, but there are currently no Latinos on the city council, and only three Latino individuals have ever been elected to the city council in Anaheim’s history.

With 336,265 residents, Anaheim is the 10th largest city in California, but the largest in the state to still impose at-large elections.  The CVRA states that an at-large election method may not be imposed or applied if it impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or influence the outcome of elections. Under an at-large election system, there are no districts where voters would be able to elect a local resident to the city council who reflects their community and needs.  Without districts to enfranchise minority communities like Latinos in Anaheim, the city council is beholden only to the majority in making critical decisions that affect the conditions of everyone’s lives in the city.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction to prevent the at-large elections from being imposed or applied after the November 2012 election.  It asks for the creation of districts and district elections, or some method that gives Latinos a real opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. [MORE] 

The following explanation was provided to explain any perceived delays ... There are still many questions to be answered surrounding those shootings, and several independent investigations are already underway to do so. Although some have asserted that there may be a correlation between the two issues, the city would be irresponsible to undertake wholesale change of its entire electoral system without first providing an opportunity for extensive citizen dialogue, careful legal analysis and consideration of the options available to meet voters’ concerns for fair representation. 

Following the lengthy special meeting Aug. 8, the council's 3-2 majority found that the ballot initiative proposed by the mayor was deeply flawed and that rushing a single option to the November ballot and giving voters fewer than three months to make their decision was simply not fair.   

Mayor Tom Tait's initial proposal called for four districts and a mayor elected at-large. But the day before our meeting, he changed his proposal to six districts and a mayor. At the Aug. 8 meeting, members of the public in attendance wanted eight districts. The mayor's plan was one of many; approving it for the ballot would have excluded all other options and voices in our community. These decisions must not be taken lightly, and I cannot support rushing one of the City Charter amendments onto the ballot when there are other choices that deserve careful consideration. 

Instead, the council approved the establishment of the Citizens Committee for Elections and Community Involvement in Anaheim to engage residents in a discussion. It will consider all possibilities and make a recommendation that will have passed careful public scrutiny. Districts sometimes achieve the goals that Anaheim is setting out to (the Madera Unified School District is one example), but sometimes they do not (such as the city of Modesto). Other options include "cumulative voting" -- which allows voters to select more than one choice in contests with multiple seats and was suggested as a possibility for Anaheim by one of the authors of the California Voting Rights Act -- and the "residency-based districts" system used in Newport Beach and Santa Ana, where each council member must live in a given district but all residents continue to cast votes for all members of the council.

The point is that Anaheim should do its research, hear from members of many ethnic groups and engage the residents in crafting a proposal to change the city's government before asking them for their yes-or-no votes on a single plan. It beats going forward with a proposal by a single City Council member with zero public input.

Some have expressed skepticism that the Citizens’ Committee will do little more than study the issue and effectively kill any chance for change before 2014. The skepticism is misplaced. The committee is set to form immediately and its recommendations could be before Anaheim voters in time to ensure any changes are in place for the 2014 election. The mayor's initiative would not have brought change to Anaheim any faster.

The Anaheim City Council is equally committed to full electoral participation and addressing the tragic events of the last few months. But we must be willing to work together to unite Anaheim again. Changing the way Anaheim elects its leaders demands careful consideration of the issues before us, with all diverse parts of the community participating. As I have said all along: If we are going to make significant change to how the residents of Anaheim are governed, engaging the people of Anaheim first before any option goes before the voters is the right thing to do.