Text + -

Submitted Comments

Sat 9/25/2021 6:49 PM

From: wcurley 
To: Barbara Hosmer
Re: Thank you for your CVRA comments!

That is not a correct legal conclusion. The court agreed. It's been publicly discussed several times. The 2 year term only applied to a cumulative voting system. The City did not do that. I'm sure you don't want to continue to cling to misinformation and a defective conclusion. All laws, including the 4 year term remain in place. Just because an article said something, which the law, municipal code and a Superior Court judge disposed of as not applying, we trust you will understand the facts. If not, that's your choice, but its an unusual choice.
Best regards 
Bill Curley.

Date: 9/25/21 6:30 PM (GMT-08:00) 
To: wcurley <wcurley@harperburns.com
Subject: Re: Thank you for your CVRA comments! 

thanks for being quick, but just to confirm...my answer is...it's been too long and we're starting form scratch.  right? 
and you made the assumption i figured you'd make in that long second point. but what i was referring to was this:
it's given ed and greg raths soft places to land when their bids for higher office fell thru.  and it kept our 5...who stand in lock step...together as long as possible.
barbara hosmer

From: wcurley 
To: rbhosmer 
cc: Kimberly Schmitt; Renata Winter; Robert Schick 
Subject: Thank you for your CVRA Comments 
Date: Saturday, September 25, 2021 5:29:17 PM 

Dear Ms. Hosmer: 

We appreciate regular commenters like yourself providing us input on important issues in the City. Citizens who thoughtfully participate help the best results to be achieved. To respond to your comments I offer you this response: 1. As to the number of maps that suggest proposed districts, we hope we to receive many. The resident provided maps give voices to all residents and we respect that citizen input. The more public comment, and more map proposals we receive, the better the final result will be! 2. As to delay in seeking the most viable remedy to correct the voting polarization violation, we appreciate you apparently being in the majority of residents (adding you to the friends that you referenced) who understand the City Council was trying to achieve the best result for the greatest number of residents. As you and friends understand, the law and the form of multiple options to satisfy the law, was being carefully analyzed and pursued and that took some time as numerous involved parties exist. And I know you and your friends want the best, fairest and most inclusive process to be achieved for all residents. That was done!! I'm sure you appreciate the City Councils hard work on the issues. The City Council has determined it is best to now give focus to the court authorized option of districting after pursuing the other court authorized means to give the effective voting franchise to all Mission Viejo residents. We applaud you and your friends interest in achieving the best outcome possible for the City and each resident in it. You appear to be supporting the best interests of the minority residents in Mission Viejo and that's commendable. You can help reach out to your Latinx friends and encourage them to participate too! Again, thank you for your interest in seeing the best interests for all residents of the City advance. Your ongoing support for all the City Council hopes to achieve is very much appreciated! We post all the comments and responses given on the Citys web page regarding the Districting process, so your post and my response will be publicly posted. Best regards, 

Bill Curley City Attorney 

Submitted on Sat, 09/25/2021 - 4:07 pm Name Barbara Hosmer 

Comment years ago when this issue first came up, there were several (actually to my mind...too many!) maps put out to us to choose what we thought best. as i suspect there won't be much change, tho i could be wrong, will that input be taken into account? or have we put this off for so long (for reasons quite obvious to lots of us) that we must start from scratch?

Submitted by Cathy Schlicht on Tue, 09/14/2021 - 10:06 am

The following were my public comments to the City Council on August 24. Instead of fighting for our values, the city council, behind closed doors, withdrew its support of an amicus brief that was submitted to the SCOTUS.

Good evening Mayor and Council. My name is CS of MV

The California Voter Rights Act, aka the CVRA, became law in 2001. It gives enforcement authority to private attorneys and apparently our own city attorney, who are making financial fortunes.

The only element a plaintiff has to establish is that a city's at-large voting system creates polarized voting against a protected class - a purely mathematical formula.

Like many other cities and jurisdictions with at-large voting systems, Mission Viejo was served a demand letter in September 2017 from attorney Kevin J. Shenkman on behalf of his Texas client, . The letter claimed that "voting within Mission Viejo is racially polarized...," which is all it takes to force a city to scrap its at-large voting system.

To bolster his Mission Viejo claim, Mr. Shenkman stated in his demand letter: "Joe Chavez, largely supported by the Latino minority, ran in 2000 and again in 2002, but was unable to secure a seat on the City Council due to the bloc voting of the non-Latino majority."

Here is the rest of the story about our Latinos’ voting success in Mission Viejo elections.

The facts are that there were two Latino candidates who ran in the 2000 and 2002 and in each election, one Latina won and one Latino (Chavez). In 2002, one Latino won re-election and one Latino (Chavez) lost.

Latina challenger Gail Reavis spent about $18,000 on her 2000 campaign, and she beat out the incumbent, who spent an outrageous amount of about $80,000.

Having won his first race in 1998, Latino JP Ledesma won his re-election in 2002.

Joe Chavez did not run a formal campaign in 2000 or 2002 and he never filed a Ballot Statement.

Often, a candidate would lose their first campaign and then run again two years later - winning on their second campaign. Both JP and Gail won their elections as first-time challengers and both served as Mayors.

Our City Attorney, took the position that the City violated the CVRA. But Mission Viejo could not draw districts that guaranteed a “Latino seat”.

But the truth is, IF IF IF, our City Council had approved district-based voting in 2018, three of those council members would have resided in the same district, competing for one seat.

Our city attorney, in doing the work on behalf of the Plaintiff's attorney, and the state legislators, has continued to bill the citizens of Mission Viejo on his quest to shoehorn cumulative voting and weighted voting onto unsuspecting voters.

So, in addition to the attorney's, - who are the real winners under the regulations of the CVRA?

The winners are Ed Sachs, Greg Raths and Wendy Bucknum who extended their terms in office by buffaloing both the judge and the voters.

From: William Curley
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:16 AM
To: Trish Kelley; Dennis Wilberg
Subject: RE: District voting boundaries

And—the general maps will be available in January- only the final selection will occur in February. People can start campaigning based on the draft maps, which will all be generally similar in nature.

From: William Curley
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:15 AM
To: Trish Kelley; Dennis Wilberg
Subject: RE: District voting boundaries

Well, we really cant accelerate the process. We must await the entire new census data package and start over. The prior mapping is no longer proper to use as its outdated under the new census. We also need time to have thorough public input and that will likely result in more than a few maps. State law and common law requires a certain process and we are carefully following it, lest we get challenged for a defective process. As candidates don’t pull papers until mid-year there is not a substantial impairment of any candidates rights. As they will be outreaching to 1\5th of the City the issue is not an impediment that cannot be overcome.

From: Trish Kelley
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:09 AM
To: Bill Curley; Dennis Wilberg
Subject: FW: District voting boundaries

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Harding 
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:04 AM
To: Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org>
Subject: District voting boundaries 

Trish , 
I hope all is well with you & you had a pleasant Labor Day weekend. 
I am writing to you regarding the District Voting MV 5 area boundaries. I realize the MV population has changed in the last 3+ years since the Council had over a dozen 5 district maps developed but why should it take until mid Feb 2022 to present the map boundary options ? This appears drawn out & non beneficial to any candidates that need to get organized for the 2022 Primary & General election cycle. Maps may need minor adjustment for pop growth or decline ( which will be minimum) but generating 6-8 potentials will not take much time. I request that you instruct attorney Curley to revise & expedite his schedule. 
This is an exciting time for Mission Viejo & I thank you for your continued guidance. 
Doug Harding 

Submitted on Mon, 09/06/2021 - 12:25 pm

Name Kathleen Kelton 

Comment It’s time for this. Thank you

Submitted on Fri, 09/03/2021 - 10:33 am
Concerned citizen, MV resident and homeowner


This is not democracy when a sleazy attorney the likes of Kevin Shenkman dictates how our city votes. The CVRA is unconstitutional and needs to go to the supreme court to be ruled as such. Someone needs to stop this shyster lawyer from getting his "fees" and all the other shysters that will follow. This is bullying and needs to be stopped. Please fight this all the way to the supreme court. 

Submitted by Carole Weidler on Thu, 09/02/2021 - 6:38 pm

Too bad.

-------- Original message --------
From: Douglas Johnson <djohnson@ndcresearch.com
Date: 9/1/21 9:11 PM (GMT-08:00) 
To: bill curley <wmcurley3@gmail.com
Cc: Dennis Wilberg <DWilberg@cityofmissionviejo.org>, CA Schlicht 
Subject: Re: Mission Viejo districting 
Thanks for the heads-up. I wondered what was the story behind those questions. So far the questions were just things about our process that are in the public record from any of our clients, so I did not see any danger in responding, though the requests were odd to get from a resident of a non-client jurisdiction. I did not know that the City had the Center for Demographic Research (or anyone else) on contract -- I wasn't even aware that the city had made a decision to move forward with by-district elections. So I wholeheartedly confirm that I have no intention to get into conflict with the City or CDR. (We're no longer taking on additional clients with only a few exceptions, so we definitely not looking for any angle here.) I have not heard anything for a while, so hopefully the questions have stopped. Best wishes to you and CDR as you work through this important process!
- Doug
P.S. Out of curiosity I just checked out the video from the Mission Viejo Aug. 24 Council meeting. Just in case the first public speaker did not give you the actual emails, what she said about NDC is false. We are not "ready to go" right now -- as you hopefully saw in my actual email, I discussed how quickly we are prepared to move after the official redistricting data are released (as you know, for the first time, the 2020 Census data are not the official redsitricting data in California). But that data will not be released between Sept. 9 and 23, so obviously we are not "ready to go" right. I am happy to share the actual email exchange with you if she did not provide it.
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 8:26 PM bill curley <wmcurley3@gmail.com> wrote:
Good evening Mr. Johnson:
I serve as the City Attorney for Mission Viejo: we have spoken in the past to see if we could coordinate services. You are being queried by a resident as to timing for processing census data for districting of a city converting from at-large to districts . The resident is passing your responses on to City officials apparently as facts to contradict CDRs timing. The redidents purpose seems to be an effort to discredit the provided services of the Center for Demographic Research, which the City has contracted with. This is part of this residents multi year effort to second guess and critique the Citys CVRA remediation program.
I ask only that you be thoughtful in your responses, understanding that they may have to be scrutinized in a very public manner. I know you are a responsible professional and would not intentionally undermine a peer who has detailed knowledge of our specific facts. I know we all want to avoid unnecessary distractions in this time of busy process. I am familiar with your firm from my tenure with Richard's, Watson & Gershon and quite respect your services.
I'm happy to discuss this further with you should you wish.

Douglas Johnson
National Demographics Corporation
phone 310-200-2058

From: CA Schlicht 
Date: September 1, 2021 at 10:20:41 AM PDT
To: Douglas Johnson <djohnson@ndcresearch.com>
Cc: Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org>, Wendy Bucknum <wbucknum@cityofmissionviejo.org>, Brian Goodell <bgoodell@cityofmissionviejo.org>, Greg Raths <graths@cityofmissionviejo.org>, Ed Sachs <esachs@cityofmissionviejo.org>
Subject: Re: New submission from Contact Us form
CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments.
Thank you.  I will forward this communication to the Mission Viejo City Council.  
Have a great day.  cathy
From: Douglas Johnson <djohnson@ndcresearch.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 10:10 AM
To: CA Schlicht 
Subject: Re: New submission from Contact Us form 
For our clients we are hoping to have that done in about a week, though that is dependent on what format the state uses to release the data. If the state’s data are a mess, it may take longer.
- Doug
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 10:06 AM CA Schlicht <caschlicht@hotmail.com> wrote:
Wow.  Thank you for such a speedy response.
What is the turn around time for NDC to process the data for a population of about 95,000 with less than 35,000 housing units?
From: Douglas Johnson <djohnson@ndcresearch.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 10:18 PM
To: CASchlicht
Subject: Fwd: New submission from Contact Us form 
The timeline is dependent on the City's districting consultant and how fast they can receive, process and calculate the numbers for the city once the state releases the official redistricting data sometime between Sept. 9 and Sept. 23. I do not know who the city's consultant is (if the city has one) and I cannot speak for them regarding how fast they will be able to get that done. 
- Doug
Douglas Johnson
National Demographics Corporation
phone 310-200-2058
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: ryder
Date: Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 4:47 PM
Subject: New submission from Contact Us form
To: <djohnson@ndcresearch.com>
     Cathy Schlicht 

     I am a former Mayor for the City of Mission Viejo, Orange County, California.

What is the timeline to digest the 2020 census data to equip a city to draw 5 districts for the first time?

How long will it take to breakdown the 2020 data into census tracks for a city with a population of about 95,000? 


thank you - cathy 

From: dandsmathes 
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 2:30 PM
To: Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org>
Subject: Re: Elections/Voting in Mission Viejo

Hi Trish:

Just heard you on the radio in re MV voting.  We really hope you all stand firm and not allow them/others to create problems or divide us and make false accusations about the citizens or the City.  All of the neighborhoods in MV are diverse and not fake racist garbage...we are all doing more than fine here.  Don't fix what isn't broken.

Plus, if you all permit them with any authority to mess or monkey with our elections or voting on the state or federal level, it will purposely be made chaotic, confusing and create or increase fraud or illegal voting. 




District Election Information

Download App https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.missionviejo
District Election Information