More Money From San Francisco Promoting Council Districts for Anaheim

sf to anaheim Voter Fund, a progressive political advocacy group based in San Francisco, has donated another $5,000 to the Yes on Measure L campaign, which seeks to replace the current at-large system for electing the city council with a by-district system.

Currently, each Anaheim voter is represented by the mayor and four council members who are accountable to them. If Measure L succeeds, each voter will have their representation reduced to a single member of the city council, and will have no vote on the other councilmembers.

The Voter Fund has already given $45,000 to the Yes on Measure L campaign, part of a trend of unions and progressive political organizations from outside of Anaheim – and in some case from outside the state — financing this measure to re-write the rules on how Anaheim citizens elect their city council. Thus far, not a single dime of Measure L financing has come from within Anaheim.

At some point, one would expect the Tait-Vanderbilt-Pettibone – not to mention Jose F. Moreno — to condemn this, give they are basing their campaigns on opposing the influence of outside special interests trying to control the politics of Anaheim.


  1. The passage of Measure L might benefit local government in Anaheim—but the absence of any argument and the weak justification for its passage written by Mayor Tait does not provide a valid basis for changing the current process for electing members of the city council. The spending of so much money attempting to pass an unneeded ballot measure rests on ulterior motives.

    Among the reasons presented for passing Measure L, Tait fails to offer any real need for its passage, writing only opinions and unsupported assertions. For example, he presents no evidence that neighborhoods currently do not receive “their fair share of city services” or that passing Measure L will improve an undefined “accountability.”

    Tait implies—again without support—that current council members do not “respond quickly and efficiently to their community’s needs.” No basis is identified that passing L will decrease “special interests influence at City Hall.” Tait’s final “argument” sounds like words from a third grader: passing Measure L “keeps Anaheim a wonderful, safe place to live.”

    Just as Tait and other council members sidestep the real reason for equipping Anaheim police officers with body-worn video cameras, he avoids mentioning the impetus for placing Measure L on the ballot: fear among council members that the current election process fails to conform to some provisions in the California Voting Rights Act.

  2. Measure L is on the ballot because the Superior Court of Orange County so ordered. In Moreno v. Anaheim it was determined the at-large system currently in place violated the California Voting Rights Act, District voting would place Anaheim in compliance with CVRA.

    • Alan, your facts are wrong.

      The Superior Court didn’t “order” Measure L onto the ballot. The Anaheim City Council put it on the ballot as part of the settlement agreement with Jose Moreno and the ACLU.

      “In Moreno v. Anaheim it was determined the at-large system currently in place violated the California Voting Rights Act…”

      That is false. In fact, the Moreno v. Anaheim settlement agreement stipulates no finding of any CVRA violation by the City of Anaheim. If you don’t believe me, read the settlement agreement for yourself.

      “…District voting would place Anaheim in compliance with CVRA”

      That’s true only in so far as “compliance” means submitting to CVRA goal of making the ethnicity of school board members and city councilmembers a criteria of whether American citizens are truly represented on school boards and city councils. If you believe that a Latino can only be authentically represented by a Latino, then CVRA is your cup of tea. I’ll take color-blind government every day of the week.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *