History of District Voting in Mission Viejo
Chapter 1 – Issues with At-Large Voting
In March 2018, a lawsuit was brought against the City of Mission Viejo by the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (SWVREP) that claimed Mission Viejo’s at-large election system diluted the vote of the Latino community in Mission Viejo. The City analyzed its demographics and agreed that its at-large voting system produced results that violated the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA).
The City began to consider district-based voting and was in the process of having workshops to choose among different district map proposals, like the other cities that were also at the same time getting sued for the same reason. However, Mission Viejo Council members realized quickly that moving to district voting would force most of them to run against each other, because three of them – Ed Sachs, Greg Raths, and Trish Kelley - lived near each other in the southern half of the City. To get around that problem, the City’s demographer, CDR, was asked to create a "Map Z" which managed to situate each Council member in their own oddly shaped districts. Realizing that Map Z was so gerrymandered that it could never be approved, the Council then pivoted to cumulative voting as a solution.
Chapter 2 – Cumulative Voting Ruse
Cumulative voting is an electoral method in which an elector may cast as many votes as there are seats up for election in any combination. For example, in a contest with five candidates, a voter may choose to cast all his or her votes for one candidate or three votes to one candidate, two votes to another. In Mission Viejo, the Council members decided to promote this form of voting instead of district voting so that they would all be able to run again based on where they resided at the time. Other California cities, like our neighbor Lake Forest, were also sued during this same timeframe for the same reason but quickly adopted district voting to conform to state election laws and avoid legal costs. But in July 2018, the City signed a $180,000 legal settlement agreement to drop at-large voting and adopt cumulative voting beginning with the 2020 election. This settlement required that Council members run for two-year terms beginning in November 2018.
However, no other general law city in California had ever adopted cumulative voting before. Why? Because the State of California had never allowed cumulative voting as a viable election system. In fact, in a 2016 case (Soliz v. City of Santa Clarita), the Court struck down Santa Clarita's attempt to implement cumulative voting. A concerned Mission Viejo citizen in March 2018 informed the Mission Viejo Council of the Soliz decision but the Mission Viejo Council ignored it. None of these facts were disclosed to the public or Judge Walter Schwarm who was overseeing the settlement of the SWVREP lawsuit at that time. The Council members were so determined to keep their seats at any cost that they continued to push for cumulative voting. But Secretary of State Alex Padilla was aware that Mission Viejo had no authority to do so and issued his first warning to the City on May 3, 2019. A year later, on May 1, 2020, the City received a second, more strongly worded letter from Secretary Padilla that it was incorrect to claim that cumulative voting was authorized under state law. The residents of Mission Viejo continued to be left in the dark.
Meanwhile, the three incumbents (Sachs, Raths, and Bucknum) won their elections in November 2018 to serve for two years until November 2020.
Chapter 3 – Move to Districts
After being admonished twice by the Secretary of State about cumulative voting, the City Attorney went back to Court in July of 2020, claiming the City did not have enough time to implement cumulative voting; however, he never disclosed to the Court that the City knew that method of voting could not be used. The Court granted the City more time but with conditions. If the City could not make cumulative voting work in the allotted extra time, district-based voting would have to be implemented, and all five seats would have to be up for election in 2022 with no further postponements.
In November of 2020, Council members Kelley and Goodell were elected to two-year terms, which maintained the charade that there would still be cumulative voting in November 2022 with all five seats up for election.
After almost another year of delay and confusion, and under mounting public pressure, the Council and City Attorney finally had to admit that their ruse had failed. In July 2021, Council agreed to implement district-based elections. While City Attorney Curley claimed that it was the State’s fault that so much time and money had to be spent fighting for cumulative voting, it was due entirely to the Council’s corrupt attempts to keep themselves in power. They knew all along that cumulative voting was not allowed by state law but chose instead to waste almost four years and over half-million taxpayer dollars in unnecessary legal expenses.
Chapter 4 – Selection of District Maps
Even with the concession to district voting, the City Council and City Attorney continued to act in bad faith. Council dismissed repeated requests to start the process as soon as possible. Then the City Attorney said it had to be delayed by another three months, because their demographer had put Mission Viejo “at the end of the queue.” The City later constrained the time for submitting proposed maps to the year-end holiday period from mid-December 2021 to early January 2022 when most residents were busy with family gatherings and vacations.
District voting was the most significant change to Mission Viejo’s electoral system since its incorporation in 1988, yet Council remained intent on stifling public debate. After delaying the start of the mapping process, Council then limited public comment during the few hearings that were held. During the three public hearings on district maps in January and February of 2022, there were no opportunities to ask questions or have any dialogue between residents and the Council. The three-minute public comment format hardly allowed for a fair and open exchange of ideas and opinions. Clearly the Council did not want much discussion.
Despite the attempt to limit participation, five maps from the public were submitted at the January 25, 2022, Public Hearing. The CDR demographer, Deborah Diep, who also developed the City’s Map Z (which creatively placed each councilmember in his or her own district), presented Map A on behalf of the City. Amazingly, Map A was drawn to allow separate districts for the four Council members who were planning to run for election in 2022 - Sachs, Kelley, Goodell, and Bucknum. Council member Raths at the time was running for another office, and Council member Kelley had conveniently moved from the south end of Mission Viejo to a more central location where she could run in what was drawn by the City's demographer as District 4 unopposed by any of her Council colleagues.
Ms. Diep was fully aware of the Council members’ home addresses when she earlier helped to create Map Z, but claimed at the January 25, 2022, meeting that she did not remember where the very same Council members lived when she designed Map A.
Proposed Map E (subsequently amended to Map E-1) was submitted by Mission Viejo resident, Ari Vela; it met all the legal guidelines necessary to be selected per Ms. Diep. Mr. Vela’s map also received overwhelming support from the residents who attended the meeting. Its District 1 achieved the highest level of Hispanic voter registration of any of the maps submitted and better preserved communities of interest such as the Casta del Sol neighborhood and core downtown area. It was also drawn without regard to where current Council members lived, with the result that Council members Kelley and Goodell would have to run against each other, as would Council members Ed Sachs and Greg Raths.
Once the City Council saw the support for Map E-1, they looked for ways to discredit it. On February 8, 2022, City Attorney Curley wrote a letter to Council members implying that Map E-1 was not legal due to what he nonsensically called “racial gerrymandering.” Even though this was not the case, Curley handed the Council a reason not to vote for Map E-1.
At the March 8, 2022, City Council meeting, the Council had to decide between two maps that made the final round – the City’s Map A and Mr. Vela’s Map E-1. Citizens were again permitted to speak for only three minutes each with no ability to interact with the Council members. More than one speaker asked the Council to explain their positions on the final two maps in contention. Council members Raths, Goodell and Bucknum never said a word about why they in favor for or against Map A or Map E-1; they just said they were against the system of district voting. After Trish Kelley stated she was against district voting, she avoided any comments on Map E-1, and made a motion to approve Map A. There was no discussion on the merits of the maps or any opportunity for the citizens to ask questions. The fix was in, and the final vote was 5-0 for the City map, Map A.