HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - Item #17
Ibarra, Evelyn
From:Will Nunes <Firm@loftinbedell.com>
Sent:Monday, June 17, 2024 10:56 AM
To:eComment; Carvalho, Sonia R.; !City Clerk
Cc:Sue Loftin; Ariel Bedell; Will Nunes
Subject:KM 1: Opposition of Item 17 of the 6-18-2024 City Council Meeting
Attachments:2024-6-12 City frm LSL Opposition Item 17 FINAL.pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
To the Office of the City Attorney and the Office of the City Clerk,
This message is being sent to you to provide you with a copy of Ms. Sue Loftin's letter of opposition to Agenda
Item 17 of the Regular City Council Meeting to take place on 6/18/2024.
This letter of opposition has also been sent to the Mayor, City Council, and Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Santa
Ana using the “Contact the City Council” function of the City of Santa Ana Website (Link provided here). The
provided Letter of Opposition has also been mailed to the City of Santa Ana at 20 Civic Center Plaza M-30,
Santa Ana, CA 92701 via 8:00am overnight delivery service as necessitated by the commenting procedures of
the City of Santa Ana.
Honorable Mayor Amezcua, Mayor Pro Tem Lopez, and the City Council of Santa Ana have been informed of
this transmission to you.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best regards,
William Nunes
LOFTIN|BEDELL P.C.
2540 Gateway Road
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Tel: 760.431.2111
Fax: 760.867.2210
Attention: This email has limited purposes. It may not contain the full extent of any conversation related to a specific topic and
may not represent legal advice on a specific topic. Emails are abbreviated means of communication and as such cannot be relied
upon for a full and complete response to any factual or legal issue.
Privileged and Confidential Communication: This email message and its contents are legally privileged and confidential
information that is intended solely for the use of the intended addressee. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message and its contents is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email immediately and destroy all copies of
the original message.
1
Overnight Mail and Electronic Transmission
June 17, 2024
Honorable Mayor Valerie Amezcua, Mayor Pro Tem Jessie Lopez andCouncil Members Thai Viet
Phan, BenjaminVazquez, Phil Bacerra, Johnathan Ryan Hernandez and David Penaloza.
Cityof SantaAna
c/oOffice ofthe CityClerk
(eComment@santa-ana.org)
c/o Office of the City Attorney
(scarvalho@santa-ana.org)
20 CivicCenterPlazaM-30
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re:Hearing Date:City Council HearingJune 18, 2024
AgendaItem 17(3): Opposed
Title Agenda Item:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFSANTA ANA GIVING
NOTICE OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELDIN THE CITY OF
SANTA CAN ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024 FOR THE SUBMISSION OF A BALLOT
MEASURE \[City Council Action/Not Petition\] TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS
PROPOSING RENT STABILIZATION AND JUST CAUSE EVICTION
ORDINANCE ANDREQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE THIS ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE
GENERAL ELECTION.
Requested Action: Vote NO with the following two options to Refer to City Attorney:
Option 1: Preferred Option: Direct the City Attorney’s Office to Prepare two
Ordinances: (i) one for the “Mobilehome Park Community” comprised of the
Homeowners and the Park Owners, and (ii) one for all other residential rental
properties;
Option 2: Refer the Rent Stabilizationand Just CauseEviction with Council
Direction to Amend said Ordinance comply with California and Federal Statutes
and Regulations, and Case Law relating to Mobilehome Parks
DearHonorable MayorValerieAmezcua,MayorProTemJessieLopez,and Councilmembers Thai
Viet Phan, Benjamin Vazquez, Phil Bacerra, Johnathan Ryan Hernandez and David Penaloza:
This Firm represents Kingsley Management Corporation, and its affiliated companies, which
manage, own, and operate, with care and concern for the Homeowners (residents) multiple mobilehome
parks within in the City of Santa Ana.
2540 Gateway Road • Carlsbad • California • 92009
T: 760.431.2111 • Direct: 760.444-4040 • www.loftinbedell.com • Sue@loftinbedell.com
LOFTIN|BEDELL P.C.
City of Santa Ana
c/o City Clerk and City Attorney
June 17, 2024
Page 2of 3
The consistent goal of Kingsley Management Corporation and this Firm has been to provide
the City the tools to craft Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance(s)(the “Ordinances”)
appropriately applicable to Mobilehome Park Communities, Homeowners within the communities and
Park Owners. Detailed correspondences have been provided for each of the various hearings relating
to the adoption of such Ordinancesclearly laying out the legal requirements. Rather than take the time
to prepare Ordinances that are legally applicable to Mobilehome Park Communities (i.e. in compliance
with the various laws applicable to mobilehome park tenancies such as the Mobilehome Residency
Law, among other statutes), the City has taken the position set by the former Mayor Vincente Sarmiento
in the adoption of the Ordinances – namely a position to rush the Ordinances to vote. During the 2021
Hearing on the Ordinances, inresponse to a motion to delay action and refer the Ordinances to City
Attorney to review the legal issues raised and revise the Ordinances if appropriate, Mr. Sarmiento did
not call for further comments or call the Motion for a vote, but rather said the Ordinances had to be
passed because the Council members were elected to office to do thatand made his own Motion to pass
the Ordinance. With that attitude, the Mobilehome Park Community of Santa Ana have suffered the
passage of the two Ordinances in October 2021 (3009 and 3010), the consolidation of the two
Ordinances into one Ordinance in October 2022 (3027), and the passage of the amendment of
1
Ordinance No. 3027 in October 2023to prohibit amendment to specific sections in the 3027 under the
guise of the City Charter. That guise of authority is attempting to be corrected through the adoption of
amendments to the City Charter and reconfirmation of 2023 Amendment to Ordinance No. 3027 – the
matter before you, the City Council at this hearing.
All of the Letters of Opposition submitted in 2021, 2022 and 2023 specificallyand clearly state
the corrections that should have been made related to Mobilehome Park Communities –letters which
include specific proposed modifications that would bring the Ordinances into compliance with
applicable laws. Rather than attached theletters,which are approximately 200 pages in length, all
public records for the series of hearings related to the adoption of the series of Ordinances and related
matters. Therefore, the documents and other matters of public record as provided in correspondence
for the October 3, 2023 Council Meeting are incorporated hereat by reference as though fully set forth.
Further, this Firm, on behalf of Kinsley Management Corporation and its affiliated companies,
has noted, commencing January 2, 2020, to the present, violations Government Code sections 54950
and 36934, and potential violation of Government Code section 84308 in communications,
correspondences, and statements related to and presented to the City Council at various stages of the
City Council’s consideration and adoption of the various rent control and eviction protection ordinances
and related policies. Such prior violations and deficiencies noted previously in the public record are
incorporated herein as though set forth in full; however, were presented in the following public records:
(i) City Council Hearings held on September 21, October 5 and November 19, 2021 (“2021 Record”)
for the adoption of Ordinance Nos. 3009 and 3010 (“2021 Ordinances”); (ii) City Council Hearings
held on October 5, 2022 and October 18, 2022 (“2022 Record”)for theadoptionof Ordinance No.
3027. (“2022 Ordinance”); (iii) City Council Hearings August 29, 2023 and September 19, 2023
1
The commencement dates of the hearings related to the adoption of the Ordinances and the effective dates, which varies
from thirty days after adoption to immediately effective.
KMC700SAO1.010
LOFTIN|BEDELL P.C.
City of Santa Ana
c/o City Clerk and City Attorney
June 17, 2024
Page 3of 3
(“2023 1st Amendment Hearings”) and the opposition orally and in writing, including the
correspondences dated August 28, 2023 from Sue Loftin, Loftin|Bedell P.C. and Terry Dowdall,
Dowdall Law to the attempted modification of the Ordinance, see record for City Council Hearing
September 29, 2023 and October 2, 2023; and(iv) adoption all regulations, policies, retention of third-
party vendors/agents, including the adoption of all Resolutions from 2021 to current date including all
oppositions related thereto (“2023 Resolutions”). The public records commencing approximately
January 2, 2020 of the meetings, communications and hearings include all memorandums, electronic
transmissions, letters between and among staff, consultants, and members of the public, excepting
attorney-client privileged materials; and between any City staff person, consultant or elected or
appointed official with any third party, and all opposition letters, emails and verbal presentations and
the video recording of those hearings are hereby incorporated for the record in this matter. Additionally,
the Public Records including all pleadings for cases the two cases naming the City of Santa Ana as the
defendant in the Federal District Court Cases Nos. 8:22-cv-00076-CJC-JDEx and 8:33-cv-00102-
CJC-JDE and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal for Case No. 8:22-cv-00076-CJC (JDEx) are
hereby incorporated into this record.
Kingsley Management Corporation and its related affiliated companies have consistently
said the City has the right to adopt Rent Control (rent stabilization) and Just Cause Eviction
Ordinances in concept. Rather, the purpose of all opposition to the Ordinances, whether at City
public hearings including all the written and oral objections, or in Federal Court, has been to
require the Ordinances to comply with the State and Federal Statues including the respective
regulations and case law specifically applicable to the Mobilehome Park Community. The laws
applicable to the Mobilehome Park Community are significantly different than for all other
residential rental housing and such differences have been largely ignored by the City in adopting
the Ordinances, despite repeated and detailed language including proposed modifications to the
Ordinances being provided to the City to bring the Ordinances in line with such bodies of law.
Sincerely,
LOFTIN | BEDELL P.C.
By: L. Sue Loftin, Esq.
cc: Client (Via Email)
City Council Members (Via Overnight Mail)
Honorable Mayor Valerie Amezcua
Mayor Pro Tem Jessie Lopez
Council Members Thai Viet Phan,
Genjamin Vazquez
Phil Bacerra
Johnathan Ryan Hernandez
David Penaloza
KMC700SAO1.010
SANTAANA CITY -(11 ARK
JUN 18'24
LOFTIN I BEDELL
1J ATTORNEYS AT LA \v
Overnight Mail and Electronic Transmission _
June 17, 2024
Honorable Mayor Valerie Amezcua, Mayor Pro Tem Jessie Lopez and Council Members Thai Viet
Phan, Benjamin Vazquez, Phil Bacerra, Johnathan Ryan Hernandez and David Penaloza.
City of Santa Ana
do Office of the City Clerk
(eComment@santa-ana.org)
c/o Office of the City Attorney
(scarvalho@santa-ana.org)
20 Civic Center Plaza M-30
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: Hearing Date: City Council Hearing June 18, 2024
Agenda Item 17(3): Opposed
Title Agenda Item:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA GIVING
NOTICE OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF
SANTA CAN ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024 FOR THE SUBMISSION OF A BALLOT
MEASURE [City Council Action/Not Petition] TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS
PROPOSING RENT STABILIZATION AND JUST CAUSE EVICTION
ORDINANCE AND REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE THIS ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE
GENERAL ELECTION.
Requested Action: Vote NO with the following two options to Refer to City Attorney:
Option 1: Preferred Option: Direct the City Attorney's Office to Prepare two
Ordinances: (i) one for the "Mobilehome Park Community" comprised of the
Homeowners and the Park Owners, and (ii) one for all other residential rental
properties;
Option 2: Refer the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction with Council
Direction to Amend said Ordinance comply with California and Federal Statutes
and Regulations, and Case Law relating to Mobilehome Parks
Dear Honorable Mayor Valerie Amezcua,Mayor Pro Tern Jessie Lopez,and Councilmembers Thai
Viet Phan, Benjamin Vazquez, Phil Bacerra,Johnathan Ryan Hernandez and David Penaloza:
This Firm represents Kingsley Management Corporation, and its affiliated companies, which
manage,own,and operate,with care and concern for the Homeowners(residents)multiple mobilehome
parks within in the City of Santa Ana.
2540 Gateway Road • Carlsbad • California • 92009
T: 760.431.2111 • Direct:760.444-4040 • www.loftinbedell.com • Sue@loftinbedell.com
LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C.
City of Santa Ana
do City Clerk and City Attorney
June 17, 2024
Page 2 of 3
The consistent goal of Kingsley Management Corporation and this Firm has been to provide
the City the tools to craft Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance(s) (the"Ordinances")
appropriately applicable to Mobilehome Park Communities,Homeowners within the communities and
Park Owners. Detailed correspondences have been provided for each of the various hearings relating
to the adoption of such Ordinances clearly laying out the legal requirements. Rather than take the time
to prepare Ordinances that are legally applicable to Mobilehome Park Communities (i.e. in compliance
with the various laws applicable to mobilehome park tenancies such as the Mobilehome Residency
Law,among other statutes),the City has taken the position set by the former Mayor V incente Sarmiento
in the adoption of the Ordinances—namely a position to rush the Ordinances to vote. During the 2021
Hearing on the Ordinances, in response to a motion to delay action and refer the Ordinances to City
Attorney to review the legal issues raised and revise the Ordinances if appropriate,Mr. Sarmiento did
not call for further comments or call the Motion for a vote, but rather said the Ordinances had to be
passed because the Council members were elected to office to do that and made his own Motion to pass
the Ordinance. With that attitude, the Mobilehome Park Community of Santa Ana have suffered the
passage of the two Ordinances in October 2021 (3009 and 3010), the consolidation of the two
Ordinances into one Ordinance in October 2022 (3027), and the passage of the amendment of
Ordinance No. 3027 in October 20231 to prohibit amendment to specific sections in the 3027 under the
guise of the City Charter. That guise of authority is attempting to be corrected through the adoption of
amendments to the City Charter and reconfirmation of 2023 Amendment to Ordinance No. 3027—the
matter before you,the City Council at this hearing.
All of the Letters of Opposition submitted in 2021, 2022 and 2023 specifically and clearly state
the corrections that should have been made related to Mobilehome Park Communities —letters which
include specific proposed modifications that would bring the Ordinances into compliance with
applicable laws. Rather than attached the letters, which are approximately 200 pages in length, all
public records for the series of hearings related to the adoption of the series of Ordinances and related
matters. Therefore, the documents and other matters of public record as provided in correspondence
for the October 3, 2023 Council Meeting are incorporated hereat by reference as though fully set forth.
Further, this Finn, on behalf of Kinsley Management Corporation and its affiliated companies,
has noted, commencing January 2, 2020, to the present, violations Government Code sections 54950
and 36934, and potential violation of Government Code section 84308 in communications,
correspondences, and statements related to and presented to the City Council at various stages of the
City Council's consideration and adoption of the various rent control and eviction protection ordinances
and related policies. Such prior violations and deficiencies noted previously in the public record are
incorporated herein as though set forth in full;however,were presented in the following public records:
(i) City Council Hearings held on September 21, October 5 and November 19, 2021 ("2021 Record")
for the adoption of Ordinance Nos. 3009 and 3010 ("2021 Ordinances"); (ii) City Council Hearings
held on October 5, 2022 and October 18, 2022 ("2022 Record") for the adoption of Ordinance No.
3027. ("2022 Ordinance"); (iii) City Council Hearings August 29, 2023 and September 19, 2023
1 The commencement dates of the hearings related to the adoption of the Ordinances and the effective dates,which varies
from thirty days after adoption to immediately effective.
KMC700SAO1.010
I ,
LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C.
City of Santa Ana
c/o City Clerk and City Attorney
June 17, 2024
Page 3 of 3
("2023 1st Amendment Hearings") and the opposition orally and in writing, including the
correspondences dated August 28, 2023 from Sue Loftin, LoftiniBedell P.C. and Terry Dowdall,
Dowdall Law to the attempted modification of the Ordinance, see record for City Council Hearing
September 29, 2023 and October 2,2023; and (iv) adoption all regulations,policies,retention of third-
party vendors/agents, including the adoption of all Resolutions from 2021 to current date including all
oppositions related thereto ("2023 Resolutions"). The public records commencing approximately
January 2, 2020 of the meetings, communications and hearings include all memorandums, electronic
transmissions, letters between and among staff, consultants, and members of the public, excepting
attorney-client privileged materials; and between any City staff person, consultant or elected or
appointed official with any third party, and all opposition letters, emails and verbal presentations and
the video recording of those hearings are hereby incorporated for the record in this matter. Additionally,
the Public Records including all pleadings for cases the two cases naming the City of Santa Ana as the
defendant in the Federal District Court Cases Nos. 8:22-cv-00076-CJC-JDEx and 8:33-cv-00102-
CJC-JDE and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal for Case No. 8:22-cv-00076-CJC (JDEx) are
hereby incorporated into this record.
Kingsley Management Corporation and its related affiliated companies have consistently
said the City has the right to adopt Rent Control (rent stabilization) and Just Cause Eviction
Ordinances in concept. Rather, the purpose of all opposition to the Ordinances, whether at City
public hearings including all the written and oral objections, or in Federal Court, has been to
require the Ordinances to comply with the State and Federal Statues including the respective
regulations and case law specifically applicable to the Mobilehome Park Community. The laws
applicable to the Mobilehome Park Community are significantly different than for all other
residential rental housing and such differences have been largely ignored by the City in adopting
the Ordinances, despite repeated and detailed language including proposed modifications to the
Ordinances being provided to the City to bring the Ordinances in line with such bodies of law.
Sincerely,
LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C.
/ ce 4
By: L. Sue Loftin, Esq.
cc: Client(Via Email)
City Council Members (Via Overnight Mail)
Honorable Mayor Valerie Amezcua
Mayor Pro Tem Jessie Lopez
Council Members Thai Viet Phan,
Genjamin Vazquez
Phil Bacerra
Johnathan Ryan Hernandez
David Penaloza
KMC700SA01.010
Ibarra, Evelyn
From:Dale Helvig <helvig_denny@msn.com>
Sent:Monday, June
To:eComment; Amezcua, Valerie; Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil;
Hernandez, Johnathan; Penaloza, David
Cc:Carvalho, Sonia R.; Nunez, Alvaro; Mendoza, Steven; Hall, Jennifer
Subject:2024-06-17 Letter to City Council-Item 17-Non Citizen Voting
Attachments:2024-06-17 Letter to City Council-Item 17-Non Citizen Voting.pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Please include a?ached file in agenda for June 18, 2024 City Council mee?ng.
Dale Helvig
Resident, Santa Ana
1
Ibarra, Evelyn
From:Julia Gomez <JGomez@aclusocal.org>
Sent:Tuesday, June 18, 2024 1:26 PM
To:eComment
Cc:Amezcua, Valerie; Lopez, Jessie; Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez,
Johnathan; Penaloza, David; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Annette Wong; Anisha Hingorani; Annie
Lee
Subject:Public Comment re June 18 Mtg, CS Item No. 1 and RS Item No. 17
Attachments:2024.06.18 CAA, UCI Law IRC + ACLU Ltr to Santa Ana re CS Item No. 1 and RS Item No.
17.pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
A?ached please find public comment from Chinese for Affirma?ve Ac?on, UCI Law Immigrant Rights Clinic, and the ACLU
of Southern California regarding today’s Closed Session Item 1 and Regular Session Item 18 (immigrant vo?ng ballot
measure).
Best,
Julia Gomez, Staff Attorney
ACLU of Southern California
1313 W 8th Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(o) 213.977.5258
aclusocal.org || facebook || twitter || blog || app
ACLU SoCal: STAND FOR JUSTICE >> Download our mobile app at mobilejusticeca.org
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN
INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS
MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE
INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS
STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
1
Sent via email
June 18, 2024
Santa Ana Mayor and City Council
City Council Chamber
22 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
eComment@santa-ana.org
Re: June 18, 2024 City Council Agenda, Closed Session Item No. 1 and Regular
Session Item No. 17, Noncitizen Voting Ballot Measure
Dear Mayor Amezcua and Members of the Santa Ana City Council:
Chinese for Affirmative Action, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, and the
UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic respectfully submit this letter about the City
CouncilÓs planned discussions relating to potentially amending the language of the November
2024 immigrant voting measure (the ÐMeasureÑ). The City Council has broad discretion over
ballot language and is under no obligation to take direction from James V. Lacy, an individual
challenging the Measure in court. Mr. Lacy has a history of unsuccessfully opposing efforts to
expand the vote to noncitizen residents, including through a failed lawsuit to set aside San
FranciscoÓs immigrant voting program and a failed pre-election lawsuit to keep OaklandÓs
1
immigrant voting measure off the November 2022 ballot. Because the Measure is clear,
informative, and is neither false, misleading, nor partial to one side, the City Council may send
the current version of the Measure to county elections officials.
I. The City Council has broad discretion to draft the Measure, and a court must
employ a presumption that the measure in neutral.
The City Council has broad discretion to prepare ballot language. Yes on 25, Citizens for
an On-Time Budget v. Super. Ct. (ÐYes on 25Ñ), 189 Cal. App. 1445, 1452-53 (2010); Martinez
v. Super. Ct., 142 Cal. App. 4th 1245, 1248 (2006). In contrast, courts do not enjoy a wide range
of discretion when adjudicating pre-election challenges to the sufficiency of ballot language.
Becerra v. Super. Ct., 19 Cal. App. 5th 967, 976 (2017) (citing Yes on 25, 189 Cal. App. 4th at
1453). Rather, although a court must independently assess whether ballot language substantially
1
Lacy v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 94 Cal. App. 5th 238, 243 (2023) (rejecting challenge to San FranciscoÓs
immigrant voting program); Bob Egelko, Conservative Group Drops Challenge to S.F., Oakland Laws Allowing
Noncitizen Voting in School Board Races, San Francisco Chronicle (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!Θ!876!UIF!DJUZ!ESJWF-!TVJUF!471!Θ PSBOHF-!DB!:3979!Θ!U!825/561/4:73!Θ!G!825/694/9157!Θ!BDMVTPDBM/PSH!
Santa Ana Mayor and City Council
June 18, 2024 Page 2
complies with statutory standards, seeMartinez, 142 Cal. App. 4th at 1248, a court may grant
relief Ðonly upon clear and convincing proof that the \[challenged\] materials in question \[are\]
false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of \[Section 9051\],Ñ Yes on 25, 189 Cal.
App. 4th at 1453 (quoting Elec. Code § 9092), see also McDonough v. Super. Ct., 204 Cal. App.
4th 1169, 1173 (2012) (citing Elec. Code § 9295(b)(2)). Ballot language may be deemed
insufficient only in a clear case, and Ðall legitimate presumptions should be indulged in favor of
the propriety of the \[drafterÓs\] actions.Ñ Yes on 25, 189 Cal. App. 4th at 1453 (quoting Epperson
2
v. Jordan, 12 Cal. 2d 61, 66, 70 (1938)).
Yes on 25 exemplifies the discretion courts afford to drafters. In Yes on 25, a court of
appeal reversed the lower courtÓs ruling striking the following ballot language:
CHANGES LEGISLATIVE VOTE REQUIREMENT TO PASS BUDGET AND
BUDGETÎRELATED LEGISLATION FROM TWOÎTHIRDS TO A SIMPLE
MAJORITY. RETAINS TWOÎTHIRDS VOTE REQUIREMENT FOR TAXES.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Id. at 1450-51. The petitioners alleged that the ÐRetains Two-Thirds Vote RequirementÑ was
misleading because it suggested that passage of the proposition was necessary to keep in place
the two-thirds vote requirement to raise taxes. Id. at 1448. The court acknowledged that
Ðreasonable minds may differÑ as to the sufficiency of the language but concluded that a
difference of opinion did not constitute Ðclear and convincing proofÑ that the challenged
language was misleading. Id. at 1454. Because preparing ballot materials is a difficult task,
drafters are Ðafforded considerable latitude.Ñ Id. at 1452-53. As in Yes on 25, at most there may
be a difference of opinion between Mr. Lacy and the Council as to whether the Measure is partial
or biased. But a difference of opinion is not enough to set aside the CouncilÓs language.
II. The ballot question does not need to be the most neutral or complete question and it
may list the effects of the measure by way of example.
Despite the deference afforded to the City Council and the plainly neutral language
included in the measure, Mr. Lacy alleges in his lawsuit that the language is biased because it is
3
incomplete. He alleges Ðparents and taxpayersÑ describes only some of the noncitizens who
would be able to vote were the proposed measure passed and points out that noncitizens who are
Ðhomeless or criminalsÑ would also be granted the right to vote.
The test for whether ballot language is sufficient, however, is not whether the drafters
could have used the most complete or neutral language. See Martinez, 142 Cal. App. 4th at 1248.
Indeed, courts routinely reject challenges to ballot language that simply explains the effect of a
measure. See, e.g., Green v. Logan, 2014 WL 2446069 at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. June 2, 2014)
(rejecting argument that revenue-raising measure was biased simply because it included
examples, but not an exhaustive list, of services that it would fund); Santa Clara Cnty. Bd. of
2
Whether a drafter supports or opposes a measure does not lessen the deference courts give to their actions. Lungren
v. Super. Ct., 48 Cal. App. 4th 435, 440 n.1 (1996) (in discussing the discretion drafters have over ballot language,
noting that it is immaterial whether drafters support or oppose the challenged ballot language); Martinez, 142 Cal.
App. 4th at 1249 (Ðit is the ballot titleÓs language that must be impartial, not the claimed motives of the councilÑ).
3
Lacy, et al. v. Santa Ana City Council, et al., Case No. 30-2024-01402208, Pet. for Writ of Mandate (Cal. Super.
Ct., Orange Cnty. May 24, 2024).
BNFSJDBO!DJWJM!MJCFSUJFT!VOJPO!GPVOEBUJPO!PG!TPVUIFSO!DBMJGPSOJB!
Santa Ana Mayor and City Council
June 18, 2024 Page 3
Supervisors v. Super. Ct., 2004 WL 1945665 at *6 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 1, 2004) (concluding that
ballot language stating that the charter amendment would ÐsupersedeÑ the dispute resolution
process in the charter and ÐimposeÑ arbitration for union disputes was merely an accurate
description of the measureÓs effect, and thus was not false, misleading, or argumentative).
Instead, the test for the sufficiency of ballot language is Ðwhether it is partial (or false or
misleading)Ñ and whether the language Ðsignals to voters the councilÓs view of how they should
vote, or casts a favorable light on one side . . . while disparaging the opposing view.Ñ Martinez,
42 Cal. App. 4th at1248 (emphasis added).
In Martinez, the petitioner unsuccessfully argued that the following ballot language was
incomplete, misleading, and biased:
COUNCIL MEMBER TERM LIMITS OF THREE TERMS; CITY LOBBYING,
CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND ETHICS LAWS. CHARTER AMENDMENT
AND ORDINANCE PROPOSITION __.
Shall the Charter be amended and ordinance adopted to: change Councilmember
term limits to three terms; restrict lobbyists from making campaign contributions,
gifts and becoming commissioners; revise lobbyist registration thresholds; require
contractors certify compliance with lobbying laws; extend elected officialsÓ post-
employment restrictions; require ethics training; and revise requirements for
independent expenditure and campaign contributions?
142 Cal. App. 4th at 1247. Although the court conceded that the heading of the measure could be
more informative by stating that it would increase term limits from two to three terms, the court
stressed that the language did Ðnot need to be the Òmost accurate,Ó Òmost comprehensive,Ó or
ÒfairestÓ that a skilled wordsmith might imagine.Ñ Id. at 1248. The court ultimately rejected the
challenge, emphasizing that the Ðjudiciary \[was\] not free to substitute its judgment given its
deferential standard of review.Ñ Id.
In the limited instances when courts have set aside biased language, the language was
4
also false or misleading and heavily favored one side. For example, in Huntington Beach City
Council v. Superior Court, cited by Lacy, the Court of Appeal amended the following text
because it included a term that disparaged the measure: ÐAmendment of Utility Tax by
Removing Electric Power Plant Exemption.Ñ 94 Cal. App. 4th 1417, 1425, 1433-34 (2012). The
Court reasoned that in the tax context ÐÒexemptionÓ carries the whiff of privilegeÑ by implying
Ðunfair influence and special treatment.Ñ Id. at 1433-34. The court determined this language was
also misleading because the energy company targeted by the measure did pay utility taxesÏjust
not on wholesale natural gasÏ and thus the ballot titleÓs phrasing was inaccurate. Id. at 1434.
The court therefore ordered the city to replace ÐexemptionÑ with Ðexclusion,Ñ a word that does
not carry an overly positive or negative connotation in the taxation context.
4
LacyÓs brief only cited three cases to support its position. See, generally, Lacy, et al. v. Santa Ana City Council, et
al., Case No. 30-2024-01402208, PetÓrsÓ Op. Br. (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cnty. June 4, 2024). One of those cases
did not involve a challenge under the Elections Code at all. See id. at 11-13 (citing Citizens for Responsible GovtÓ v.
City of Albany, 56 Cal. App. 4th 1199 (1997), a case at the motion to dismiss stage involving a post-election
challenge to a gambling ballot measure where the Business and Professions Code, unlike the Elections Code,
specifies the exact wording of the measure and the council deviated by adding superfluous language). The other two
cases, discussed in this letter, involved clearly biased language that was also misleading.
BNFSJDBO!DJWJM!MJCFSUJFT!VOJPO!GPVOEBUJPO!PG!TPVUIFSO!DBMJGPSOJB!
Santa Ana Mayor and City Council
June 18, 2024 Page 4
McDonough likewise involved language that clearly created an impermissible bias and
was misleading. In McDonough, petitioners brought a pre-election challenge to a proposed
amendment to the Santa Clara city charter, claiming the ballot question and the city clerkÓs
analysis of the question were Ðmisleading and biased in favor of passage.Ñ 204 Cal. App. 4th at
1172. The ballot measure was titled ÐPension ReformÑ and contained the following language:
To protect essential services, including neighborhood police patrols, fire stations,
libraries, community centers, streets and parks, shall the Charter be amended to
reform retirement benefits of City employees and retirees by: increasing
employeesÓ contributions, establishing a voluntary reduced pension plan for current
employees, establish pension cost and benefit limitations for new employees,
modify disability retirement procedures, temporarily suspend retiree COLAs
during emergencies, require voter approval for increases in future pension benefits?
Id. at 1173 (emphasis added). The Court ordered the ballot title ÐPension ReformÑ to be amended
to say ÐPension ModificationÑ because the word ÐreformÑ characterized the existing pension
system as Ðdefective, wrong, or susceptible to abuse,Ñ and thus took a biased position. Id. at
1174-76. The court also ordered removed the italicized introductory language because the term
ÐprotectÑ misled voters into believing that if the measure failed the public would lose the
services. Id. at 1175-77. It was this implication that led the court to find the language Ðpartisan
and prejudicial.Ñ Id. at 1176. There is no similar language in the Measure. Instead, the Measure
uses the word ÐincludingÑ to indicate that taxpayers and parents are someÏbut not allÏof the
noncitizen Santa Ana residents who would be impacted by the measure.
The challenged language here also does not carry an overly positive connotation in the
voting context, just as the terms ÐexclusionÑ in the tax context and ÐmodificationÑ the pension
context are largely neutral. In contrast, the terms tax ÐexemptionÑ rejected by the Huntington
Beach court and pension ÐreformÑ rejected by the McDonough court undoubtedly created bias.
And, as noted, even if a court determined that the phrase Ðtaxpayers and parentsÑ carries positive
undertones, California courts have emphasized that Ða ballot title need not be the . . . ÒfairestÓ that
a skilled wordsmith might imagineÑ and that Ðthe judiciary is not free to substitute its judgment
\[for a city councilÓs judgment\] given \[the\] deferential standard of review.Ñ Martinez, 142 Cal.
App. 4th at 1248.
* * *
We urge the City Council to consider this information during its discussions about the
ballot language. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
5
Julia A. GomezAnisha Hingorani
Annie Lai
Senior Staff Attorney Policy Manager Director
ACLU of Southern California Chinese for Affirmative Action UC Irvine School of Law
Immigrant Rights Clinic
5
Grayson Rost, a legal intern at the ACLU of Southern California and student at the UCLA School of Law,
provided research support for this letter.
BNFSJDBO!DJWJM!MJCFSUJFT!VOJPO!GPVOEBUJPO!PG!TPVUIFSO!DBMJGPSOJB!
Santa Ana Mayor and City Council
June 18, 2024 Page 5
Cc: Valerie Amezcua, Mayor, vamezcua@santa-ana.org
Jessie Lopez, Mayor Pro Tem, jessielopez@santa-ana.org
Thai Viet Phan, Councilmember, tphan@santa-ana.org
Benjamin Vazquez, Councilmember, bvazquez@santa-ana.org
Phil Bacerra, Councilmember, pbacerra@santa-ana.org
Jonathan Ryan Hernandez, Councilmember, jryanhernandez@santa-ana.org
David Penaloza, Councilmember, dpenaloza@santa-ana.org
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney, scarvalho@santa-ana.org
BNFSJDBO!DJWJM!MJCFSUJFT!VOJPO!GPVOEBUJPO!PG!TPVUIFSO!DBMJGPSOJB!
Ibarra, Evelyn
From:Carlos Perea <carlos@harborinstituteoc.org>
Sent:Tuesday, June 18, 2024 3:01 PM
To:Amezcua, Valerie; Phan, Thai; Vazquez, Benjamin; Bacerra, Phil; Penaloza, David; Lopez,
Jessie; Hernandez, Johnathan; eComment; Carvalho, Sonia R.
Cc:Mai Do; Tracy La
Subject:Re: Closed Session Item #1, Regular Session Item #17 - Noncitizen Voting Ballot
Measure
Attachments:6_17_24 SACC Letter.pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Dear Mayor Valerie Amezcua and Santa Ana City Council Members,
Please see attached letter from Santa Ana Families for Fair Elections regarding noncitizen voting ballot
language discussions for today.
We urge the City Council to retain the original ballot measure language, defend it in court, and stand by
its original decision to place this question on the November 2024 general election ballot for Santa Ana’s
voters to consider.
Sincerely,
Harbor Institute for Immigrant & Economic Justice
VietRISE
Public Law Center
Orange County Justice Fund
El Centro Cultural de México
Santa Ana Collaborative for Responsible Development (SACReD)
Clergy & Laity United for Economic Justice
Latino Health Access
Esperanza Unión de Inquilinos
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the
Internet.
photo
Carlos Perea
He/Him
Executive Director,
Harbor Institute for Immigrant & Economic Justice
carlos@harborinstituteoc.org
www.harborinstituteoc.org
1
837 N Ross St, Santa Ana, CA 92701
To To To
hehehe
lp lp lp
prprpr
ototot
ececec
t t t
yoyoyo
ur ur ur
To help
protect your
privacy,
Microsoft
Office
prevented
automatic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
__tpx__
2