ACLU's Lawsuit Against Anaheim for Voter Disenfranchisment Against Mexis is Laughable, Ahistorical, and Plain Pendejo

ACLU's Lawsuit Against Anaheim for Voter Disenfranchisment Against Mexis is Laughable, Ahistorical, and Plain Pendejo

By Gustavo Arellano Fri., Jun. 29 2012 at 2:22 PM

As promised, the Southern California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) held a press conference outside Anaheim City Hall yesterday announcing they were going to sue Anaheim to create council wards in the idea that such a ploy would result in a fairer political representation of the city's demographics. "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," reads the press release, which follows with a solemn quote from Anaheim City School District trustee Jose Moreno, who says, "The tragedy is that, after so many years of struggling to be heard, so many of Anaheim's Latinos have simply lost hope...It was time to do something. This is our home, and we have a right to have a voice in what happens here."

Bullshit, all of it.

It's intellectually dishonest to say there's a systematic lack of minority representation on the City Council, or that the avenues of democracy are blocked in Anaheim for minorities. Oh, this story is going to get national play very soon--Anaheim! Home of Disneyland and the Angels! Racist Jim Crow politics! But as someone who actually knows the politics of Anaheim, I'll just stand by the sidelines and laugh as everyone falls for the ACLU's blatant, unnecessary race-baiting.

Sidhu: Wrong kind of brown for ACLU

Since 2002, the Anaheim City Council has had at least two minorities on the council, so to claim a recent shutout of minorities is preposterous. In 2002, Richard Chavez and Bob Hernandez were elected--look! Two Latino councilmembers! At the same time! In 2004, two other minorities joined in the fun: Lorri Galloway and Harry Sidhu. Which means that from 2004 to 2006, the council had four minorities--Lorri Galloway, Harry Sidhu, Hernandez, and Chavez. The only gabacho was Mayor Curt Pringle, who I guess counts as two gabachos, if you really think about it.

But think about that figure: as recently as six years ago, the Anaheim City Council was 80% minority, with an at-large electoral system. Next to SanTana, this is probably the most-diverse city council in the history of Orange County. Of course, the ACLU and its allies won't bring up this point because three of them weren't the right type of minorities: Galloway is Filipina, Sidhu, a Republican Indian, and Hernandez a Republican Cuban. As for Chavez? He came from Los Amigos, one of the groups involved in the ACLU's suit, and was a union hack who shilled for the race-baiting Gigante supermarket chain, so that was okay.

Mark my words: you will never see such a minority-dominated Anaheim council again. And the only reason this 80% minority council didn't last to at least 2010 was because Chavez and his supporters--Aztlanistas, public unions, and other unions--stupidly thought that his Hispanic surname was enough to guarantee a victory in 2006; it wasn't, and former councilmember Lucille Kring got back into office. Chavez finished third, behind Hernandez. And then he pleaded guilty to tax evasion, and that was that.

Still: through 2010, Anaheim had a minority-dominant City Council. Even now, Sidhu and Galloway (who are termed out this year) remain on the council--if you're playing that ugly percentage game, it's 40% coloreds, for a city that's about 60 percent minorities. Not perfect, but not far off--and hardly wide-scale disenfranchisement. How do you explain Chavez and Hernandez, ACLU and supporters? But instead of railing against the true culprits against representative democracy in Anaheim--the Democratic Party of Orange County and its love for corporatists gabachos to rule over Anaheim ala Tom Daly and current candidate Jordan Brandman--the lawsuit filers decide to go the easy route: rail against institutional whitey, because no one on the Left in Anaheim has the balls to go after the Dems except us.

Pringle: Corporate tool supported by ACLU lawsuit plaintiffs in 2002

How soon the lawsuit filers forget that their detente with Pringle in 2002 for his support of Gigante for their support of his mayoral campaign got Anaheim into the corporatist mess they're in today! That was, by far, a bigger betrayal of Anaheim's Latinos than anything this current council has ever done. Maybe the ACLU should sue Los Amigos?

Don't get me wrong: I despise this latest Anaheim City Council--it's a sad commentary when the best one of the lot is Mayor Tom Tait, a Republican insider if ever was one. And I do love this lawsuit, if only because we get to see the laughable spectacle of Hispandering at its worst from both sides unfold in the next month. I'm not even necessarily opposed to ward elections, although I hardly think they're a panacea for Orange County politics--look at the mess over in SanTana with all their vendidos, and don't forget that Pringle connection: Anaheim's so-called Latino leaders will sell out wabs in a second for their own gains. But we at this paper cannot stand by a lie, even if it puts us against our friends. Truth is truth, and the rationale behind this lawsuit is filled with more fantasy than Disneyland.

Follow OC Weekly on Twitter @ocweekly or on Facebook!

Tags:

ACLU, Anaheim, Anaheim City Council, Curt Pringle, Gigante, Los Amigos

We Recommend

Sharpe

Remembering the most recent election, I may have found a reason for this lawsuit. It can best be described as a back-door way to get onto the Council a union organizer/leader—who (Surprise!) just happens to also be Latino. Such a candidate ran and didn't win the last election. Mr. Leos is a big union guy--is/was a member and a director of the Orange County Employees union, a member of the Orange County Peace Officer Oversight Committee, and a close associate of Nick Berardino, the head of the Orange County Employees Association. Now there’s no rule that a union activist can’t be on the City Council, but it shouldn’t happen under the guise of racial equality. I expect the unions with whom the City must deal would like to have one of their own on the City Council to further their agenda. The City contracts with many unions (including police, fire, and employees) and they were not happy with the 10-year waiver of hotel taxes which the City Council upheld on a 3-2 vote to encourage jobs and business development. Why? Because the more money the City brings in, the more money the employees can demand in collective bargaining for salaries and pensions. If a union activist were to hold a seat on the Council, that person could control the Council by paralyzing it. The person would have many conflicts-of-interest when recusal would be appropriate. When the Council can’t get a majority vote, the agenda items don’t pass. It could become a quid pro quo Council—negotiating with the union-affiliated member to get any business accomplished. The Council already has two members who often favor the unions, and electing this particular man just because he is Latino would give the needed votes for the unions so dearly want. Now ask yourself what services the City performs that it might handle differently for people based on their ethnicity. All residents get paved streets, street lighting, sewers, parks, recreation activities, trash pickup, the best water and electric rates in the county, support of code enforcement, business licensing control, graffiti removal, libraries, planning, zoning, building controls, fire services, police patrols as warranted, etc. City government has multi-lingual employees available to help residents for don’t speak English well. Is there any service whatsoever that would be apportioned differently for any resident in the City because of their ethnicity or because of where they reside? I can think of none.

Francisco Barragan

Gustavo A: Great article! Rather than playing ethnic politics, I think the focus should be on registering more people to vote and get out the vote initiatives, more education on the issues, and holding elected people accountable rather than recycling them over and over again. Given that Santa Ana has an Latino council, it screams against ethnic politics, because ethnicity does not ensure greater representation. Paco Barragán

barrie flowers

I'll just stand by the sidelines and laugh as everyone falls for the ACLU's blatant, unnecessary race-baiting.

liedetector

Why is it that almost all of you right-wing reactionary types can't write intelligible comments? No one cares about a few misspellings or missed commas now and again, but what you wrote was gibberish. "Multi-tasking", must be dumb ass code for picking the hay seeds out of your hair and scratchin' your balls. And FYI, my "intellectual prowess" comment referred to your boast about your critical thinking skills ... sigh... which is even more ironic...sigh...as you probably won't even get this connection either..sigh...in other words; what a waste of time.

liedetector

Dumb ass, I wasn't referring to your CNN reference, but to your atrocious grammar and spelling. Your comments are almost unintelligible. Ironic because you were bragging about your intellectual prowess. Pitiful because you didn't even see it.

liedetector

"Also the clinton news network... I read the new and use whats caled critical thinking. " Really? Just reread that sentence. Maybe you should give up on the "critical" part and just concentrate on thinking.

liedetector

"I gave up on a hope for an intelligent conversation with you when I read your first reply on this thread!" That's because I'm not a knee-jerk reactionary like you are. You're far more comfortable with shallow,stupid stereotypes and broad inaccurate generalizations. No balance or nuance, no facts or both sides of the story for you. No, you're in the fact-free zone, just spewing accusations and bashing lawyers, the ACLU, politicians and government. How deep,.. how original..., how very Fox News of you.