The Political Implications of Measure V Going Down

Earlier this week, I got a bunch of emails from people informing me that, two weeks after election day, the election office was almost done counting ballots and that the local media called Measure V a failure.  If the local media were journalists who really paid any attention to local politics, they would have known this fact after the second drop of ballots.  People who support limited government drop off their ballots on election day, because (shocker) they don't trust the way the local government runs our elections.  So, once Measure V was losing on Tuesday night, anyone who pays attention to politics would know that it was only going to get worse for Measure V as more and more ballots were counted and that the margin would only get wider.  That is exactly what happened.  Not only did the measure go down, but there will also be serious consequences for the County's mishandling of Measure V.

That said, Measure V brings up some broader local questions.  For instance, why do some many people not trust their local election office and bring ballots on election day and not mail them?  Seriously, three weeks to get election results is some third-world shit.  Lol.  Can we please just all go vote on election day like normal countries and get our election results that night like every other developed nation?   Damn.  The elementary school kids electing student council have more secure and efficient elections than their parents.  It is seriously embarrassing.

Also, there is also a huge underlying sentiment locally against government, period.  When it comes to government in California, there is no room for wimps.  California's overbearing government is legendary outside of California and is palpable to its residents.  So many of our friends have left for freer pastures like Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky, South Carolina, and, yes, Florida.  I say jokingly to my friends that you are all wimps!  Instead of fighting these government assholes, you bailed and left us alone in the California wilderness with these morons!  In reality, however and truth be told, many of us want to leave California but just cannot do it.  Whether it be our children, our dearest of friends without whom we simply cannot live, or our hopes for our local community and our state, we just cannot pull the trigger and leave.  

Close your eyes and imagine 30 years ago your best friend looking you dead in the eyes and actually saying, "Dude. I am out. California sucks."  You would have smacked him upside his head.  There was no place cooler to live.  Period.  Full stop.  Everyone wanted to be here.  It is freaking gorgeous, and the weather!?  Please.  I grew up in Chicago, so on the weather angle alone, California is bomb.  Now, imagine at Thanksgiving dinner today your friend looks you in the eyes and says, "Dude. I am out. California sucks."  Instead of smacking him in the melon, you are likely gonna be a little jealous.  The dichotomy is crazy.  Between 2021 and 2022, more people left California than moved here.  That's insane.  How bad is it if people are leaving arguably the most favorable and beautiful geographic area on the entire planet?  Yep, it is that bad, but what does that have to do with Measure V, you ask?

There is a huge swath of our local population that believes that $367,000,000 a year is too much for ineffective local government, and it has to stop.  Seriously.  The County billed Measure V as $12 million magic bullet to prevent the tragedy of Paradise from ever happening in Nevada County.  I call bullshit.  How is that local homeless problem that you have not fixed yet which has been dragging on for 20 years and getting worse instead of better?  Can we please have normal elections like real democracies?  How is the meth problem in town that you apparently have no desire to fix?  My wife and I saw an epic tweaker at the gas station today in the Brunswick Basin.  Dude's upper body was all curled up has he shook and tweaked across the parking lot.  Way better tweaker than the guy that is always jumping between cars at the corner of Sutton and Brunswick.  How is the affordable housing problem?  Yet, we try to raise our children here, and we give the County $367,000,000 a year, and they don't fix shit?  How about the County and the state let us keep our tax money if you cannot fix anything?  Despite not fixing shit, the executives at the County will all be wealthy people when they retire.  Not comfortable or just able to make ends meet.  Wealthy.  Nobody should derive wealth off of the taxpayers.  It is frankly disgusting.  Our County's chief executive officer makes over $410,000 a year including salary and benefits.  How much do you make?  If you had as much "success" at your job, would you still have one?  

Until we start electing strong leaders who will get rid of these incompetent rubes, our friends will continue to abandon us.  Such is where we are.  We are here in this California because of our own choices.  We can make California great again, but we cannot keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result.  

On that note, all is not lost.  We live in a wonderful community that takes care of each other and loves each other.  If you ever need to be reminded of that, go to Hooper Stadium on Thanksgiving for Mike Bratton's Turkey Trot and feel the love.  Love that will bring tears to your eyes.  We have a wonderful community - a wonderful community that could do with a lot less ineffective government.

The Long Lines to Vote in Nevada County Today Are by Design

California's crazy election laws, and the County's liberal implementation of them, were enacted with the specific intent of decreasing the turnout of election day Republican voters and increasing the turnout of Democrats.  It is no accident.  The lines in Nevada County are no accident as well.  I do apologize to my liberal friends in advance, as what I am about to write will be highly critical of you and your laissez-faire attitude towards "democracy."  The fact is Republicans take voting very seriously and will actually go to the polls on election day to ensure the security of their own vote no matter what while most Democrats will be lazy and mail their ballots in and trust someone else with their "democracy."  

Voting is very serious business for a free people.  It is foundation of our entire constitutional system, and these crazy "mail in your vote laws" are an insult to a free people.  I am going to list some issues that the media tells you never happens, but you have already seen or heard with your own eyes and with your own ears.  Random ballots coming to your house for people who have not lived there for two or three election cycles.  Ballots showing up for one election and then mysteriously they stop being mailed.  Boxes of uncounted ballots showing up in post office months or years after an election.  Complete and utter lack of any ability whatsoever to maintain chain of custody of any ballot.  Our election system is simply ridiculous and unacceptable for a free people.

I am just like you.  I want to know beyond a shred of a doubt that my voice was heard in an election. If my ballot was not counted for some reason, I would be mad as hell.  We do not mail ballots.  Our ballots are our only key to our democracy, and our votes are sacred and paid for by millions of Americans who died protecting this sacred right.  We refuse to cheapen this right and desecrate their memory by letting our ballots get out of our control.  Mailing your vote in is just plain lazy and disrespects our democracy.  That said, I must admit that, in the past, I was lazy with my democracy and mailed my ballot in.  I was wrong and was not taking democracy seriously.  Knowing what I know now, those days are over.  We need to wake up, or we will no longer have a democracy with such an insane system.

If you trust these crazy "mail in your vote laws," you likely need to read a book.  Humans are not angels.  If they were, we would not need any laws at all.  People will break rules to get what they want.  It is a fact of life and human nature.  Our election system does not take this into account at all.  We need single day voting and complete chain of custody of not just the voted ballots, but also for the unvoted ballots and spoiled ballots.  For instance, we printed 100,000 ballots.  Of those 100,000 ballots, 70,000 were voted, 10,000 were spoiled, and there are 20,000 left over.  In this stupid California system, ballots are just thrown to the wind for a month and printed all willy-nilly.  California has no idea who is casting any of these ballots.  Sure, they can match the ballot with a voter, but our "election professionals" have absolutely no proof that such voter cast a ballot when doing so by mail.  None.  

And this is why Republicans vote on game day.  The fact is Republicans, in general, are simply more serious than Democrats.  Sexualizing children in school is serious business and must be addressed.  Avoiding World War III is serious business.  Being able to afford feeding your family is serious business.  Elections are serious business.  Democrats are simply not a serious people, and this crazy election system created by Democrats is a prime example.  A vast majority of Republicans will vote in person.  If they receive a ballot by mail, they will not let anyone touch their ballot and will personally deliver it to the election office or to a vote center.  Our local system, and the long lines on election day, is designed specifically to create difficulties for Republican voters in order to drive down Republican turnout, and it is unacceptable.  That said, don't be discouraged.  Stay in line.  Getter done brothers and sisters!  Getter done, and we will turn this franchise around!

Editor's Note:  Solution?  Make election day a three-day weekend, national holiday and everyone has to go to the polls!

Fair Political Practices Commission Investigating Nevada County, Yes on V for Campaign Finance Violations

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."  In order to have such "consent of the governed" and as an American people, we demand fair and honest elections and campaigns, for true consent of the governed cannot be given if would-be politicians conduct their campaigns dishonestly and in violation of the laws established by the state legislature.  Always believing the best in people, we assume that our local officials are honest and play by the rules until proven otherwise.  The coordinated campaign by Nevada County and the proponents of Measure V clearly demonstrates the "otherwise."

While we have discussed the historical underpinnings of Nevada County's misuse of taxpayer dollars to send the electorate campaign mailers in support of Measure V here, it turns out that, indeed, the use of taxpayer dollars for campaign material is also illegal.  In fact, the Fair Political Practice Commission ("FPPC") is investigating both Nevada County and the political action committee supporting Measure V ("Yes on V") for violations of the California Fair Political Practices Act.

In short and in violation of the law, Nevada County has used taxpayer dollars to send mass mailers to the local electorate in support of Measure V, to air advertisements on the radio, and to place additional advertisements in local print media. In fact, the County and Yes on V are unethically (perhaps illegally) coordinating their efforts in support of Measure V.

In addition to these campaign violations by Nevada County, the proponents of Measure V and Nevada County have printed campaign material without proper disclosures.  The law requires political action committees to disclose on all campaign material the name of the committee who paid for the campaign material and their unique FPPC number.  Neither Nevada County nor Yes on V have complied with this statutory requirement.  In fact, both the County and Yes on V printed yard signs without these required disclosures.   An opponent complained to the enforcement agency, the FPPC, who is now investigating Nevada County and Yes on V for these campaign finance violations.  See letter from FPPC to the left.

On the very same day that the FPPC notified Nevada County and Yes on V that they are being investigated for campaign finance violations, Yes on V issued a press release falsely alleging that opponents of Measure V are stealing yard signs which support the measure and that the opposition to Measure V is racist.  Yep.  If you oppose the additional sales tax to the general fund effort known as Measure V, then you must not like people of color and are a racist.  Linking racism to an effort to oppose a sales tax clearly demonstrates the desperation of Yes on V.  They are losing.  They know that they are losing.  Desperate times call for desperate measures, so the hopeless scream racism about a sales tax measure.

As far as Yes on V's missing signs, we have far more important action items than stealing yard signs from the ill-informed.  Bless the hearts of those who blindly support the scam known as Measure V without understanding anything about the true nature of the measure and have a yard sign in their yard advertising their ignorance.  That said and if someone was stealing signs, shame on you for not respecting our electoral process.  Folks are free to express their support of or opposition to political matters, and it is not for others to infringe upon another's rights to free speech.  On the other hand, I have seen tons of Yes on V signs located not on someone's property but placed in the right of way on our local roads.  Supporters of Measure V have been placing yard signs on such right of way, because most of us know what Measure V is and would not put a sign in our yard in support of it.  When these signs are placed in the right of way, Caltrans regularly takes such signs down, because they are an obstruction.  Above is a picture of their signs at the Caltrans warehouse off LaBarr Meadows.  I would advise the Yes on V folks to head over to Caltrans in order to pick up their missing signs which were illegally placed on our local right of ways.

As has been proven again and again in connection with Measure V, neither Nevada County nor Yes on V has been honest in conducting their campaign in support of Measure V.  In fact, both Nevada County and Yes on V have coordinated their messaging and violated election and campaign finance laws repeatedly over the past months.  Like you, we stand proudly against an out-of-control local government and a campaign committee that both struggle to follow the law and to be honest with the voters.  Send a message to the County that we will not tolerate being lied to and will not be manipulated by the coordinated campaign of Nevada County and the proponents of Measure V.  Vote NO on V.

17th Century and Nevada County's Measure V Collide

What in the name of Hades does Measure V have to do with the 17th Century?  Well, it is the old English common law allowing members of the House of Commons to send correspondences without paying postage, I tell you. 

The U.S. Senate's website provides as follows:

Franking privileges—the ability to send mail by one's signature rather than by postage—date back to the seventeenth-century English House of Commons. The American Continental Congress adopted the practice in 1775 and the First Congress wrote it into law in 1789. In addition to senators and representatives, the president, cabinet secretaries, and certain executive branch officials also were granted the frank.  

Even though the title of the U.S. Senate's article is "Senate Ends Franked Mail Privilege," and as we have seen with Nevada County and Measure V, the title to the article on the Senate's website is highly misleading and does not match the text of the article.  In fact, at the end of the article, the Senate admits that, in 1891, "Congress restored full franking privileges. Since then, the franking of congressional mail has been subject to ongoing review and regulation."  Note the words "congressional" and "regulation."  "Congressional regulation" is also commonly known as "the fox guarding the hen house."  Next time you receive a mailer from an elected representative, double check the required disclosure on the mailer and determine who mailed it to you.  It will surprise you that, often times, the fluff mailer about your elected representative that you received in the mail came from your elected representative, but he used your tax dollars to send it to you instead of his campaign funds.  It is the privilege of incumbency.  Congress codified this self-serving use of taxpayer dollars in 39 U.S. Code sec. 3210 which provides, in part, as follows:

It is the intent of the Congress that mail matter which is frankable specifically includes...mail matter which constitutes or includes a biography or autobiography of any Member of, or Member-elect to, Congress or any biographical or autobiographical material concerning such Member or Member-elect or the spouse or other members of the family of such Member or Member-elect...

So, in short, Congress made it legal for a congressman to send mass mailings to you using your taxpayer dollars in order to provide you with a biography of his wife!  That is what congressional regulation looks like.  Sounds shady and self-serving, right?  It is shady and self-serving, but it is legal both federally and on a state level.  Elected representatives and government officials abuse this codified and very old common law privilege on the regular by using taxpayer dollars to pay postage for these mass mailers which tend to support an incumbent or support the government in general.  

Our ancestors, the progenitors of western freedoms, and in a time without telephones or the internet, understood that our representatives need to freely communicate with the electorate and other people by mail in the course of their representation.  The intent of the common law was not to self-servingly send out tens of thousands of mass mailers to voters on the back of the taxpayers, but rather to necessarily communicate as needed in the regular course of one's representation.  Fast forward to today, communicating with others in the regular course of one's representation is no longer a problem.  Just pick up the phone, send an email, or a text.  Yet unsurprisingly, we still have laws on the books that allow the abuse of the original intent of these laws for the benefit of the government winning elections and not for the general betterment of the people.  

Assuming that Nevada County sending out mass mailers in connection with an election is legal (not sure if it is), it is these very principles which Nevada County self-servingly violated when the County sent a mass mailer using taxpayer dollars to all of the registered voters of Nevada County "informing" them that Measure V is a wildfire prevention sales tax increase.  See mass mailer to the left.  Double check the mass mailer on the bottom right-hand corner and determine who mailed it to you.  The County of Nevada paid for that.

First of all, and as has been discussed here before, Measure V is not a wildfire mitigation sales tax as they pretend; it is, by the County's own admission, a general tax with which the County can do as it pleases.  As such, the County's mass mailer is highly misleading to the electorate and downright dishonest. Second, and relevant to our discussion herein, your Nevada County government (the Office of Emergency Services) spent your taxpayer dollars on a misleading mass mailer which misrepresents Measure V in order to self-servingly try to convince you to give Nevada County another $12 million to be deposited in the County's general fund.  Sounds shady and self-serving too, right?  That's because it is shady and self-serving.

When it comes to elections in this country, the will of the people rules.  The government which results from these elections should be as neutral as Switzerland and completely silent when it comes to the public debate.  The government should never take partisan positions, because they have no vote and no say in how the people decide to administer such government.  Yet as we have seen in Nevada County, time and again, whether it is recalls, election transparency, and Measure V, our local government is not only vocally taking partisan sides but using your taxpayer dollars to do it.  It is wrong and is a gross mismanagement of public funds to spend taxpayer dollars on partisan positions especially when the partisan positions are self-serving to the local government administrators themselves who wrongfully spent your money for their benefit.  Tell the Nevada County government that enough is enough.  Vote No on Measure V. 

Dude. What is going on?

Balancing work and family sometimes makes it difficult to sit down and write.  I write all day at work, and usually by the evening, I am all written out and headed to the gym or to play softball with my friends.  Lately and despite not writing too much, many of my friends have seen my name in the paper or on the radio and laughingly ask me, "Dude. What is going on?"  And my stock answer is "Dude. F___ those guys," and then we die laughing before I explain.  For those who know me well, I am one of the most calm and unshakable people out there.  There is freedom in only truly caring about that which is important and then letting the rest go.  Being the son of one of the biggest shit talkers on the south side of Chicago, what other people think does not bother me.  Go ahead, talk shit.  It motivates people like me.

In addition, you are instantly my friend until you are not by your choice and by your actions.  I believe that all people have an inherent value simply for being alive and always deserve respect until they have proven otherwise.  That said, I gravitate towards people who have sound moral foundations and are strong in their convictions.  Understanding that there is always a gray area around truth, I cannot tolerate outright dishonesty.  Outright dishonesty causes the loss of my respect almost instantly with little prayer of allowing myself to be fooled twice.  So then, the explanation to my friend's question becomes one of honesty.

After my first wife and I divorced in 2015 and because she works for Congressman McClintock, I removed myself from local politics in order to give her space in her world to heal.  We both needed it, and now things are very good.  Remarkably, my wife and my ex-wife celebrate Mother's Day together with all of our children.  My ex-wife is, in some respects, still a part of my life, and it works and is good.  So, when 2022 rolled around, I had not spoken to anyone in local politics aside from comments on blogs for nearly seven years and apparently most of these folks thought that we had moved back to Chicago.

Then at the beginning of 2022, the election office in Nevada County started playing politics with a group of citizens and with COVID, bullying them, and lying to the public about it.  I was given outrageous videos demonstrating how county elected officials and employees were treating its own citizens about whom the County was telling bald-faced lies.  I told all of my friends that helping these folks was a one-off, and I was going to finish my PhD when the mess was finished.  Inevitably, and after seeing firsthand the demeanor and foul character of some of the elected officials and employees, I went a little further and asked Gregory Diaz for a public election record - a copy of Natalie Adona's check indicating that she paid the filing fee for her candidacy for his office.  He straight up refused to give me a public record which he was legally required to disclose.  As I walked out of the election office and after being treated in the same bullying manner with which he treated his constituents in January earlier in the year and in my head, I said to myself, "F___ those guys."  Absent that moment, I would likely be enjoying my life working and studying history, as I had been.  The problem is that I cannot.  Our country is sick.  Our government does not seek the betterment of those whom they serve, but its own betterment.  Our government bullies and mistreats those whom they serve and lies about it.  At that moment on one hand, I was done, and on the other hand, I was just beginning.  So, I sued Gregory Diaz arguing that, if he did not give me the check, his chosen successor could not be on the ballot.  What happened in court?  Simple.  He coughed up the check, because it was required by law.

Nevada County's Measure V is a Scam with Revenue to be Used to Pay Pensions and Salaries

Proponents of Measure V, such as most of the Board of Supervisors, Terry McAteer, and Kit Elliott, county counsel for Nevada County, keep telling the public in the local media that Measure V is a sales tax increase in order to "prevent" wildfires, reduce brush countywide, improving evacuation routes, maintain defensible space, and "for general government use."  The only item above that is guaranteed to happen is that Nevada County will spend the revenue from Measure V "for general government use" including for pensions and staff salaries.  Don't believe me?  Let's look at rare moments of honesty from Nevada County in pleadings filed with the Nevada County Superior Court and the auditor's report.

In their Response to the Writ of Mandate on September 6, 2022, Nevada County argued to the Court that, despite touting in the local media that Measure V is a sales tax increase to be used to prevent wildfires (which is impossible), the county can literally spend the money on anything they desire.  "Here, Measure V is nothing like the tax in Monterey because there are no specific projects that are earmarked for the funds, and the County has discretion to use sales tax revenues to fund “general government services.”  See Response, 12:20-23.  "Measure V is similar to the tax considered in Mendocino because the future sales tax revenues are not earmarked, and can be used for any general county services..."  See Response, 13:4-6.  

Contrary to the misrepresentations to the media by Nevada County and by the proponents of Measure V, revenue from Measure V is not "earmarked" in any way.  The idea that Nevada County will only spend the revenue from Measure V on wildfire prevention is a farce.  It is one thing for the government to lie to the public and to the media, but it is entirely another thing to lie to the Court, hence, the rare moments of honesty from Nevada County.  Indeed, Nevada County will be spending the revenue generated from Measure V on (you guessed it) pensions and salaries for County staff.  Unlike the admissions in court pleadings, this undeniable truth can be found in the Nevada County auditor's fiscal impact statement of Measure V admitting that revenue generated from Measure V will be spent on pensions and staff salaries.

Don't be fooled by the rhetoric coming from Nevada County.  As Rahm Emanuel said in 2008, "never let a good crisis go to waste."  Nevada County seeks to, as found by the Nevada County Superior Court, "play upon the heart strings of the public” in an effort to pass the general fund tax measure.  In addition, the Court also found that the County is counting on higher-than-expected inflation in order to generate even more revenue from local taxpayers creating an even higher tax burden on our local residents.  So, Nevada County is "play upon the heart strings of the public” in order to take advantage of the crisis related to wildfires and also capitalizing on the national inflation crisis to generate more revenue for pensions and administrative salaries.

Based upon the Court’s ruling and the County’s admission during the litigation and the auditor's report, it is clear that Measure V is a scam upon the taxpayers.  Don't be fooled by the rhetoric, because none of it is true.  Vote NO on Measure V.

Adona Violates Fair Political Practices Act by Failing to File Timely Reports

For the 2022 primary election and between March 9 and June 7, candidates are required to file FPPC Form 497 with the Nevada County Election when the candidate receives $1,000 or more from any one source and must do so within 24 hours of receipt. On February 27, 2022, Adona received $1,000 from Nelson Minar, a well-known local partisan woke progressive Democrat.  Adona failed to report until April 28, 2022 - two months later. Natalie Adona, who we are told has the requisite experience to administer the election office, failed to file this required form.  This failure is in addition to using Nevada County residents' taxpayer money to pay for her political advertisements in The Union.

The truth of the matter which we have demonstrated herein repeatedly is that Adona does not have the experience that she pretends too.  It is all a lie and disinformation designed to win an election.  Don't be fooled by this DC partisan insider trying to come to Nevada County and run our elections.  We don't need DC politics in Nevada County.

Jason Tedder for Nevada County Clerk- Recorder

Nevada County Election Office Ballot Fiasco - Email to Us Any Issues with Your Ballots for Us to Investigate and Document

Another election and more random ballots flying around.  As many of you know, my mother-in-law has Alzheimer's disease and has been getting progressively worse over time.  Most of you have met her and have seen her bright, joyous smile and have experienced the often time randomness of her thoughts and her confusion related to the most mundane items.

Before she got really bad, she lived on Annex Avenue in Grass Valley but has not lived there since 2016.  From Annex Avenue, she moved to live in Penn Valley with us.  In June 2020, she moved to a facility and then came back to live with us again in December 2020.  We definitely received her ballot for the presidential primary in April 2020, and I am pretty sure that she voted.  By the time the presidential election rolled around in November of 2020, she could not use a remote for a TV and could no longer even answer the telephone, as she could not figure out which buttons to push.  Consequently, and despite receiving a ballot at our residence in Penn Valley, she did not vote in the 2020 presidential election.  During the recall in the fall of 2021, her ballot never came to our house.  Last week, my wife got a text that my mother-in-law's ballot for this cycle was in the mail.  So, we went online to find out where it was going because it never arrived last time.

According to records from the Nevada County Election Office, my mother-in-law's ballot was mailed to her old Annex address.  She has not lived there for at least five years.  After she moved from Annex, her ballots were coming to our house in Penn Valley, but now the ballots are going back to Annex.  The Nevada County Election Office states (and provided documents) that my elderly mother-in-law, who cannot use a remote control or a landline telephone, re-registered online or through the DMV on May 16, 2021.  Well, May 16, 2021, was a Sunday, and my mother-in-law had no interaction with DMV until October of 2021 when my wife took her to renew her identification.  There is absolutely no way that she could have registered online.  By May of 2021, she could not remember her middle name and was driving me crazy every time the TV would turn off, because she watched too many episodes of Law and Order SVU and could not figure out how to turn it back on.

In conclusion, the Nevada County Election Office has no idea where many of these ballots are going and who will be receiving them.  Clearly, the voter registration system is broken.  We need your help.

If you have any issues or know of any issues related to the mailing and receipt of ballots, please email me at barry@barrypruett.com, so that we can investigate in an effort to resolve these issues.  It is absolutely ridiculous that this type of incompetence is happening in our county and in our state.  We can fix these problems together, and I look forward to speaking with you.

Enforcement Policies of Nevada County Mask Mandates Need to be Clarified

Last night, we watched the Los Angeles Rams defeat the San Francisco Forty-Niners in the NFC Championship game played at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California.  Currently, California is under an executive order signed by Gavin Newsom requiring citizens to wear a mask in all public areas.  To the left is a maskless governor with an already ill and maskless Magic Johnson in a public place (yet again) violating his own mask order.

Twitter @MagicJohnson

At this point the mask mandates, and those who enact or support them, are just silly.  Nobody is following these ridiculous orders, not even the governor who signed the executive order.  Further, neither the state nor Nevada County has an articulated enforcement mechanism at all.  Finally, and based upon these haphazard policies, the Nevada County election office has resorted to enforcement by physical force.  In fact, when asked Gavin Newsom was asked by media about enforcement of his mandate, he responded that he had “faith” in residents to follow the dictate. The lack of enforcement policies is inexcusable and leading to little government dictators changing policy on a whim thus leading to physical harm of constituents.

It is time for the Nevada County supervisors to lead on this issue.  They need to make clear what their enforcement policies.  If the supervisors value liberty, they would enforce the governor's mask mandate in the same manner which he enforces it.  We trust our fellow man to do the right thing.  I frankly rarely agree with Gavin Newsom on any topic, but in this instance, I agree with him whole-heartedly.   As Newsom has made clear, he has purposefully executed an emergency mask mandate with no enforcement mechanism and has commented to the media that we should trust our fellow man to do the right thing.  Regardless of the efficacy of masks and, for argument purposes, conceding that they are 100% effective in preventing infection, it is about a mandate which dictates to the public rather than the request which the governor has plainly made. 

At this time, the Nevada County supervisors need to lead.  Sue Hoek, as chairman of the board of supervisors, should direct staff to draft a resolution indicating that the county will follow our governor's lead and simply ask our local citizens to wear a mask in the county office.  While the supervisors may think that they work for the staff at the county, that fact of the matter is that staff works for the supervisors who work for the people.  If staff refuses to draft the resolution in the manner dictated by Sue Hoek, a template can be provided to her by a number of citizen groups who are sick of these mandates, and she can put it on the agenda.  That is her job.

As discussed in yesterday's post (and I know Sue Hoek agrees with this axiom because she is a strong, patriotic, freedom-loving woman), we are constantly on a journey from ancient authoritarianism towards true freedom and liberty.  Sometimes while on this journey, we as a society take two steps forward (the Declaration of Independence) and then take one step back (Dredd Scott).  In order for freedom and liberty to succeed, all of our collective steps must always be forward and towards freedom and liberty.  Any government mandate is a step backward towards ancient authoritarianism and away from our American way.  If we are a people that value freedom and liberty, and as Gavin Newsom said, we have to trust our fellow man to do the right thing, and the Nevada County supervisors should do the same thing and tell the county citizens that the county will not be enforcing these silly mask mandates and tell the public that they trust them to do the right thing for their neighbors.

Nevada County Elections Office Has Gone COVID Crazy

Today, The Union reported on the "altercation" at the Nevada County Elections office on January 20, 2022. To summarize the article, the proponents of a recall of our five county supervisors allegedly forced their way into the election office when confronted with the new election office mask mandate.  Below is the reaction (from January 19, 2022) of the politician who is currently running to be the head of our county election department when the recall proponents entered the election office. Her reaction is not entirely professional given the demeanor of the proponents and the fact that the sheriff's office did nothing for reasons to be discussed below.  

In a glaring omission, what the article wholly fails to mention is that the proponents want to recall the supervisors related to the county's COVID policies about which the paper has previously reported here and here.  All of these people are actually fighting about COVID mandates. Given the facts as presented to us by the CDC over the past two years, these COVID mandates are getting a little out of hand, and folks are arguably tired of COVID policies which have lost almost all support.

I spoke with a law enforcement individual today, and his response was that, clearly, the reaction by this politician was not her finest moment and that she clearly could use some additional skills in dealing with people.  I am informed that, in a private setting and if asked to leave an establishment, an individual can be cited for trespass.  This policy makes sense, as individual businesses choose whom they serve, as is their right.  On the other hand, law enforcement does not have the ability to enforce a mask mandate in a public building to which constituents have a right to enter.  This axiom is especially true for an election office which must transparently, and without bias, conduct this recall whether the government disagrees with the proponents or not.  There was also some discussion of the politicians politicizing COVID and politicizing the election office.  

It is understandable that folks are getting tired of these dictatorial mandates. First, the CDC told us not wear a mask (even an N-95), because they are not effective in preventing the spread of COVID.  Then, they told us to wear three masks.  Then Fauci told everyone that, if you are fully vaccinated, you do not need to wear a mask.  Now, we are back to mask mandates despite the vast majority of people being vaccinated or having had COVID.  Based upon these instructions and countless other misguided instructions over the past two years, we all have whiplash and, consequently, trust the government a lot less.

Let's review what we have learned during and from COVID.  The COVID vaccines, which California intends to mandate all children to be vaccinated for school, do not stop the spread of COVID.  We do not need the CDC to tell anyone this simple fact, as we have eyes.  Many of our friends and neighbors, both unvaccinated and triple boosted, are coming down with COVID.  The fact of the matter is COVID is here to stay regardless of your mask mandate or your vaccine mandate.  After two years, it is high time to start living with it.

Such sentiment brings us back to the election office.  These politicians have a balancing act for sure.  They must balance their duty as public servants but also protect their potentially vulnerable staff.  I would bet my house that both politicians in our election office and most of the staff are vaccinated, so why freak out?  Politics.  One politician is running for office and the other is trying desperately to get his heir-apparent elected, so create a scene and get some free press (i.e., politicize the election office) and demonize your own constituents.  Some heavy-handed politics, for sure.  In addition, and during the middle of our local election season, the politician in the video above admits that her boss (the head of our election office) was "out of the country" on Thursday.  If these two politicians are so concerned about their staff getting COVID and so concerned about the public, I would think that they would be responsible enough to not get on an airplane and travel abroad before potentially bringing back COVID to their office and infecting the entire staff before the busiest time of their public service - the 2022 primary election.  In fact, this type of hypocrisy is what is really frosting a lot of folks and driving them to resist these hypocritical government mandates.

Here is a news flash to Nevada County...we are all going to get COVID, and the arbitrary mandates are not going to stop that commonsense realization.

These dictatorial mandates are simply getting old and tiresome, and they clearly do not work.  It is commonsense.  Simply listen to the ever-changing guidance from the CDC over the past two years.  Listen to the scientific debates going on in the real-scientific world and not what Pfizer is telling you.  We are in a new normal, so it is high time to stop the crazy and get back to living and breathing and working.  It is also time for our local election office to get back to work and stop the nonesense.

Bad Election Policy Coming from the Nevada County Election Office and Washington DC

At this moment, the US Senate is embroiled over the "Freedom to Vote Act." Democrats are even threatening the nuke the filibuster in order to entirely revamp the national and state election systems on a partisan, party-line vote. Some pretty heavy-handed politics for sure. The question becomes why. Democrats say that they need to expand voting access. One of our candidates, who recently moved to Nevada County from Washington DC and is running to head our local Nevada County election office, vehemently supports the policies as outlined in the "Freedom to Vote Act." I believe that any rational American agrees with expanding voting access and making it easy for legally registered voters to vote. That said, and in expanding voting access as outlined in the "Freedom to Vote Act," partisan politicians, including our local candidate, support election policy which sacrifices election security for easy voting and is ultimately very dangerous to our democracy. Allow me to explain is more detail.

We are a republic and elect leaders who we think will implement good policy which creates a healthy democracy. While experience in running elections is desirable, electing an election official who supports good and sound election policy is paramount. It is paramount, because the health and vibrance of our democracy foundationally depends upon the legitimacy of our elections. There can never be a shred of doubt as to who won an election. If there is any doubt in the legitimacy of an elected official, the very foundation of our democracy is seriously damaged.

Look no further to the actions of certain presidential candidates who point to their opponents' illegitimacy. The Washington Post wrote, "Al Gore conceded after the Supreme Court curtailed his legal efforts to count more ballots in Florida, but many Democrats continued to view Bush as an accidental, if not illegitimate, president." Hillary Clinton, who handily lost the 2016 presidential election, called the winner, Donald J. Trump, an "illegitimate president." In lieu of posting a link to the millions of times which Trump has opined on the 2020 election, there is no doubt that Trump and over a third of Americans, question the legitimacy of Joe Biden. And presently, Joe Biden is calling into question the 2022 elections which has not even happened yet. As a side note, the legacy media seem to believe that somehow Gore's, Clinton's, and Biden's questioning the legitimacy of elections is okay, but when Trump questions the legitimacy of elections, then (and only then) our democracy is imperiled, and the world is about to end, but I digress.

"Nevada County Ballots and Sample Booklets - What really happened?" - Yubanet

Pascale Fusshoeller, YubaNet, wrote this balanced article today. I was going to write something about the inconsistencies among statements to the Court during the Measure S hearings and statements to the public in connection with multiple delays in getting voting information to folks. That said, Pascale says it better than I would have and in less time!

"A news release, sent late this afternoon by Nevada County's Clerk-Recorder appears to contain several inaccuracies and statements contradicting earlier explanations, possibly even omissions in declarations made to the court. At issue is the delay in mailing the vote by mail ballots and the sample ballot booklets for the November 4th election."

This rest of this fair and balanced article on Yubanet is here.

This morning, The Union also did a balanced article on the election debacle.

"'I’m very concerned about the integrity of the voting process,' Lamphier said in a statement issued Monday. 'People need to have confidence in government and this kind of thing hurts us all. Candidates spend thousands of dollars to have a timely official candidacy statement before the voters to help them make informed choices before they vote,' he added."

 

"'There is also the issue of candidate mailers sent to voters to coincide with ballot mailings,' he said. 'These also cost thousands of dollars. With local elections often very close, these kinds of mistakes can make all the difference in who gets elected or how people vote on ballot measures,' Lamphier said.'"

 

The rest of the article in The Union is here.

 

Sample Ballot Complaint Filed Against Gregory Diaz in 2014 Primary Election

Once again, Nevada County has finished an election, and once again, the election code is violated.

"[W]e have confirmed reports of voters in Nevada County that the ballot order on precinct ballots for a number of offices, including federal/state/local offices, differ from the ballot order for these offices in the sample ballots issued by your office to voters. We have confirmed these discrepancies in over a dozen precincts. Your office confirmed this was a problem in 27 precincts (These precinct numbers are on Attachment A under BT8). The County stated they had not had an opportunity to check if other precincts were experiencing this same problem. Observed variations include at least one or more offices on regular precinct ballots provided to voters in these precincts. Your office has acknowledged these discrepancies."

"The discrepancies violate Elections Code section 13112 which specifies that the ballot order shall be determined by the random selection process provided in that statute. These discrepancies may affect the outcomes of races in which the ballot order discrepancies have occurred."

The entire complaint can be read on Yubanet. In his response to the complaint and while being interviewed by KNCO, Gregory Diaz reluctantly admits that "there is a possibility that some people could have mis-voted."

The trials and tribulations of the elections office under the absent leadership of Greg Diaz has been widely documented by respectable media sources in the community including here.

The saga that is Gregory Diaz continues...

Huge Night for Republicans in Nevada County

Aside from the over 6,000 ballots not being printed correctly and several electronic voting machines not working (again), the primary election was uneventful.

In Supervisor District 4, Republican Hank Weston received over 60% of the vote in a rout of his Democrat challenger.

In Supervisor District 3, Republican Dan Miller knocked off a Democrat incumbent by over seven points.

In what turned out to be the most disgusting and dishonest local campaign in recent years, Cliff Newell (who was endorsed by the Nevada County Republican Party) disposed of his dishonest challenger by double digits.

In the Superintendent of Schools race and only starting his campaign in March, Paul Haas (who was also endorsed by the Nevada County Republican Party) made an incredible showing against the incumbent.

In the race for Superior Court Judge, Republican endorsed candidates garnered over 50% of the vote in the crowded five-person race. Anna Ferguson (the Republican endorsed candidate) cruised through to November.

In the assembly race, Republican Brian Dahle received nearly 70% of the vote.

In the congressional races, both Doug LaMalfa and Tom McClintock crusied to victory with well over 50% of the vote in the crowded fields.

Considering the wide margins of the victors, and absent some huge mistake by the elections official or some type of voter fraud, the likelihood that these preliminary results will change after further counting is slim to none.

Kudos to the Nevada County Republican Party for supporting our local candidates and getting out the vote. I have to say today is a good day.

Can Someone not Registered to Vote in Nevada County be Elected to Superior Court Judge in Nevada County?

Within the last few weeks, I have been fielding a bunch of phone calls as to whether or not the elections office ever should have issued nomination papers to judicial candidates that do not live in Nevada County and as to whether or not they are eligible to be elected superior court judge during the June 2014 primary election. 

Cal. Const., art. VI, § 15, provides as follows:

"A person is ineligible to be a judge of a court of record unless for 10 years immediately preceding selection, the person has been a member of the State Bar or served as a judge of a court of record in this State."

At the same time, Cal. Elec. Code § 201, provides as follows:

"Unless otherwise specifically provided, no person is eligible to be elected or appointed to an elective office unless that person is a registered voter and otherwise qualified to vote for that office at the time that nomination papers are issued to the person or at the time of the person's appointment."

Some county election officials in their candidate handbook state that the candidate for judge must be eligible to vote for in that county while others state that the judicial candidate simply has to have practiced law in California for 10 years. So which is it?

Contrary to popular belief, there is no county residency requirement for superior court judges.

"[W]here the constitution prescribes the qualifications for state office, the legislature can neither add to, nor detract from, the qualifications so prescribed."   Wallace v. Superior Court (1956) 141 Cal. App. 2d 771, 776.

Where the California Constitution provides solely that no person could be eligible to the office of judge a superior court unless he had been admitted to practice before the California Supreme Court, the reviewing court held that the Constitution by its language had provided the exclusive qualification for the office and that the Legislature had no power to adopt a statute which required a judge of the superior court to have certain residence requirements.  Wallace v. Superior Court (1956) 141 Cal. App. 2d 771.

So in conclusion while some candidates for superior court judge are not registered voters in Nevada County, the California Constitution makes such candidates eligible to run for judge in any county.

Diaz (quietly) admits his reading of election code was wrong - George Boardman [updated January 21,2013]

UPDATE: Dutifully, our local leftwing blogger comes to the defense of his dearest friend. Jeff Pelline points out that Diaz does have an excuse for his mistake. Pelline and Diaz point out that defending Diaz's wrongful interpretation of the law will cost taxpayers unnecessary dollars in legal fees. First, spending taxpayers' dollars (to the tune of nearly $3 million) did not cross either of their minds in 2010-2011 during the AtPac lawsuit. Second, I challenge both Pelline and Diaz to point to a single county in the great state of California that shares their wrongful interpretation of the election law. In response to this challenge, we will hear crickets from the peanut gallery, because that single county does not exist. The take away here is that Diaz was wrong and spinning the story (again) and Pelline is dutifully defending his favorite elected official with flowering rhetoric (again).

"County Clerk Recorder Gregory Diaz, who likes to issue mind-numbing press releases that promote the competence of his office, has quietly admitted that his novel interpretation of a section of the election code was wrong."

"Diaz sent a certified letter to Patricia Smith, chair of Americans for Safe Access Nevada County, conceding he was wrong when he told the group it needed 9,923 valid signatures instead of 9,131 to qualify a medical marijuana initiative for the ballot."

"The information was buried in a press release from ASA-NC announcing its first meeting of the new year. “Now that we have excluded the over and under votes to calculate the number of signatures we needed, I am certain our initiative will pass,” Smith said in the press release."

The rest of the article is here.

Pot supporters v. Gregory Diaz - What is really going on?

Lately, I have been reading about the dust-up between the Americans For Safe Access - Nevada County ("ASA-NC") and Gregory Diaz in connection with the number of voter signatures required to approve a ballot intiative in California. ASA-NC contends that pursuant to the election code they need to collect 9,131 signatures, but Gregory Diaz asserts that they need 9,923 signatures. Who is right, and what is the big deal?

Let's take a look at the elections code.

Cal. Elec. Code sec. 9107 provides as follows:

"The county elections official shall ascertain the number of signatures required to sign the petition by obtaining the number of votes cast within the county for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election preceding the publication of the notice of intention to circulate the initiative petition." [Emphasis added.]

Based on the California law, ASA-NC needs 20% of that number of votes cast for all candidates for Governor in the last race.

According to the records of the Nevada County Elections office and in 2010 (the last gubernatorial election), the number of votes cast for all candidates for governor was 45,657. Therefore clearly, ASA-NC needs signatures representing 20% of 45,657 which is 9,131.

Now, this is where things get weird and in fact downright dumb.

Gregory Diaz, the elections offical, states that ASA-NC needs to obtain signatures representing 20% of all votes cast for all candidates for Governor in 2010 PLUS signatures representing 20% of all votes not cast for any candidate for Governor in 2010. It is so clear and obvious that this interpretation is mistaken and erronoeous that there has to be something deeper at play. Thankfully, The Union is also onto this erroneous interpretation as is seen here and here.

So what is going on? Well, this erroneous interpretation is directly attributable to a mistake made by Gregory Diaz in 2011 in connection with the judicial recall petitions as discussed here.

The number of signatures required, which the county elections office provided, was inaccurate. The recall of trial court judges is specifically provided for in Article II of the California Constitution.

Subdivision (b), section 14 of Article II provides that the signatures required for recall of a trial court judge would be 20% of the number of votes for that judge in the most recent general election. When the judge runs unopposed and therefore does not have her name on the ballot [Cal. Elec. Code § 8203(a) and as happened in Nevada County], the amount of signatures must be 20% of the votes cast within that judicial jurisdiction for the countywide office which had the least number of votes in the most recent general election [Cal. Elec. Code § 11221(c)(1)]. The only countywide office in the most recent general election was the office of Treasurer/Tax Collector in 2010. The total number of votes cast for that office was 38,354.

So the required number of signatures for the judicial recall should have been 7,671, which is 20% of 38,354.

However, the number of signatures needed to recall the judges, as provided by Gregory Diaz, was 9,927. So, what gives?

If Gregory Diaz always counts "under votes" (votes not cast for any candidate and in contravention to California law) in his calculations, the required number of signatures to approve the recall would have been 20% of the votes cast for treasurer in 2010 (38,354) PLUS the number of votes not cast for either candidates for treasurer in 2010 (11,270). Based on math, 20% of 49,624 is 9,925. There is a difference of two - but why - after all it is math and math does not lie. There were only 7 "over votes" (voters that voted for both candidates) which (as usual) equals only 0.01% of the total vote.

This number provided by Gregory Diaz was 9,927 which just so happens to be exactly and precisely 20% of the total votes cast in November 2010, and there is the mistake. Gregory Diaz failed to apply the law correctly in 2011 in connection with the number of signatures required for judicial recalls, and he is covering for it now with an absurd interpretation of California law much to the detriment of ASA-NC.

In the 2010 gubernatorial election, there were only 14 "over votes" which (as usual) represented only 0.03% of the total votes cast. When we are dealing with hundreds of a percent, it is easy to hide your mistakes to the layman, but for someone with experience in election law that can add it is not difficult to figure it out.

If the legislature intended recall petition and ballot intiatives to be qualified by a percentage of votes for an officeholder PLUS all of the under votes for such office, then the legislature would have just made qualification based upon the total number of votes cast in any given election, because the number of "over votes" rarely exceeds 0.05% of the total vote in a given election.

The long and the short of it is this...nothing will ever come of it.

Regardless and whether or not correct, Gregory Diaz will accept and certify the number of signatures submitted by ASA-NC in an amount exceeding his stated requirement of 9,923 signatures. Gregory Diaz will allow the pot initiative to go on the ballot in order to avoid litigating the issue over the amount of signatures required to qualify the initiative.

The only way the signature issue is dealt with correctly and legally is if someone challenges ASA-NC's petitions and the final number of qualified signatures lands directly between 9,131 and 9,923.

It is a safe bet for Diaz to cover his "you know what" knowing that the likelihood of someone challenging the petitions is slim and knowing that if a challenge does happen the result will likely not end up between 9,131 and 9,923. At this point, the whole analysis is academic, and the truth will never see the light of day. As always, so goes the affairs in the Nevada County Elections office..."Like sands through the hourglass, so are the Days of our Lives."

Editor's Note: NEITHER A SINGLE COUNTY NOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTS VOTERS THE WAY DIAZ IS ADVOCATING. The California Secretary of State follows California election law and does not count under votes when calculating the required number of signatures for a ballot initiative. In 2010, the total number of votes cast for all candidates for Governor was 10,095,185 (not counting under votes). California law requires that proponents of a statewide initiative petition need 5% of the number of votes cast within the state for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election. Using these numbers, 5% of 10,095,185 is 504,760.

Guess how many signatures are required by the California Secretary of State to qualify a statewide ballot initiative? Why it is 504,760.

Orange County had 879,937 votes cast for governor in 2010. Orange County requires 20% of 879,937 to qualify a ballot initiative as seen here.

Los Angeles County had 1,971,076 votes cast for governor in 2006. Los Angeles County required 20% of 1,971,076 to qualify a ballot initiative as seen here.

Math is amazing, isn't it? It always tells the truth.

Dead Voters in Nevada County

Through some local volunteers making phone calls to local registered voters, they discovered a substantial number of deceased individuals who were still on the Nevada County voter rolls. This occurrence gave them great concern, so they contacted me in order to do an analysis of the current Nevada County voter rolls in order to ascertain whether those deceased individuals were still registered and voting.

They obtained a voter roll dated August 15, 2012, from the Nevada County Elections office. We compared the oldest 400 voters with the social security death index, and then verified the results that we could by getting some of the death certificates from the Nevada County Recorder's office and other research. In Nevada County, California, the recorder (custodian of death certificates) is also the registrar of voters. The research was done by one person checking one person at a time and took 10 hours. It is possible to check the entire list automatically against the social security death index, but it costs about $600. Personally, I did not want to pay $600 to search the whole list.

What we discovered is as follows:

1. Out of the 400 oldest voters in Nevada County (we have about 60,000 registered voters in our small county), we found 31 deceased registered voters who died between 2001 and 2012.

2. Out of those 31 deceased registered voters, there were 15 permanent absentees deceased voters (vote by mail).

3. Also out of the 31 deceased registered voters and according to Nevada County records, we found two of those 31 who actually voted after they died – one decedent (who died on November 19, 2005) voted twice by absentee (2008 primary & 2009 special election) and one decedent (who died on April 5, 2007) voted in person in the most recent primary election (2012).

It is my understanding that our local officials do not deny that these 31 deceased people were on the voter rolls as of August 15, 2012. It is my understanding that our local officials deny that someone cast a ballot in person for one decedent. They stated that it was some sort of bar code error, but they have provided no evidence. They do not know how the other decedent cast a mail ballot in 2008 & 2009 or why he was still receiving one.

Because a mail ballot was received and cast for a deceased individual, this instance demonstrates a lack of proper oversight in comparing signatures of the actual voters to the signatures on the registration cards. Apparently, the county's electronic signature scanner does not work as well as they assert. How could the signature of the deceased individual possibly match the one on the ballot which was cast?

Bottom Line: We have potentially hundreds of deceased individuals on our voter rolls locally, and thousands of deceased individuals on our voter rolls statewide.

First, the policy in the Nevada County elections office needs to change. If from my home computer and with limited resources, I can do an accurate analysis, why is not being done by the registrar of voters?

Second, there are multiple reports of individuals not receiving mail ballots and one report of an individual receiving two mail ballots. Why are live people not receiving ballots, but deceased individuals are?

The foundation of American democracy is founded upon fair and accurate elections. Election Day is a very special day - we are all equal. A single ballot does not know race, gender, age, or nationality. One person - one vote is the definition of equality. If we are having dead people casting votes in Nevada County, we have a problem that goes to the very foundation of our system.

Effort to Recall Local Judge- Just the Facts Ma'am

In an email, the recall proponents have pointed out a couple of inaccuracies in the information that has been provided both to The Union and to the recall proponents by retired judges and two clerk-recorders.

First, the amount of signatures required, which the county elections office provided, is inaccurate. The recall of trial court judges is specifically provided for in Article II of the California Constitution.

Subdivision (b), section 14 of Article II provides that the signatures required for recall of a trial court judge would be 20% of the number of votes for that judge in the most recent general election. When the judge runs unopposed and therefore does not have his/her name on the ballot [Cal. Elec. Code § 8203(a)], the amount of signatures must be 20% of the votes cast within that judicial jurisdiction for the countywide office which had the least number of votes in the most recent general election [Cal. Elec. Code § 11221(c)(1)]. The only countywide office in the most recent general election was the office of Treasurer/Tax Collector in 2010. The total number of votes cast for that office was 38,354.

So the required number of signatures for recall is 7,671, which is 20% of 38,354. This number is over 2,200 votes less than Gregory Diaz told the citizens for recall and The Union.

Although this section of the Constitution defers to any local rule that might differ, but there is no such local rule.

Secondly, Mr. Bollinger (a former clerk-recorder) did not remember correctly from the previous recall.

There is a memorandum from county counsel to Mr. Bollinger which states that a replacement for a recalled trial judge is elected.

A link to the memorandum is here. I have no idea how the memorandum ended up on Humboldt County's website...that could be an interesting story.

Especially in the case of elections, it is important that the facts get out to the electorate in an accurate fashion. Hopefully, our local electeds (former and current) make a better effort to get the facts straight before attempting to influence public opinion.

Incidentally, an exhaustive recall guide is found in Humboldt County here.