September 28, 2011 – Daily Brief

First thought when I saw that sign yesterday was prank. Then religious cult freakiness. Then meth. Then prop for local movie filming. Then batsh*t crazy. Then Wayside. Then Cal Arts. Then delusional Wal Mart shopper. Then promotion for some new energy drink. Then back to prank. I think in the next 24 hours the truth will be revealed, and I sincerely hope it is a sincere sign and not some sort of marketing.

Was it really that slow of a news day that they have to cover a homemade sign with no information about it or why it exists? This is complete reporting?

I think it’s funny they cover this, like when they did the profile on the guy with the eyebrows that everyone sees around town. Also liked the profile on the guy that stands at Bouquet Juntion with the U Need Jesus signs. They’re a somewhat small town paper and it’s interesting to see these things once in a while.

What happened on this last night: “As they await the results of a lawsuit over redevelopment agencies across the state, Santa Clarita officials will vote tonight on whether to opt into a new voluntary agency.” (Signal, 9/27)

IHeart Where are You? Without IHeart’s pithy commentary it looks like the “kids” in City management got by with a stern warning from Dad (Bob Kellar) that it would let it slide this time but in future there would be consequences for LMD shenanigans. Reminds me of the Brady Bunch “exact words” episode.

Additional Mystery: There is (or was as of last Friday) a printed sign at the T of McBean and Copperhill with an American flag background that said to “Vote for Abe, City Council Spring 2012.” What is (or was) that about?

I think IHeart should join the team.

Whoever entered my backyard the early morning of 11/27/2011 and flooded my side yard by turning on the water and putting the hose against the foundation is put on notice that Lucy is sleeping outside and is under strict orders to protect our private property. She has not been this excited since Prop 8.

In his Daily Brief, Jeff mentioned a Signal article concerning the 5 members of the Board of Supervisors districts as a result of the most recent census. http://www.the-signal.com/section/36/article/51832/ The Signal is not accepting comments on the article, and simply said that the basic Supervisorial District boundaries were not materially changed, and that Supervisor Gloria Molina voted against the plan. The reality is that the meeting was among the most tense in the recent history of the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Molina wanted to re-draw the Supervisorial District boundaries so that Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky’s district would become a district with a 48% Hispanic population. For those who don’t know, Supervisory Yaroslavsky has been very helpful to Santa Clarita in a large number of ways, in terms of helping find County funds to purchase open space between SCV and SFV. In a sense, Supervisor Yaroslavsky is Santa Clarita’s “second supervisor” in terms of reliably voting to help the community. For those who don’t know Supervisor Molina, she voted in favor of the Cemex Gravel Mine in Canyon Country, which is vehemently opposed by the City Council, the Sierra Club and all factions in between. Back in 2002, anti-Cemex Mine activists from Acton did extensive research on the sources of Supervisor Molina’s campaign contributions, and found that she had received substantial sums from Cemex and its executives before her vote on the mine. Yesterday, Supervisor Molina and Hispanic activists had bused in hundreds of Hispanic “voters”, so many that not only was the Supervisor’sl Chamber full, but the side meeting rooms were full and so were the hallways. Supervisor Molina’s crew were demanding that the second Hispanic Supervisorial District be created, and the usual threats were made to sue if they didn’t get their way. Supervisor Yaroslavsky also had a decent showing of voters from his existing district yesterday, who carried the message “leave our District alone”. There seemed to be an increased law enforcement presence in attendance at the Supervisors’ meeting. At their meeting the Board of Supervisors were unable accomplish anything much other than then 4-1 vote, denying Supervisor Molina and her supporters what they wanted. So now we’ll digress into the threat of litigation to invalidate the Supervisors’ vote, which had the effect of denying Hispanics the second Supervisorial District they wanted. I wrote most of the essay below, with respect to ongoing threats of “voting rights litigation” in another county, and wanted to share it with those who would like to know what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2009 on the very same types of demands which Supervisor Molina and company were making. While I may not always agree with the U.S. Supreme Court, it’s presumptuous for anyone to say that their rulings are not the “law of the land”. Even since the 2010 Census was complete, and redistricting began, I got very tired of journalists, redistricting consultants and self-proclaimed voting rights lawyers saying “The Voting Rights Act, in place to ensure minority populations aren’t unduly divided by district lines, takes precedence over local decision making.” Not anymore, at least outside the former Confederacy. In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision seminal Voting Rights Act decision in Bartlett v. Strickland. I have posted the link below. In the opinion Justice Kennedy states that the only circumstance where a minority group has a “right” to the creation of a custom tailored voting district is when the population of the district (as opposed to number of registered voters) is at least a 50% one minority population. 50% blacks, 50% Hispanics, 50% Native American, etc. The link to Bartlett v. Strickland opinion is at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4021888109176751340&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr In essence, Justice Kennedy says that if you don’t hit the 50% one-minority-population district, the Voting Rights Act does not entitle the minority to have a district tailored so that a member of their minority group will be elected. In the Bartlett v. Strickland case, which concerned drawing of lines for Virginia legislative districts, the black plaintiffs groups were arguing that they had a 35% black population in the district they wanted, and that other ethnic groups, specifically white Democrats, would lean towards voting for a black candidate to give the blacks in the proposed district what would amount to a lock on the district’s seat in the legislature. [So, in essence, Supervisor Molina's proposed second Hispanic Supervisorial District was 2% short on population. Also FYI the population numbers are calculated including children, "undocumented workers" and others not registered to vote.] The Bartlett v. Strickland opinion provides a powerful weapon in redistricting litigation, for those who feel their county or city or Congressional District was unfairly divided in order to gerrymander voting districts where minority candidates will always win. [The Bartlett v. Strickland opinion supports the L.A. County Board of Supervisors 4-1 decision not to created the second Hispanic dominated Supervisorial District Supervisor Molina and her supporters wanted.] The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bartlett v. Strickland is so clear, I have trouble believing that even the wackiest panel of U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will try to worm their way around it in any redistricting litigation. [This, perhaps, is why people like Supervisor Molina and her political advisors tried to muscle the Board of Supervisors with a lot of angry bodies this week. Way back in the late 1970's I saw a large Hispanic group try to muscle the Orange County Board of Supervisors into not closing some sort of health care facility used "by the community". Angry seat fillers didn't accomplish anything that time, either, but I had the pleasure of meeting a nice Orange County Sheriff's deputy who escorted me, and a few other people who were there on other agenda items, to safety, when it appeared that the crowd would riot in the Supervisors' chambers It was an event I'll never forget.] The continuing problem is that many “voting rights lawyers and redistrictring consultants”, who are used to making a lot of money under case law decided before Bartlett v. Strickland, are circulating disinformation throughout the country by appearing on local talk shows and at community meetings, still claiming that under the federal Voting Rights Act that voting district maps must be drawn to favor minority groups, even when they comprise less than 50% of the population of a district. I saw one such lawyer, a woman, public television this past week. Where the Voting Rights Act and “Undocumented Worker” Issues Collide: Just today, the U.S. District Court in Alabama refused to grant a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of most of the provisions in the most restrictive anti-illegal alien law passed by any modern legislature. That Federal judge’s rulings were 180 degrees different than the ruling of the U.S. District Court for Arizona judge’s ruling enjoining the enforcement of virtually all of Arizona’s new anti-illegal alien law. (That judge said there is no Federal law prohibiting “undocumented workers” from working in the U.S.A.] Interestingly enough, the Alabama law was couched in terms of protecting American jobs for American citizens. Quite obviously, within the next 10 years, state laws such as those in Arizona and Alabama are going to find their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and barring the replacement of one of the currently sitting justices, I think we are going to see another states’ rights decision with the tenor of Bartlett v. Strickland. The reason I connect the Bartlett v. Strickland decision, concerning the Voting Rights Act, with the various states attempts to regulate “undocumented workers” is that

Excuuuuuuse me ! Petz-his family-and his pets are recovering from the trauma of having their home attacked by enviro terrorists wasting my money and fresh water. The date was early AM 9/27/2011 about the time Tim Myers leaves for work.

Happy Rosh Hashanah to all celebrating!

For those of us who cannot get enough of “Complementary Angle”, she will be attending the SCV Patriots meeting on October 13, 2011. All citizens are invited and we just pass the hat at the end of the meeting to cover expense. Sharron is a brave woman who went up against the Reid Machine in Nevada and almost won. Election today, you would have a new senator. This would be a great evening to learn more about the Tea Party movement as we gear up for 2012.