10% of CD7 Voters Did Not Vote for a Council Candidate

An abstention can be a voter preference.

The official and final canvas of votes from March 5th's Los Angeles Primary Election is out. No surprises or major changes to the numbers reported from election night, but in dissecting the race from CD7 that covers the North San Fernando Valley as well as the Shadow Hills-Sunland-Tujunga area, I found something interesting in the numbers.

The total number of ballots cast in CD7 was 21,874. That's the number of people who actually showed up (or pulled an absentee ballot) and either mailed in their AV ballot or dropped a ballot into the box. However, if you add up the total votes for candidates Nicole Chase, Felipe Fuentes, Krystee Clark and David Barron you get a total of 19,291 votes. That means that about 2,500 voters in CD7 voted/turned in a ballot BUT they did not mark a preference for the CD7 Council Member on their ballot.

By contrast, adding up the total of all of the votes for the Mayoral candidates in CD7, you get 21,082 votes. That means about 100 people chose not to/failed to mark a choice for Mayor. That makes sense because typically participation falls off as you go further down the ballot. Voters usually know who is running at the top of the ballot (President/Governor/Mayor) but as you go further down the list, they have no idea who these candidate are.  Likely a fairly significant number of voters in CD7 (and remember, CD7 is big, not just ST) reached the City Council race on their ballot and went "Huh?"

Many of them, probably most of them picked the name they knew best - they got a mailer, a pot holder, saw a billboard, etc. if you asked them who they voted for or why, they may not honestly be able to tell you. A smaller group of the confused folks (in this case, a fairly significant number of about 10% of the CD voters) chose to not vote for ANY candidate. That could be for a number of reasons including a protest vote against ALL candidates but I'm going to posit the overwhelming bulk of those non-voters simply did not who the candidates were.

So, when you count the votes of those who actually indicated a preference for Council, a total of 19,921 votes, Fuentes' 9,912 votes represents 51.38% of the total vote (as shown on the final certified bulletin which I've attached the link below). Not a great showing for a candidate with his money, resources and experience but more than sufficient to be elected. Had Clark, Barron and Chase been able to pull any significant combination of those blank voters their way, there could very well likely have been a run-off, without even having had to flip a single Fuentes voters.

All points to how valuable decent get out the vote efforts are to a campaign that wants to win.

Politicians with Billboards?

When communities are fighting billboards do we want to vote for candidates who put them up?

Did Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes “rata” on Councilman Richard Alarcon?

Should have CD 2/7 Councilman Richard Alarcon been aware of Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes lurking behind his political backside?

Nothing like a little political speculation on a late Sunday evening, provided by a politically educated, anonymous poster.

I just heard an interesting tidbit that it was Fuentes who threw Alarcon under the bus. If RA is pushed out, Fuentes could run and possibly get his seat, finish out his term and still have twelve more years. In any case, it's a no win situation for CD7 and the rest of the city.

People who live in Shadow Hills, CD2, have said that RA and his family live there. He should have followed the rules or he wouldn't be in this mess. He was living there when Wendy last ran for CD 2 but he probably knew he couldn't beat her so he opted to run for the state instead. The opportunity to run for a third term came up with the passage of Prop R and when Padilla vacated his seat for the state. When he ran and won CD7 as a resident, he tried to negotiate with Greuel to give up CD 2 territory so that he would be legal before anyone discovered he didn't live in his CD 7 district.

I can't believe Panarama City and the rest of CD7 don't believe rules should be followed. This sets a bad precedent for everyone and not a good image for those who think it's ok to lie. What happened to honesty, accountability and transparency. No excuses or variances should be allowed that are against the law. What he did is against the law and unacceptable.

BTW, anyone who believes that the third term was wanted by councilmembers in order to do a better job is a fool. They wanted the third term in order to collect pensions from the city. They must do 10 years in order to get it and 2 terms is only 8 years. I'm not sure if Alarcon gets the pension because his terms were not consecutive, but the city pays much more than the state, which was a huge incentive for him to return when he had the opportunity. It's time we clean out the horseshoe and get honest leaders.

August 07, 2010 1:24 A

After all, it was the Daily News who recently editorialize Fuentes proclivities’s to advance the Special Interests monetary endeavors in Sacramento. Thus, could Fuentes be hording the favors of the Special Interests to spearhead his quest to become the next "Collectivist Overlord of CD 7"? Then lets not forget the other possible candidates as the Capital Weekly reports.

Your thoughts..............

Scott Johnson in CD 14

The Return of Zorro!

Councilman Richard Alarcon has probably been termed out of more offices than anyone in local politics  After eight years on the City Council Alarcon was elected to the State Senate after a bruising primary battle.  When he termed out there his City Council successor Alex Padilla was elected to his Senate seat and Alarcon got himself elected to the Assembly seat given up by Cindy Montanez who lost the primary battle to Padilla.  When LA voters approved the shady term limits extension Measure R, Alarcon got a bonus term on the City Council so he gave up his Assembly seat after one month to return to the City Council.  Then Felipe Fuentes won Alarcon's seat in a special election.

Now with Alarcon facing terming out again in 2011 Fuentes has his eye on Alarcon's seat.  Fuentes would be termed out himself in 2012 so he better get a jump on the next job move.  With his election to the Council in 2011 surely a special election will be called, Alarcon can serve out the rest of Fuentes' term and then be entitled to another three terms in the Assembly serving through 2019 when at the age of 65 he can find his next job or go on Social Security.

But back to the present. Alarcon can't count yet on Felipe winning his Clowncil seat but he can plan his 2012 Assembly Campaign and by golly he's done it! And to give him a big boost Beverly Hills developer Arturo Sneider has donated nearly $4K.  Sneider, who heads up Primestor Development is in the process of developing a major commercial property in Alarcon's Council District, Pacoima Commercial Center, which needs lot of City help and CRA work before Alarcon leaves the Clowncil in two years.

Of course the way you can put the kibosh on all of this is not to elect Fuentes to Clowncil, making him an Assembly lame duck and forcing Richard Alarcon to find another job.

Alarcon's CD 7: District of Haters?

 

Richard Alarcon's constituents voted overwhelmingly that little old lady lesbians like these can't get married.

 
The County of LA provides results on various election races by Council District within various cities.  I've pulled and recorded the votes for and against Proposition 8, the measure that bans same-sex marriage in California that has apparently passed with 52% of the vote statewide.

It appears that in most Council Districts the measure failed, hence supporting marriage equity, with the largest number of no votes in CD5.  On the other hand the measure passed in CDS 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 15 with Richard Alarcon's District 7 contributing a whopping 60% of yes votes to end the rights of gay families, a margin greater than that the statewide vote.