An investigative report released by District Attorney John
Sarsfield on Wednesday recommends criminal charges of six felony
and six misdemeanor counts against supervisor-elect Jaime De La
Cruz for allegations that he violated an array of Elections Code
laws in the District 5 race he won in March.
An investigative report released by District Attorney John Sarsfield on Wednesday recommends criminal charges of six felony and six misdemeanor counts against supervisor-elect Jaime De La Cruz for allegations that he violated an array of Elections Code laws in the District 5 race he won in March.
If indicted in a criminal grand jury proceedings planned for early June, De La Cruz would face a trial with penalties that could put him behind bars. Sanctions on each of the felony counts range from up to a $10,000 in fines or up to three years in prison.
The report also recommended five felony counts against De La Cruz’s campaign advisor, Ignacio Velazquez, for illegally returning absentees ballots to the Elections Office and allegedly coercing a voter.
The investigation by Santa Cruz District Attorney’s Office inspector Aaron Tripp turned up several witnesses corroborating complaints that the De La Cruz camp manipulated votes and illegally returned absentee ballots, according to the report.
Four voters claimed that De La Cruz came to their homes and retrieved their absentee ballots, according to the report. One woman told the inspector that De La Cruz and Velazquez drove her to a polling place and, on the way, coerced her to vote for De La Cruz. Another woman claims she saw De La Cruz electioneering outside a polling place.
Velazquez called the investigation a “witch hunt,” and said District Attorney John Sarsfield – who enlisted Tripp’s services at no cost – “is just trying to keep the supervisors happy.”
“I just think this should never have gone this far,” Velazquez said Wednesday. “The supervisors are trying to change the election.”
The laundry list of potential criminal charges were released more than a month after the Board of Supervisors commissioned the investigation. The probe stemmed from complaints received by San Benito County District Attorney’s Office. It has coincided with a civil lawsuit filed by incumbent Bob Cruz’s wife, who is making many of the same allegations. Sarsfield declined to comment on specifics of the investigation because it is ongoing. Tripp has some “loose ends” to tie up, and the grand jury proceedings are technically part of the investigation, he said.
Cruz held a 25-vote lead over De La Cruz after Election Day, which was March 2. But after the final 201 absentee ballots were counted March 8, De La Cruz overtook his opponent by 10 votes. Soon after, speculation arose about his campaign’s alleged actions.
De La Cruz declined to comment on most of the investigation’s findings. And neither Cruz nor his lawyer Harry Damkar returned phone calls Wednesday.
De La Cruz did say elections officials advised his campaign that retrieving and returning absentee ballots to the Elections Office was legal.
The Elections Office historically has allowed residents to return absentee ballots and sign a log book as a “friend” of the voter, according to log books dating back to 2000. But state election law allows only family or household members to return absentee ballots.
“It’s a practice in this community,” De La Cruz said Wednesday.
Head elections official John Hodges on Wednesday said his office plans to change its policy so that such a scandal “will never happen again.” He attributed the problem to a lack of staffing.
“I’m grabbing straws trying to do the best we can with what we have to work with,” Hodges said.
Velazquez signed the log book after returning four ballots for friends, which spurred four potential felony counts of violating the Elections Code. Hodges defended Velazquez in saying: “Ignacio? He didn’t know. He doesn’t know.”
Velazquez also pointed out that Sheriff Curtis Hill signed the 2000 log book after returning a ballot for a “fellow employee.” That also is illegal, even though Hill was not up for reelection that year. If Velazquez is charged, the restaurant owner said Hill should be, too.
Sarsfield was not obligated to release the investigative report. He also said this week the criminal grand jury – despite his preference to have it open to the public – legally must remain behind closed doors.
“The reason why we’re releasing the report is because of the extreme public interest,” the district attorney said.
The report details the findings of the probe Tripp began in late March. He interviewed the four voters Velazquez returned ballots for, and they all said De La Cruz approached them on Election Day, according to the report. And since none of the four had voted yet, he offered to take their ballots to the Elections Office, the report said.
By receiving those ballots, the report claims both De La Cruz and Velazquez, who handed them in, violated the Elections Code.
Another voter – who said she knew De La Cruz for more than five years – claimed both men arrived at her home on Election Day and offered to drive her to the polls, which itself is legal. But she told Tripp that on the way to the Calaveras School polling place, they lobbied her to vote for De La Cruz, and also against Measure G, according to the report.
She told Tripp she had planned to vote for Cruz before the two arrived.
“I felt pressured to vote for him,” she said of De La Cruz, in the report. But De La Cruz later denied the allegation to the inspector.
Another witness told Tripp she saw De La Cruz on Election Day at Calaveras School within 100 feet of the polling place, for which the report recommends a misdemeanor charge. In his interview with Tripp, De La Cruz denied the allegation and said he “walked around” outside the 100-foot zone while greeting friends.
In another instance on Election Day, De La Cruz brought a cousin to the polling place, but officials there did not allow the man to vote. When that happened, De La Cruz entered the polling place to resolve the problem, the report states and De La Cruz acknowledged. And his cousin was allowed to vote.
“I was not within 100 feet on Election Day campaigning,” he said.
De La Cruz denied most of the allegations during a two-hour interview with Tripp, according to the report. Before the questioning began, while awaiting legal counsel, De La Cruz quipped that he “researched” the inspector’s background using voter registration information, the report states. He said he learned Tripp was a District 1 constituent.
The database is used by candidates for campaigns and contains names, phone numbers and other personal information such as dates of birth. His comments led to Tripp recommending another misdemeanor charge against De La Cruz for “misuse of voter registration information,” according to the report.
Much of the questioning in the interview, De La Cruz has said, focused on his campaign’s practice of gathering signatures to reduce the in-lieu of filing fee. Each name gathered reduces filing fees by 25 cents before heavy campaigning begins.
When one of his campaign workers didn’t sign the appropriate affidavit before turning in the forms, De La Cruz signed them for him, according to the report. De La Cruz told Tripp he was advised by elections officials that he was allowed to sign the forms.
Kollin Kosmicki can be reached at 637-5566, ext. 331 or at
kk*******@***********ws.com.
