The Board of Supervisors is commissioning investigations from
the local District Attorney’s Office and the state Attorney
General’s Office into allegations of improper voting practices in
the District 5 supervisor race unofficially won by Jaime De La
Cruz.
The Board of Supervisors is commissioning investigations from the local District Attorney’s Office and the state Attorney General’s Office into allegations of improper voting practices in the District 5 supervisor race unofficially won by Jaime De La Cruz.
Supervisors approved the action 4-0 in a closed session meeting this week. Supervisor Bob Cruz, the incumbent in the District 5 race, didn’t take part in the vote and cited a conflict of interest.
The Board has also hired outside lawyer Nancy Miller, who plans to send a letter to the Attorney General’s Office this week requesting an examination of the two contested election issues.
She also has been in contact with the District Attorney’s Office about potentially investigating, Miller said Tuesday.
Moreover, those potential probes add to the hiring of two private investigators by the local branch of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). Cruz’s wife, Marian, is an active member of local LULAC, according to sources.
The Latino advocacy organization authorized that involvement at its monthly meeting Saturday, according to members.
The Board and LULAC, according to Miller, are concerned over allegations of improper voting in the District 5 race. Officials believe eight absentee ballots were illegally returned to the Elections Office. And LULAC is concerned over suspicions that Spanish-speaking voters’ rights may have been violated.
A spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office, however, questioned why the Board isn’t going exclusively through the local district attorney.
Although there are some exceptions, “in the overall majority of situations” the Attorney General’s Office will not take up such investigations, according to Nathan Barankin with the state office.
“The standard process is, if there’s an investigation request of a local nature – for the local prosecuting attorney to assume jurisdiction,” Barankin said.
The county is commissioning both agencies, Miller said, to get the issue resolved as quickly as possible. Board members Tuesday expressed varying views on the decision.
Supervisors Pat Loe and Reb Monaco both said they want to address suspicions to eliminate uncertainty. Supervisor Ruth Kesler, who lost her re-election bid in District 2, asserted there was “fraud that’s going on” in the Elections Office.
“And we know there was a lot going on in District 5,” Kesler said, though she was not specific.
Supervisor Richard Scagliotti refused to comment when reached Tuesday.
The probes don’t sit well with De La Cruz, who unofficially defeated Cruz by 10 votes.
“It kind of does (concern me),” De La Cruz said, “because they are trying to take away the will of the public.”
De La Cruz also questioned the Board’s holding of a closed session meeting on the issue – he wondered whether it violated the state open meetings law, he said.
Miller defended the Board, saying state law allows closed door meetings on issues involving “pending or anticipated litigation.” And several serious allegations have been floated, she said.
“Any voter can file suit against the county,” she said.
Cruz was advised to excuse himself from the issue, he said. He said he had “no feelings” on the possible investigations “because I’m not involved in it, and nobody’s told me anything.”
“Whatever happens – happens,” he said.
Head elections official John Hodges expects to certify the election March 29, he said, after which any resident has five days to request a recount. Supervisors and LULAC, however, hope to examine the office before then.
A normally mellow Hodges, an elected official as the county clerk, is upset over the investigations into his office, he said. He believes the Board is trying to “overturn this election,” he said, and called it “deep politics.”
“That guy won fair and square,” Hodges said of De La Cruz. “We don’t manipulate elections up here.”
He’s also confused why the Board could hire Miller as its counsel, he said, while his office has obtained no legal help.
County Counsel Karen Forcum referred the issue to Miller because of the apparent conflict of interest, as she represents both the Board and the Elections Office.
Forcum said Hodges should approach the Board to obtain his own counsel, “at whatever point he believes representation is in order.”
Hodges also cleared up speculation that someone voted who was not properly registered. She was a District 1 voter, he said.
“We checked all that out,” he said, “and she’s registered, and she signed her ballot, and there’s no issue as far as we’re concerned.”
Overturning the 10-vote lead based solely on the absentee ballots would be difficult, according to Hodges and other officials.
Voters are allowed to designate family or household members to hand in their absentees at the office. But eight ballots from District 5 were returned by friends or others disallowed to by the California Elections Code, according to a log book signed by designees.
There’s no way of knowing how those eight residents voted, however, because ballots were separated from names during the counting process.
The goal of requesting the investigations, according to Miller, is to “make sure the election was fair.”
“We have got to be able to prove to the voters,” Loe said, “that their vote counts and everything is done correctly.”
