District Attorney John Sarsfield won’t pursue elections fraud
charges against Ignacio Velazquez, campaign adviser for District 5
Supervisor-elect Jaime De La Cruz, ending a seven-month wait for
one of two men accused of cheating in the March race.
Hollister – District Attorney John Sarsfield won’t pursue elections fraud charges against Ignacio Velazquez, campaign adviser for District 5 Supervisor-elect Jaime De La Cruz, ending a seven-month wait for one of two men accused of cheating in the March race.
Sarsfield confirmed his decision regarding Velazquez on Tuesday. The attorney for De La Cruz and Velazquez said Sarsfield also indicated he wouldn’t pursue most of the recommended charges against the supervisor-elect, either. Sarsfield and the two men’s attorney, Mike Pekin, have been meeting this week about the investigation into the March race.
Several of the allegations against the two are similar, such as a claim they both coerced someone into voting for De La Cruz. Pekin said the decision on Velazquez shows De La Cruz will be cleared soon.
“As to all of those that are shared allegations, Jaime is definitely exonerated as to those also,” Pekin said.
The district attorney, however, denied there has been any decision in the De La Cruz investigation and said that matter remains open.
“We haven’t made any decision in regards to Mr. De La Cruz yet,” Sarsfield said Tuesday, adding he’s still awaiting a report on the March election from the Secretary of State’s Office.
Shortly after winning the March election by 10 votes over incumbent Bob Cruz, the Board of Supervisors launched an investigation into claims the two broke elections laws. A Santa Cruz inspector recommended six felonies for De La Cruz and five for Velazquez for allegations such as illegal handling of ballots, among several others.
The investigation touched off a series of controversial events. They included Cruz’s wife filing a civil lawsuit, which she eventually dropped, for the same claims, and an allegation the DA was having an affair that tainted his oversight of the probe.
Sarsfield said he wants to wait for a report on the March election from the state agency before making a call on the allegations against De La Cruz. The district attorney has blamed elections officials for delaying the report’s completion because an office staffer misplaced an e-mail from the state agency requesting voter information.
Sarsfield decided against pursuing the five recommended felony charges against Velazquez for two reasons, he said. He reviewed a private investigative report from the campaign adviser, and the elections office admitted telling Velazquez it was OK to turn in others’ absentee ballots on Election Day, which is illegal.
Head elections official John Hodges actually acknowledged in March, when the controversy sprouted, that elections officials advised Velazquez to turn in the absentee ballots.
“The primary reason is that the elections department did verify that they told him to turn in the ballots, and that was the most serious charge against him,” said Sarsfield, who didn’t elaborate with further details that led to his decision.
Velazquez on Tuesday said he has expected this decision from the district attorney since the allegations arose, at least some of which came from Cruz’s campaign supporters. Velazquez admitted the De La Cruz camp made mistakes – but said none warranted criminal prosecution.
“Mistakes were made, minor mistakes that are made in all campaigns, Mr. Cruz included,” Velazquez said. “The only difference is, we didn’t pursue charges against Mr. Cruz, as he did against supervisor-elect De La Cruz.”
Cruz didn’t immediately return a phone call Tuesday. His campaign adviser, Ruben Lopez, declined to comment until more concrete information comes out.
De La Cruz said Tuesday he viewed the decision on Velazquez as a step toward the same outcome for him.
“It proves the fact that there’s nothing out there against him,” De La Cruz said. “It proves that it was spearheaded by a group of individuals who don’t agree with our politics.”
Sarsfield, though, said that’s not necessarily the case. Asked if a criminal grand jury investigation into De La Cruz remains an option, he said, “Everything is possible at this point.”
Sarsfield had called for a grand jury probe of the two men in May. He canceled that, however, after Velazquez filed a court motion to disqualify Sarsfield that contained embarrassing information about the district attorney.
Velazquez in court documents claimed Sarsfield was having an affair with a relative of a Cruz supporter whose political group spurred many of the allegations. Sarsfield asked the attorney general’s office if the personal claim created a conflict of interest for him. The state office ruled it did not.
