Jose Huizar is working on refining the factual basis stakeholder definition for neighborhood council elections in response to the 313 factual basis voters who voted in the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council elections. He is shopping it around to get support from neighborhood councils in his area, as well as the BONC (board of neighborhood council commissioners).

Not surprisingly, Huizar left out a very important piece of information on the issue because it was their actions of conspiring to disenfranchise voters that caused it.

A few weeks before the election, Huizar, independent election administrator Terrence Gomes, ERNC leaders and a deputy city attorney (unnamed) openly conspired to disenfranchise voters who owned and worked at tax-paying marijuana dispensaries. Note that at that time there were no city laws or ordinances prohibiting such businesses, and in fact, law from a superior power, state law, allowing them was in full effect.

This widely distributed email message was sent out by ERNC leader Maria Nazario, who quotes it as being from a deputy city attorney (unnamed) and forwarded to her by Terrance Gomes.

“Our Office has advised that Medical Marijuana Dispensaries are not authorized under the Los Angeles Administrative Code as any of the permissible and enumerated uses contained within the Code. Therefore, the use of property as a Medical Marijuana Dispensary is unauthorized and illegal.
“Under the Plan for a Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils a factual basis stakeholder is a person who “declares a stake in the neighborhood.” (Plan, art. II, § 1.) That “stake,” however, must be based on legally permissible activity. Thus, a person who claims an interest in a neighborhood alleging that it is based on a Medical Marijuana Dispensary, which is an unauthorized and illegal use, is not an eligible stakeholder.”

Hence, taxpaying stakeholders and voters, authorized by State law, were disenfranchised from voting by Huizar, independent election administrator Terrence Gomes, ERNC leaders and a deputy city attorney (unnamed).

To excuse themselves from doing this, they reasoned that all a interested potential voter had to do was go down the street, buy a coffee at Starbucks, and bring the receipt in to qualify for factual basis. This was publicized widely.

Therefore, the entire situation occurred only because Huizar, independent election administrator Terrence Gomes, ERNC leaders and a deputy city attorney (unnamed) encouraged such factual basis stakeholders as a way to excuse themselves from critic’s charges they disenfranchised legitimate voters.

Now, with this new push to redefine the factual basis voters, Jose Huizar completes his viscous circle of flawed reasoning.

Disenfranchise voters. –>  Encourage factual basis to deny disenfranchising. –>  Eliminate factual basis. –>  Disenfranchise voters. –>  Encourage factual basis to deny disenfranchising. –>  Eliminate factual basis. –> Disenfranchise voters. –>  Encourage factual basis to deny disenfranchising. –>  Eliminate factual basis. –> Disenfranchise voters. –>  Encourage factual basis to deny disenfranchising. –>  Eliminate factual basis. –> Disenfranchise voters. –>

You get the idea. Jose? Do you?