Concerned Anaheim residents gathered Tuesday outside of City Hall to call on their city leaders for more representation in City Hall. Anaheim residents, represented by the ACLU, filed a lawsuit against the city of Anaheim on June 28 and this meeting was held to shed more light on it.
Currently, the four council members are seated in an open city wide election, but the lawsuit and these angry residents demand that the council seats be broken down into geographic districts.
“We don’t put our civil rights up to a popular vote. That’s not something that we do,” Eric Altman, executive director of the Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development said.
“Currently, the mayor and three out of four council members live in Anaheim Hills a relatively affluent neighborhood,” Altman said.
Some residents feel four council seats aren’t enough.
“We need at least eight districts in order to capture the specific needs and concerns of each of our neighborhoods. Eight districts will help us make candidacy an option for the average citizen by reducing the amount of money needed to run a viable campaign,” Arturo Ferreras, Anaheim South Neighborhood Council chair.
While the mayor says he can’t comment on the lawsuit, he agrees that it’s time for redistricting. Redistricting four council positions was an item on the agenda at last Tuesday’s City Council meeting, but violent protests outside City Hall for the recent officer involved shootings stopped that from happening.
“If the people want to be represented by districts, they will be represented by districts” Tom Tait, mayor of Anaheim said.
The mayor plans on holding a special to vote again, but since the unrest in Anaheim he’s changed the agenda redistricting of four seats to six.
The mayor believes part of the problem with last week’s city council meeting in which protesters took to the streets is that there just wasn’t enough room at City Hall. That’s why he plans on moving the next special meeting scheduled for Aug. 8 at 4 p.m. to Anaheim High School’s auditorium.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Anaheim-Residents-Reform-City-Council-Anaheim-Police-Shootings-164505676.html

Date

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 1:42pm

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar
Los Angeles Times:
Community members Tuesday called on the Anaheim City Council  to  address the lack of elected Latino representation by moving to a district-style election system instead of the current at-large process.
The press conference was held after a week of protests – some which turned violent – after two men were fatally shot by police officers.
The rallies have highlighted tensions in the city, which some say are the result of a community that feels marginalized.
The City Council is considering a Nov. 6 ballot measure to amend the voting process. It would require that four members of the five-member council be elected by district. Currently, the majority of the council members live in Anaheim Hills, an affluent enclave that is largely separated from the rest of the city.
According to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in  June, the current at-large system has resulted in “vote dilution” for Latino residents.
Though Anaheim’s population is majority Latino, the city council has only seen three Latino members in city history, the lawsuit alleges.
The lawsuit also references a “history of discrimination in the city that still impacts the Latino community.”
Community members, some wearing neon pink stickers that said “four districts are not enough,” talked about neighborhood disparities, a lack of resources in minority neighborhoods and low-paying jobs in the city's manicured resort district.
Mariana Rivera, 33, has lived in the neighborhood where one of the shootings took place for nine years.
She said many children play in the streets, but some drivers speed through the neighborhood, so she has been working to try to get speed bumps installed for years.
“We want our community to be tranquil and clean,” she said.
Eric Altman, the executive director of a nonprofit that works with neighborhoods in the area, said that the districts should not be drawn by the City Council, but rather by an independent panel.
“We don’t put our civil rights to a popular vote,” he said.
Altman said that Anaheim was the largest city in California to elect its council at large. Anaheim is the most populated city in Orange County and among the top 10 in the state.
“At-large works when you’re a small, homogenous city,” he said. “But when you get to a certain size and a certain level of complexity and diversity … you have to go to district elections. There’s no other way to get representation.”
In response to recent events, Mayor Tom Tait and City Council members will conduct a special meeting Aug. 8 at Anaheim High School.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/anaheim-community-members-call-for-district-elections-in-response-to-recent-shootings-1.html

Date

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 - 1:10pm

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar
By Nusrat Choudhury, Staff Attorney, ACLU National Security Project

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the ACLU’s lawsuit challenging the U.S. government’s secretive No Fly List should go forward. This decision is a true victory for our clients and all Americans.
More than two years ago, 15 U.S. citizens and permanent residents, including four military veterans, were denied boarding on planes. None of them know why this happened. And no government authority has ever given them an explanation or a fair chance to clear their names.
In June 2010, we filed a lawsuit on their behalf. It challenges both the placement of these Americans on the No Fly List and the government’s failure to afford them a fair redress process after depriving them of their right to travel. We sued the logical government agencies: the FBI and its subagency, the Terrorist Screening Center, which creates and controls the No Fly List. But, in May 2011, the district court in Portland dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that we should have sued the Transportation Security Administration, which administers the (woefully deficient) redress process for travelers denied boarding on planes. We appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
At the hearing, I argued that the district court decision was wrong because TSA doesn’t have the power to put people on, or take them off, the No Fly List—that’s the job of the FBI and TSC. (You can listen to the argument here.) I also argued that placing our clients on the No Fly List without providing them any opportunity to confront and rebut the “evidence” against them is unconstitutional.
As the ACLU previously blogged, the government attorney astonishingly refused to concede that federal courts even possess the authority to remove names from the No Fly List. Taken to its logical conclusion, the government’s position would mean that no court would be able to correct the wrongful placement of American citizens and permanent residents on the No Fly List even if these people got to court by jumping through all of the hoops that the government argued should be put in front of them. According to the government, all a person could do is file a complaint with the existing TSA redress process, and simply hope that some government official would correct a mistake or change her mind. This position is untenable, especially because we know that government watch lists are bloated and include the names of innocent people.
Last week’s Ninth Circuit decision marked a first and important step towards putting a check on the government’s ability to blacklist its citizens without recourse.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and permitted our lawsuit to go forward. It affirmed our position that the government had “concede[d] that TSC decides both whether travelers are placed on the List and whether they stay on it,” and found that it would be “futile” to order TSA to remove the plaintiffs names or give them a chance to clear their names from the No Fly List. It also recognized that the government failed to provide a good answer to a question of tremendous importance to our clients and all Americans:
At oral argument, the government was stymied by what we considered a relatively straightforward question: what should United States citizens and legal permanent residents do if they believe they have been wrongly included on the No-Fly List?
The Ninth Circuit reached the right answer: federal district courts can adjudicate citizens’ and permanent residents’ challenges to their placement on the No Fly List and their demand for a fair redress process.
This decision means that a court will finally consider our clients’ claims that a secret government watch list that denies Americans the ability to fly without giving them an explanation or fair chance to clear their names violates the Constitution. Our clients—and all Americans—are waiting for an answer to that question. We’ll keep you posted.

Date

Monday, July 30, 2012 - 6:15pm

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

National Security

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar

Pages

Subscribe to ACLU of Southern California RSS