By Robert Haugh
The Plaintiffs who sued Santa Clara to create council districts to help elect Asian candidates must have thought that a victory by the Measure A campaign would hurt their chances in court.
According to campaign finance reports (Form 460), two of the plaintiffs Michael Kaku and Ladonna Yumori Kaku contributed a combined $1,000 to the No on Measure A campaign.
These two were also long-time contributors to former Congressman Mike Honda. That financial relationship raised suspicion that when the plaintiffs tried to force Judge Thomas Kuhnle to choose a 7-district map and get rid of the elected mayor. Some saw it as payback for Mayor Lisa Gillmor and Vice Mayor Kathy Watanabe who supported Congressman Ro Khanna who beat Honda in 2016.
Instead, Kuhnle decided Santa Clara should be divided into 6 districts and a directly elected at-large mayor.
Another plaintiff, Wes Mukoyama, contributed $1,000. Attorneys for the Asian Law Alliance and former Assemblymember Paul Fong who were active in the lawsuit also contributed a total of approximately $2,000.
Another interesting contributor was Jeannie Mahan. She gave $200. But she made a more valuable contribution. It was discovered during the trial that Jeannie Mahan drove the plaintiffs’ attorneys and demographer around Santa Clara to help them draw the 7-district maps.
Another plaintiff, Umar Kamal contributed $1,000. He said in a public Measure A debate at the Muslim Community Association with Charter Review Committee member Hosam Haggag, “please vote No on A so we can win the lawsuit.” Wow. He also moved away from Santa Clara recently.
Another interesting expenditure is a $1,000 payment to Eric Stroker, a consultant with past ties to Ed McGovern, the political consultant for disgraced former Councilman Dominic Caserta and the 49ers.
Measure A would have created two districts in Santa Clara, one north of El Camino and one south. Three council members would have been elected from each district. Ranked-choice voting would have been implemented when the County could adopt the right technology. The city’s demographer thought multiple candidates in a district would actually make it easier to elect minority and neighborhood candidates. As reported in the Mercury News:
“It has taken me awhile to understand the relative advantages of this method that is being proposed to you and I’m convinced that it has real potential to achieve purposes of the California Voting Rights Act,” Jeanne Gobalet, a demographer hired by the city told the council recently. “I think I am persuaded now that it has the potential to do so even better than the single-member districts.”
But Measure A lost narrowly in June, 52-48.
So, this November, thanks to the No on A campaign and their contributors, 2/3rds of Santa Clarans won’t be able to vote for a city councilmember.
Editor’s note: Two paragraphs (about Kumal and Stroker) were added after original publication.
[…] 2019, Judge Thomas Kuhnle determined that there was “racially polarized” voting in Santa […]
[…] Doyle answered our questions about the California Voting Rights Act Lawsuit against Santa Clara. Last August, Judge Thomas Kuhnle ruled that Santa Clara had racially polarized voting. That’s why we had two district elections in November. And for the first time, most of the city […]
Oh come on Robert – get real! You are making an issue where there is none. How about also exposing that Mayor Lisa Gillmor brought the 49ers to Santa Clara and co-chaired (with Pat Kolstad) the 49er sponsored, “Santa Clarans for Economic Progress” who shoved the stadium and never told the citizens the straight story about it? The 49ers spent over $5 million and you’re making an issue of Jeannie Mahan spending $200 … seriously? Is freedom of speech dead in Santa Clara? How about exposing all the donations every candidate took from the 49ers, and all their developers and cronies both before and since the stadium has been plopped into Santa Clara. And what about all the developer dollars that are ruining the city with high density developing? Post who got their monies … and I bet it’s more than $200!
Exactly how would the City be damaged if they had a rotating mayor? Why must we have a separately elected mayor? Having a separate actually costs Santa Clara money and what extra value do we really receive?
I look forward to understanding why this $200 is so headline worthy and also look forward to all the other influence peddling that has bought other influence too. Thanks in advance for making your article complete and fair and balanced …