Normally party registration is not an issue in the Davis City Council race. But when the UC Davis College Democrats held their candidate forum on February 28, only five of the nine candidates were allowed to participate due to party registration.
Mary Jo Bryan, Eric Gudz, Gloria Partida, Linda Deos and Mark West were the only five who were permitted to participate during the forum.
As a result of the article that ran on Sunday, the Vanguard got several inquiries about the registration of the four candidates who did not participate.
The Vanguard filed a request with the Yolo County Elections Office and received information on party registration and the date of the most recent registration.
Perhaps the most interesting thing we learned is that two of the candidates who were not previously registered as Democrats have now switched their party registration to Democrat.
Not only did both Ezra Beeman and Luis Rios switch to Democrat, but they did on the same day, February 27 – interestingly enough, the day before the candidate’s forum.
The new total leaves seven registered Democrats in the race with Dan Carson and Larry Guenther as No Party Preference.
Here is the full chart:
I’m surprised that this info is given out. I would think that would be considered personal.
Voter files are public information.
Yeah, but what if one were applying for a job at this guy’s company? Should he have access to your party affiliation?
https://100percentfedup.com/wow-ceo-investment-firm-threatens-trump-supporters-attend-rallies-fundraisers/
What about voter rolls being public information do you not understand?
Well Howard, I do understand that voter rolls are public info. I was just saying that maybe they shouldn’t be because of situations, like in my link, where someone could use your party affiliation against you. Is that alright with you?
Then, the public should have no right to see the party affiliations of their poll workers published n the local newspaper… political parties should have no access to contact info from members of their own party to “get out the vote”, unless an individual voter has “opted in”…
Your cite was about a CEO threatening to expose other COMPANIES (via owners/execs), and urge boycotts of them… and appropriately, there was blow back where folk recommended his firm be boycotted. A political stance, with business implications… I see no problem in that.
The apparent pandering by the two new registrations I find disturbing… and perhaps a bit condescending…
“The apparent pandering by the two new registrations I find disturbing”
This is not a rare event. We have recently had several officials at the city council and state level change their party affiliation from Republican to either Independent or Democrat immediately pre election. If the change is made because of a genuine change in philosophy or policy preference, I would definitely support it. When done because it is perceived that it is the only path to election, I think it is duplicitous at best ( just plain lying at worst) and would strongly speak out against any candidate who chose that route and then proceeded to advocate and vote according to their pre election party goals.
Ezra Beeman and especially his campaign manager Colin Walsh had a fit over the exclusion of non-Democrats from participating in the College Dems forum. So what does he do, he changes his registration to Democrat, the day before. I don’t give a crap what someone is registered for local office, but that is cynical manipulation at its worst.
***COMMENTERS PLEASE READ****
This article was not an invitation to discuss national politics and I’m directing the moderators to remove any posts that move beyond the scope of this article – the city council election
My logic was that the matter of partisan invites to a ‘voters forum’ for what is ostensibly non-partisan office, and two candidates changing their affiliations in apparent response, are definitely on topic, in fact, part of the article. As in addressing a resultant comment related to appropriateness of public access to voter rolls… brought up in relation to the Davis CC election… the fact that the same issue applies throughout the state and the nation, makes it not “off-topic”, IMO.
Your call…
My objection was to people posting about the President and notional politics.
David – Can you clarify what the prior affiliations were of the two candidates?
That information I did not request but I believe they were NPP
This is a good example of why I avoid posting to this site. Who has the time to correct all the misinformation and innuendo?
Party affiliations today are meaningless. It is a candidate’s values that matter. Being a democrat used to mean believing in democracy, NOT any more. That idea went out of fashion in the 1990’s. This article and several postings suggest blind loyalty to party affiliation rather than common sense loyalty to core values.
A few more thoughts:
1. I don’t know Craig Ross or why he has a personal issue with Colin Walsh. It is irrelevant.
2. Colin Walsh is not the campaign manager for Ezra Beeman
3. Ezra was invited to the College Democrat Forum. He declined unless all candidates were included. That is a commitment to the principle of democracy.
4. Ezra has long been a Democrat. I campaigned with him for his father’s run as a Democrat for Congress.
5. As if it matters, I am a lifelong Democrat… committed to democratic principles
6. This is only one reason why I support Ezra Beeman for City Council
Bob:
You are clearly unaware of what transpired with Colin’s facebook post attacking the college dems if you’re asking the question. I didn’t know who the guy was before that and frankly I’ve never met him. Also please explain the 2/27 re-registration by Ezra. Thanks
I’m guessing, but a plausible reason is he lived in Australia for many years and returned fairly recently. He may have not have been registered while he was out of the country.
Your post is a good example of you posting to this site.
Elections to the Davis City Council are non-partisan. I suggest more a focus on issues important to the sustainability of our community.
“the President and notional politics.”
Priceless typo.
I have now confirmed that prior to February 27, Ezra Beeman was registered Libertarian.
The trends in party affiliation have been away from the two Political Parties toward NPP. The increasing independence of the electorate is one of the reasons that polling has become more and more inexact. This local phenomenon is just that “local.”
In the 2016 voter files there were 33,713 registered voters in the City of Davis. 54.4% of them were registered Democrat, 14.0% were registered Republican, and 26.5% were registered NPP. The remaining 5.1% came from American Independent (2.2%), Green (1.6%), Libertarian (0.7%) and 0.7% spread between seventeen other parties.
In the 2018 voter files there were 40,417 registered voters in the City of Davis. 57.3% of them were registered Democrat, 11.8% were registered Republican, and 26.0% were registered NPP. The remaining 5.1% came from American Independent (2.1%), Green (1.1%), Libertarian (0.8%) and 0.9% spread between twenty other parties.
The change from 2016 to 2018 is Total Registrations are up 6,704, Democrats are up 4,851 (up 26.5% over 2016), NPPs are up 1,577 (up 17.6% over 2016), Republicans are up 50 (up 1.1% over 2016), and all the other parties are up 226. Clearly we have a more engaged local electorate since 2016, and if being engaged at the local level means choosing one of the national parties rather than NPP, then I see no problem with that.
Having gone through this wringer two years ago, my personal suggestion is that inclusion rather than exclusion is the wisest course of action … interview and consider everyone.
http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ror/154day-stwddirprim-2018/historical-reg-stats.pdf
Not just in Davis… pretty much a state-wide trend… NPP is the fastest growing “party” in the state. Statewide, NPP virtually tied with REP, and more than 50% # of DEM.
30% registered voters are neither DEM or REP.
Since the subject of campaign managers has been brought up, isn’t Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald the campaign manager for Gloria Partida?
No
My understanding is that Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald was Gloria Partida’s campaign manager. Is that no longer the case?
It was never the case
David: Are you saying that Cecilia was never part of organizing Gloria’s city council campaign?
I think I speak for many here, Ron, give a rest… you asked a question, you got an answer. Twice, in both cases… then you did a third…
Howard: Frankly, you should not be speaking for anyone else. David needs to speak for himself.
You don’t speak for me. Maybe you should take your own advice.
Thanks for proving my point, “Ron.”
I think it’s time for an article on the candidates and their campaign managers – real & imagined.
It would be nice if David just answered this question:
Ron
“Frankly, you should not be speaking for anyone else. David needs to speak for himself.”
Respectfully, I see a bit of irony in your post. You are asking a question that pertains to the activities of Cecelia, who posts here on occasion. What you are asking is not for David to speak for himself, but rather for him to speak for Cecelia, as though he were somehow responsible for her actions.
Perhaps I am a little too sensitive on this issue, however, I take exception to anyone being held responsible for information about anyone other than themselves.
Point noted.
Wondering why you didn’t bring that up when a different person was incorrectly mentioned as a campaign manager.
David – In your morning letter you discussed the political affiliations of the current city council members. Things might have changed, but in the article below you listed Robb Davis as being registered as a Green Party member and Rochelle Swanson as an Independent.
http://www.davisvanguard.org/2014/06/analysis-decline-of-the-yolo-county-democratic-machine/