Rexroad Demands Davis Shift to District Elections for Council Races

It looks like by 2022 both the school district and city will have gone to district elections.  While Matt Rexroad told the Vanguard that the city should change in time for March 2020, the city responded that the deadline for that has been missed.

Officially the city has not made a decision.  It is simply facing “a formal legal threat that it shifts to a ‘district-based’ election system for City Council races after receiving a letter from an attorney warning that it could face millions of dollars in legal costs if it does not comply.”

The city council has not made a decision regarding whether to shift to a “district-based” system, commonly referred to as district elections, but will consider in upcoming meetings how to respond to the demand letter. Currently, all five city council members are elected “at-large” by the entire city electorate and do not represent districts.

However, privately, several told the Vanguard that no jurisdiction has prevailed in litigation, the cost is high to challenge and therefore, just as the school district, fighting for it is probably a huge expenditure of resources that will strip the city of further local control.

Matt Rexroad, a former mayor of Woodland and more recently a county supervisor, is an attorney representing a client in this matter.

He told the Vanguard, “My clients know that the City of Davis has a deep commitment to civil rights.  They can demonstrate that commitment, just like the Davis School District did, by moving to district-based elections in time for the 2020 election, in order to comply with the California Voting Rights Act.”

However, the city in its release claims, “Due to statutory and County elections deadlines, any transition to district-based elections would not impact the March 3, 2020 election, but could take effect in March 2022.”

In his letter, he pointed out that the city of Davis utilizes an at-large election system for electing candidates to the city council.

Davis is racially diverse, “with about 22.0% percent of its residents being Asian-American and about 14.2% percent of its residents being Latino.”

Moreover, he argues, “Voting within Davis is racially-polarized. which has resulted in minority vote dilution. Davis’ minority voters have not had proper representation on the city council because of the at-large election system.”

Meanwhile, courts, following the passage of the California Voting Rights Act “have regularly found that at-large election systems violate voting rights laws.”  The law makes it difficult for jurisdictions to prevail, when “the CVRA requires only that a plaintiff show the existence of racially polarized voting to establish a violation”

Mr. Rexroad argues, “A city’s at·large method of election is in conflict with the CVRA when it impairs the ability of a protected class to influence the outcome of an election because of vote dilution of members of a protected class.”

He writes that “the election history in Davis demonstrates the insidious effects of racially polarized voting and vote dilution.”  Here he notes that Gloria Partida is the only elected Latina while Brett Lee has been the only Asian member of the council since 2010.

The letter by Mr. Rexroad demands that the city act by August 15, 2019, to “take certain actions that demonstrate Davis’ intention and specific plan to transition to district-based elections.  If we do not receive a response by that date,” Rexroad’s letter further states, “we will be forced to seek judicial relief on behalf of the residents of Davis.” The letter does not identify who the specific plaintiffs are nor does it identify the actions that must be taken to fulfill the demand.

As noted, the council has not met to make a decision on whether to challenge the suit or shift to a district-based system.

Currently, all five city council members are elected “at-large” by the entire city electorate and do not represent districts. In a “district-based” election system, the city would be physically divided into separate districts, and a candidate would have to live in the district he or she intends to represent and be elected only by the voters residing within that election district.

According to the press release, the letter, dated July 1 was received by the city and its legal council immediately reviewed the demand letter and mapped out the next steps for the city.

The city has 45 days under state law to respond to the letter and “to decide whether to adopt a resolution declaring its intention to transition to district-based elections.”

State law provides an additional 90-day period for a city to hold a series of public hearings and adopt an ordinance implementing such a change in its election process.

If a city does so within 90 days, it is required to pay up to $30,000 in legal fees to the plaintiff making the demand for district-based elections, but does not incur any additional liability, which according to the city release, “has amounted to millions of dollars from litigation in other jurisdictions.”

The Davis City Council has scheduled a special city council meeting on Tuesday, August 13, 2019, to consider this matter.  The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall in the Community Chambers, located at 23 Russell Boulevard in Davis.

City Manager Mike Webb states, “Irrespective of one’s views on the merits of a district-based system, the statute requires prompt action by the City.  The timing is challenging, as it is a weighty and complex policy matter that falls during the summer break in a university community when many are out of town.  However, the City must take up consideration of this to comply with the process set forth in State law pursuant to such demand letters, and to avoid incurring potentially significant legal fees.”

The city manager added: “Ensuring adequate time to gather community input and allowing the City to incorporate updated population statistics from the 2020 US Census would be beneficial to any consideration of a district-based system.  Understandably, there will be strong community interest in this topic, and we will work diligently to keep the community apprised of the process, next steps, and opportunities for input.”

A few cities have attempted to defend against one of these suits – but according to the city and other sources, “none have prevailed under the CVRA.”

They add that “the law also requires the city to pay a plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs if the plaintiff prevails.  Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs in CVRA cases often amount to millions of dollars.”

The Davis City Council is required to conduct a minimum of five public hearings to determine the number and composition of the districts.  The Davis community would have an opportunity to provide input and opinions “regarding the composition of the districts during the first two public hearings.”

Following the meetings, “district maps would be drafted, and two additional public hearings held for the public to provide input on the draft maps and proposed sequence of elections.”

At the final public hearing, the city council would vote to consider an ordinance establishing district-based elections.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Rexroad Letter

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts


  1. Bill Marshall

    As noted, the council has not met to make a decision on whether to challenge the suit or shift to a district-based system.

    As it stands, there is no suit.

    Just bullying rhetoric, threatening one.  No plaintiff.

    The time for the City to respond to a lawsuit will come when there actually is a lawsuit.

    Guess the City should be sued by a plaintiff asserting that only having a chance to vote for a CC rep every 4 years (instead of every 2) is a violation of their civil rights.  Someone may well do so if the CC caves on this.  The only thing bullies understand is determined resistance.

    Here’s a clue.  2010 was used as a “baseline”… was not Lamar ‘a minority’?  Ruth?  How many ‘minority’ folk who have credibly run for CC NOT been elected (without another ‘minority’ being elected at the same time)?  Only one cup of coffee, but since 1972, can’t think of any…

    And, is there an “inherent bias” that ‘minorities’ only vote based on ethnic background/race (sounds like racist bias)?  That a ‘majority’ candidate is incapable of representing the needs/interests of minorities? (sounds like racist bias).

    Let’s take this to the next level… we should dictate that at least 2, if not more, CC members should be of a certain gender (or gender identification)… others need not apply… or, (based on stats cited in article) it should be mandatory that for at least one district only a person of Asian background be elected… same for someone of  ‘Latinx’ background.  And of course, we need to factor in the gender (or identification) thing.  And you’d get to vote for one of those narrowed choices once every 4 years…

    It appears that district elections are a solution in search of a real problem…

    1. Alan Miller

      Let’s take this to the next level… we should dictate that at least 2, if not more, CC members should be of a certain gender (or gender identification)…

      Let’s take it to the even next-er next level . . . all white males should kill themselves.  That would solve the problem.

    2. Matt Williams

      Bill, your approach suffers from an over abundance of testosterone and a gross deficiency of fiscal prudence.  Why do you want to squander over half a million dollars to simply pick a fight you are guaranteed to lose (based on historical precedents)?

      I see this change as no harm, no foul for the vast majority of Davis residents.  What downside do you see to this “solution in search of a problem”?

      BTW, did you see George Will on last night’s PBS Newshour?  You should stream it if you didn’t see it.

    1. Bill Marshall

      Interesting… is the presumption that a So Davis rep will only support issues favorable to So Davis?  And vote against any issue that might uniquely (at least in perception) favors another part of town?  Very interesting…

      So, we now add a additional criteria for election, beyond race/ethnicity, and gender/gender identification… very interesting…

      And all mandated by law(?)…

    2. Sharla Cheney

      It’s curious. The major issue in South Davis seems to be traffic coming off I-80 and clogging streets around Mace Blvd.  El Macero is greatly affected, but not in City limits.  The neighborhood with likely the greatest concentration of low income people of color is the trailer park, which again is not within City limits.  Luis seems to think that the City Council is at fault or at least responsible for the increased traffic.  A solution needs to be found to keep freeway traffic funneled and free up local traffic. It is certainly a mess, but District elections wouldn’t solve this.  Berkeley has had District elections for many years and it has ended up with the same people serving for decades with very little turn over.

      1. Bill Marshall

        District elections for many years and it has ended up with the same people serving for decades with very little turn over.

        Unlike Davis, with the possible exception of Maynard… who served in three decades… but not continuous…

        And, (not to you, Sharla, but to those who favor district elections) how many So Davis candidates have even “run” for election?

      2. Matt Williams

        Sharla, my personal opinion, which has been echoed by Brett Lee, Lucas Frerichs, and Chief Pytel in the multiple Mace Boulevard public meetings, is that the City failed very badly in communicating to its South Davis citizens.  Having a district Councilmenber at the 2015 TIP hearings and the 2016 TIP hearings and the 2017 TIP hearings and the 2018 TIP hearings would have changed the listening dynamic on the Council.  Each member could focus on the pertinent slice of the whole rather than having to pay attention to ALL the items.

        Just for grins, imagine Holly Bishop as the hypothetical South Davis district Council member at any of those four bites of the TIP apple.

  2. Alan Miller

    Voting within Davis is racially-polarized. which has resulted in minority vote dilution. Davis’ minority voters have not had proper representation on the city council because of the at-large election system.


      1. David Greenwald

        A little surprised you would agree with Alan, Matt.  The first statement is completely accurate.  The second is subjective.  I would have expected you to have looked at data before your response.

      2. Matt Williams

        I stand by my comment David.  The key to the second statement is the word “proper.”  What does “proper” mean?  If it will make you more comfortable, pending your response to that question, I will put an extra asterisk in Alan’s term Bullsh*t*

          1. David Greenwald

            There are two statements. The first is undeniability true. The second is a matter for debate.

        1. Matt Williams

          That doesn’t answer my question, which was, “What does “proper” mean?”

          Before any debate happens it is important to understand the terminology.  “Proper” sounds like a very loaded term to me.  I’m curious what the term means to you.  It is quite possible that close to 100% of the subjectivity comes from that one word.

          At Wharton we learned and embraced the following subjective phrase “Net Income is Bullsh*t, Cash is King” so I’m very comfortable with subjective discussions having a substantial amount of Bullsh*t included.

  3. Alan Miller

    he notes that Gloria Partida is the only elected Latina while Brett Lee has been the only Asian member of the council since 2010.

    World-class misuse of the word “only”.  Let me get this straight, our city council current has a “Latina” and an “Asian” council-member, and that’s a problem for this race-labeling, bullying-f*ck lawyer?  Oh, and Brett Lee is “Asian”?  Wow, the mystery is solved . . . thanks for labeling him.  I never knew, and I never cared what “race”, certainly not as a criteria for voting for him or anyone else.  God, activist lawyers p*ss me off.

    1. Craig Ross

      I think you need to understand the argument better:

      In the last 10 years people on the council include:

      Don Saylor

      Joe Krovoza

      Rochelle Swanson

      Sue Greenwald

      Stephen Souza

      Dan Wolk

      Brett Lee

      Lucas Frerichs

      Robb Davis

      Will Arnold

      Gloria Partida

      Dan Carson

      That means of 12 people on the council, only 2 have been of color.

      But even that understates it, of the 60 years, only 9 have been occupied by people of color   About 15 percent.  That’s in a town that is probably by now 45 percent people of color.

      1. Alan Miller

        I think you need to understand the argument better:

        Patronizing, much?

        What was the purpose of that list, to label people by race and call for some form of quotas?

        1. Alan Miller

          Don’t be obtuse Alan.

          But seriously, my comments weren’t patronizing, they were cartoonishly hostile.  With big thought bubbles over the people fighting, with each blow characterized by  words like “ZING!”, “ZOWIE!” and “BOPTH!” as the slide trombone does a downward slide.

    2. Craig Ross

      You write: I never knew or cared.

      I hear this a lot.  I don’t see race.

      That’s great except for one problem, it also means you don’t see racism.  Inequity.  Discrimination.  That’s not so great.

      1. Alan Miller

        You write: I never knew or cared.

        Yes, that’s right.  I don’t care :-/

        I hear this a lot.  I don’t see race.

        I didn’t say I don’t see race.  I said I didn’t know what Brett Lee’s “race” was, and didn’t care what it was as far as why I voted for him, or anyone else for that matter

        That’s great except for one problem, it also means you don’t see racism.

        I don’t see racism?   That is so demeaning, but only as to your character in judging me in this way.  I believe what you are saying is I don’t see racism in everything, which is an entirely different matter than not seeing racism.  Watch what you accuse people of, CR.

        Inequity.  Discrimination.  That’s not so great.

        On the first we don’t agree.  On the second we agree.  Ah, if only we could all BE “equal”!

        1. Matt Williams

          Fair enough David.  I read all comments one at a time.  If the comment resonates, it resonates.  If it is insensitive/obtuse/flaming/grossly biased, I discard it and move on.  This comment fell into the former category.


        2. Bill Marshall

          Ah, if only we could all BE “equal”!

          Not to be ticky-tacky, but thought of Malvina Reynolds, and specifically, ‘burbs’…

          “being equal”, in all contexts, is a two-edged sword…

  4. Tia Will


    Honest question. Who are you including in your estimate of 45%. Year around permanent residents? Student residents? Voters? Nonvoters? All of the above?

    1. Craig Ross

      Good question.  The official census estimate is from 2017 and it had it at 58.6 percent white.   45% was a ballpark estimate that turns out to be relatively reasonable.  And if you include students, it’s probably lower than that.

          1. David Greenwald

            Ok. But what you cited is 10 years old and we know from school district data that Davis has gotten considerably more diverse over the last 20 years.

          2. Don Shor

            So, just for starters, the site you are linking from is basing data on “Davis CCD Yolo County” and shows a population of 78,076. Obviously, that includes the campus, unless you think the city’s population is now 78,076. So I would say there are likely to be discrepancies in demographic output, depending on how you count the student population.

          3. Don Shor

            They’re using the same source: U.S.Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey, 2016; BAE, 2016.

        1. Matt Williams

          Let’s dig down into Don’s Wikipedia numbers a bit.

          42,571 _ _ 64.90% _ _ White
          _1,528 _ _ _2.30% _ _ African American
          _ _339 _ _ _0.50% _ _ Native American
          14,355 _ _ 21.90% _ _ Asian
          _ _136 _ _ _0.20% _ _ Pacific Islander
          _3,121 _ _ _4.80% _ _ from other races
          _3,572 _ _ _5.40% _ _ from two or more races
          65,622 _ _100.00% _ _ Total

          If you then add the 8,172 Hispanic or Latino of any race, the Total goes above 100% to 112.5%.  That category is a subset of the others.  It is possible that some of the 339 Native Americans also identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino.  It is also possible that some of the 3,572 from two or more races Americans also identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino. But my suspicions are that those proportions are small, which means the majority of the 8,172 Hispanic or Latino persons identified themselves as White, and also Hispanic or Latino.

          Some simple math shows that 64.9% minus 12.5% moves the 2010 White proportion down to 52.4%.

          It is also worth looking at how the 2010 Census numbers compare to the 2000 Census numbers.  Here again the Hispanic count is a subset of the others.

          2000 _ _ _ _ 2010 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Change (100% means no change)
          42,256 _ _ 42,571 _ White _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _101% (1% increase)
          _ 1,417 _ _ 1,528 _ Black _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 108% (8% increase)
          _ _ 407 _ _ _ 339 _ American Indian or Alaska Native _ _ _ 83% (17% decrease)
          13,292 _ _17,612 _ Asian or Pacific Islander or Other _ _ _133% (33% increase)
          _ 2,936 _ _ 3,572 _ Multiracial _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 122% (22% increase)
          _ 5,793 _ _ 8,172 _ Hispanic (of any race) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _141% (41% increase)

        2. Alan Miller

          What in God’s name was the purpose in that numerology lesson?

          Are we trying to actually line up “race” with “race on the council” as if they have to be the same?  Where is that written?  And if nowhere, does someone want it so written?  And really, why stop there, isn’t voting descriminatory, since it only favors the “majority”?  Let’s get rid of voting, and appoint people to serve by race.  Those races with the least number of people get the most representation, and those races with the most number of people get no representation.  That sounds fair.  Johnny Icelander for President!  Oh, too white, sor-ar-reeeeeeeeeyyyyyy!

          1. David Greenwald

            I think you mean statistical analysis, numerology is something quite different. You can’t have disparate impact if there’s not disparate impact.

        3. Matt Williams

          What in God’s name was the purpose in that numerology lesson?

          Joe Friday wanted to stop Don and David yammering at each other with erroneous/incomplete/misinterpreted data.  Just the facts Ma’am.

  5. Don Shor

    So a card-carrying member of the modern Republican party is suing the City of Davis over civil rights issues?

    Tom Lehrer was right: satire is dead.

  6. Richard McCann

    Rank choice voting a better solution:

    I also have no idea how Davis would carve up districts that could credibly meet an ethnic balance criteria. I pretty much go all the city and couldn’t tell you where there are anything other than student enclaves.

      1. Matt Williams

        I see no way to draw a district that enhances Hispanic or Asian representation on the council.

        Don appears to be saying that he sees no way that districts will improve representation.  If one accepts that bottom-line, then the next question would appear to be whether districts will degrade representation.  Thoughts?

        Are there any other evaluation metrics that you think the City (and voters) should use in addition to representation?

        1. David Greenwald

          Matt – As far as I know, no one has done a precinct by precinct level analysis of race or ethnicity.  I’m hoping to get that data and examine it at some point.  Bare in mind, in addition to number, there is also the issue of access.  By going to districts, the barrier to entrance is considerably lower

        2. Matt Williams

          David, as my reply to Bill clearly indicates I’m “all in” on making the change, purely on a fiscal responsibility basis.  I simply don’t see any downside, and if the demographic data provides us with a path to a representation upside, that is gravy, pure and simple.

          Making the incredibly wise fiscal decision and improving representation, that’s a true win-win.

          Bill’s peanuts measuring alternative … don’t give in to the bully … is fiscally irresponsible, but it could be a push from a representation perspective.  With that said Bill’s is not the worst case scenario.

          In my personal opinion the City’s press release describes the worst case scenario when it says, “Due to statutory and County elections deadlines, any transition to district-based elections would not impact the March 3, 2020 election, but could take effect in March 2022.”  In that scenario the City would pay the $30,000 and then (almost 100% surely) be sued for failing to make a good faith effort … with all the attendant legal costs of defending what the plaintiff will call “bad faith actions”, and possibly even with the additional costs of court-imposed penalties and fines.

          The City needs to get moving swiftly and get all the required steps completed by the November ballot language filing deadline.  I suspect (but do not know) that they can get it done efficiently and effectively in that timeline.  If they find that they can’t dot all the “t”s and cross all the “i”s by the November date, then all they have to do is move the Council election back to a later date in 2020.  With the exception  of Winters City Council, all Yolo County elections are held in November … Woodland’s West Sac’s  Yolo County’s  all the USD’s.  Is there any reason why Davis can’t go to a November election date?

        3. Bill Marshall

          Making the incredibly wise fiscal decision and improving representation, that’s a true win-win.

          “Facts” not in evidence, as you pointed out yourself… at least on the racial/ethnic basis… might actually work the other way… as you suggested was a possibility.

          Am leaning strongly towards the notion, expressed by several, as to ‘rank choice’ voting, Citywide…  I have come to think that would be more effective towards fixing real and/or perceived problems, than district elections, which I can envision exacerbating problems.

          Let’s say two districts were structured to be represented by ‘minorities’/special constituencies, and the other three (which would likely would have far less minorities/special constituencies) were represented by ‘others’… on any given action by the CC, you’d still need 3 votes.  Failure.

        4. Matt Williams

          “might actually work the other way”

          “which I can envision exacerbating problems”

          “Let’s say two districts were structured to be represented by ‘minorities’/special constituencies”

          Bill, you know who you sound like when you make those statements?  Do you really want to go there?  Your statement three above is statistically, practically, and probably legally impossible in Davis … impossible.

          When you go to bed at night, will you be able to look at the mirror and do a rendition of the Shirelles greatest hit with a straight face?

          You are arguing just for the sake of arguing.

          As of this moment rank choice voting isn’t an option on the table.  If/when it becomes something other than hypothetical, then it will be a choice, but for now, the City press release mentions that possibility exactly zero times.

        5. Alan Miller

          By going to districts, the barrier to entrance is considerably lower

          The quality and number of candidates to choose from will also be lower.  In Sacramento or Oakland, this may make sense, where large areas with distinct communities may need a voice.  Davis is too small for this to make sense.

        6. Alan Miller

          no one has done a precinct by precinct level analysis of race or ethnicity.  I’m hoping to get that data and examine it at some point.

          Oh boy oh boy oh boy!  I can’t wait to have Davis geographically classified by racial content in the year 2019!  How EXCITING. 🙁

    1. Alan Miller

      Rank choice voting a better solution

      Rank choice voting is THE solution!   Majority voting actually makes no mathematical or democratic sense.  Australia has only choice voting and mandatory voting.  Go Aussies!  But of course our City cried:  “But we’d have to become a charter City!” and derailed choice voting.  I don’t care if we have to become a city of gnomes and centipedes.  Choice voting is the ONLY answer.

  7. Bill Marshall

    For purposes of discussion:

    Davis and Woodland are General Law cities… Palmdale (cited in the ‘demand letter’) is a Charter City.

    Also, note that the City has to “pony up”, up to $30,000 if they comply and move to district elections… so, for sending what sure looks like a slightly modified ‘form letter’, the attorney, and undisclosed “client” will probably get a one time $30,000 payday… good work if you can find it.  Haven’t compared what the City got vs. what DJUSD may have got, but suspect there would be a 90+% concordance.  Does anyone think the City will get away with anything less than the legal max?  If so, let me know, and I’ll sell you a bridge that connects two NY boroughs… limited time only…

    Matt(s) (Williams and Rexroad) have pointed out the possible costs of a possible lawsuit… OK… if the City goes to district elections, will that ‘matter‘ as to avoiding expensive lawsuits?  Not that anyone everyone could sue over how districts are drawn, how often they are redrawn due to population and/or ethnic (more correctly, “protected classes”) changes, right?  Will be an interesting ‘cycle’… perfect for a community that support cycling.   And when they are redrawn with each cycle, that redrawing of the lines won’t be subject to lawsuits?  Really?  And if a redistricting removes a CC member from domicile in their ‘district’?

    Sharla brought up an interesting thought/observation about Bezerkley’s system… David G points out ‘more access’… yet, in the B-city, that may be true the first round, but in a given district, would likely lead to fiefdoms where incumbency would rule… has happened more often than not… Sharla pointed out that there ain’t much turnover in Berkeley as to CC.  Is that more ‘access’, or more stratification on any line?

    Do we want a system where CC members have to focus ONLY (or mainly) on the vocal members of their districts, or the City community as a whole?

    As I pointed out in a previous post… a well-to-do white male cannot effectively represent a Black/Latina poor woman?   Really?  Can a poor Black/Lanina woman effectively represent a white, medium income, single mother?

    Guess this “community” thing was just BS… but, sure looks like it is a fait accompli, and the Matts and David support it.


    1. Matt Williams

      Bill, I don’t support “it.”  I support Fiscal Prudence.  I oppose Fiscal Irresponsibility.

      Why do you want to throw away a million dollars of taxpayer money at a time when we have an annual Budget Shortfall of over $10 million.  Even if Dan Carson’s number of $8 million for the Budget Shortfall is correct, and so far he hasn’t explained where $40 million over 20 years is coming from, to make the official Budget numbers “wrong,” a million dollars of taxpayer money is still a terrible thing to waste.

      To date I have seen no evidence that district elections will improve representation, but I also have seen no evidence that district elections will make representation worse.  The reality is there is no “it” there, or if you will, there is no there there … other than the fact that the State Legislature passed a law and the Governor signed it … and there is a cost associated with non-compliance.

      The City is holding a poker hand (after drawing) of a 2 of clubs, a 4 of diamonds, a 7 of hearts, a 9 of spades, and a 10 of clubs, looking at an opponent with a pair showing on the board.  Your a poker player, in that situation, what’s your bet?

      I will leave you with a “leading” question … was Solomon a bully or a wise man?  Miss Clairol’s answer to that question would be, “Only the baby knows for sure.”

      1. Bill Marshall

        Matt… for what profits a community to gain the whole fiscal security (or, case in point, a not so veiled threat to disrupt that), but loses its own soul/identity/’community’?

        Honest (yet, pointed) question.


  8. Alan Miller

    Bottom Line:  Put a measure on the ballot for a tax (utility, soda, parcel, food, I don’t care) and use the money to crush Rutroad’s extortion!  I don’t support tax increases, but I’ll gladly support this one.  Extortionist lawyers cannot have power over cities, and Davis must stop such extortion, be it from race-labeling lawyers or homeless-advocate lawyers or whomever.  Crush the extortionist lawyers, and use our tax dollars to do it.  And if that means more potholes for me to crash my bike in, that’s that price we’ll pay. 🙁 🙂 🙁

  9. Bill Marshall

    Forget about the history… it’s a done deal… deal with that… how it is done is the only question…

    And those who believe that fiscally (open to lawsuit), more access (what if the door is open, and no one steps up [particularly when ‘the one’s name shall not be mentioned’ is likely more concerned about political turf, personal issues, and not anything related to “protected classes”?]), are great ideas… take responsibility for that,as we move forward…

    I predict that any boundaries chosen are very wide open to lawsuits… no ‘savings’ there’…

    I predict that “protected classes” will be unaffected or lose ground… I’ll take responsibility for my predictions… those in favor of District Elections, should be equally responsible for their support.  And have the cahones to admit any failure.

    The die is cast… done deal… but those who advocate for it, should be person enough to “own it” if it goes sideways…

    Perhaps we’ll end up with a Latino (latinx?) district, an Asian District, a LGBQT district, a ‘female identification’ district, but we won’t have to worry about a white male, hetero, spiritual district.  All white, hetero, males should just do the ‘Heaven’s Gate’ thing, and Davis political life will be perfect.

    This whole “issue” is contrived, the threat of the suit is an automatic “payday” for the author of the letter, and/or his client (if real, to date, not identified)… whatever… c’est fait accompli… done deal.

    Let’s just pass an ordinance that no white, hetero males are eligible for CC…

    Let’s set an example for the State legislature… which could have mandated that all Gen Law cities go to district elections… they didn’t… they passed legislation to make sure attorneys could collect $30,000 dollars to write a letter (demand) to get to the same point, put ensuring a payday for attorneys (at least the first to ‘write’ the letter) and pretty much ensure that attorney’s would have good opportunities to sue, and collect, based on how districts are delineated… truly masterful…

    And cloak it all in “civil rights”… true genius!

  10. Bill Marshall

    BTW… as near as I can tell, ANY attorney could put the same thing (demand letter) on their letterhead, and ‘get a piece of the action’… if any attorney is interested, I can be their anonymous client, but want 40% of their take… just for funsies (and some beer money)…

    And yes, I intend to trivialize the Rexroad ‘demand’… but since the two Matts and David like the concept, why not cash in?

  11. Bill Marshall

    And, David…

    You raise the ambiguity of mayorality in this… how can we deal with the 2-3 CC members elected @ general when the ‘new order’ kicks in’?  Seems like 2 years is a lot of time to resolve, where technically, they will be representing districts that they may not live in, and were originally elected by folk not in their assigned districts… when it goes into effect, I recommend that all CC members be subject to election in the new districts… only seems fair… only question is who should stand election for 2-year terms, and those for 4… or, we could just reset the clock, and have them all stand for 4 year terms…

    1. Alan Miller

      Or we could fight the extortionist lawyers.  Who knows what they will demand next if Davis caves?  Do we want a Council process shaped in the form of whimpering away from extortionist lawyers?

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for