Tag Archives: Measure E Chico voting districts

Measure E: divide and conquer

8 Sep

There are two measures on the Chico ballot this November. Look at them here:


Measure E is a weird one – the city already established the council districts, but apparently state law requires the voters to approve them. The thing is, we can’t unapprove them.  According to the city clerk, “If Measure E fails, the Charter would not change and would remain out of compliance with the CA Voting Rights Act.  We would not revert back to at large elections, nor would it negate the district elections.  We would not have to do the election over.”

Furthermore, “From my understanding, the reason that the district elections would remain in place even if the voters vote it down, is that the CVRA trumps what the Charter says.  The measure is to bring the language into compliance with the CVRA.

So you have to ask yourself – why is this on the ballot if we can’t overturn council’s decision? I looked at the CVRA.

The California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA) expands on the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, making it easier for minority groups in California to prove that their votes are being diluted in “at-large” elections.[1] In 1986, the United States Supreme Court established conditions that must be met to prove that minorities are being disenfranchised; the CVRA eliminated one of these requirements. Unlike the federal Voting Rights Act, the CVRA does not require plaintiffs to demonstrate a specific geographic district where a minority is concentrated enough to establish a majority. Certain cities that have never had minority representation or have a history of minority candidate suppression can be liable for triple damages and be forced to make changes within ninety days. This makes it easier for minority voters to sue local governments and eliminate at-large elections.[2] The Act was signed into law on 9 July 2002.

Look carefully folks – this is what racism looks like. The first racist assumption here is the whole idea of a “minority group” – based on what? Skin color? Last name? Speech? 

It’s not nice to judge or exclude people on the basis of their skin color, last name, or speech pattern – we call it “racism“. 

The second racist assumption here is that members of these “minority groups” live clustered together in separate parts of town. That’s called “Red Lining,” and it’s not only racist it’s illegal. 

Racism, according to the dictionary, is “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized”

So, I’ll say, Black Lives Matter is a divisive, racist group, using a racist, inflammatory slogan intended to piss people off instead of bringing people together. A quick search online also tells us, it’s a very lucrative to get people pissed off at each other – according to various news sources, BLM has raised over $12 million through a front organization called “Thousand Currents.” From the Business Insider:

“Thousand Currents is a 501(3)(c) non-profit that provides grants to organisations that are led by women, youth, and Indigenous people focused on building food sustainability, fighting climate change, and developing alternative economic models for their communities across the world, according to their website…”

This is interesting – ““The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, the organisation’s official name, is a non-profit – but it is not tax exempt. In the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service, such an organisation is treated as any normal corporation, and still has to pay income tax.

But organisations like Black Lives Matter can team up with and borrow another non-profit’s tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) status, known as a fiscal sponsorship, while building out its own structure. Fiscal sponsorships are typically between two organisations that share a similar mission statement – and that’s where Thousand Currents comes in.”   

So, this isn’t just a bunch of moms getting together to change the world, it’s a very slick business operation. But they give money to people fighting the  good fight, right? Well, not unless those people are “women, youth, and Indigenous people”

That’s not only racist, it’s sexist and age-ist! You have to be female, young, and “indigenous”, “originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native” 

How is that not racist?   

Sure, we all hate old white men don’t we? Well, my grandpa was an old white man, but he got hisseff a young indigenous female for a wife. My grandmother was a Yacqui woman, born and raised in Northern Mexico. She never spoke English or Spanish, only Yacqui. Go figure! I just look like an old white lady! See what a racist you are for thinking I’m “white”? 

That’s the thing, see, we’re all different, we’re all complex, we all have a long history of “diversity” in our families. Do you think the same way as your grandparents – do you even understand your grandparents? Do they tell you where to live? Do they tell you how to vote? 

So, I’m voting NO on this measure no matter what the clerk says. They won’t get my approval for this racist bullshit. 

Remember, we’re all PEOPLE. United we stand, divided, we’re patsies for every carpetbagger coming down the pike.  Here’s another old saying, “Divide and conquer.”