OC Political

A right-of-center blog covering local, statewide, and national politics

Creating Wards In Anaheim Would Be A Mistake

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on July 3, 2012

It has been brought to my attention that some misinformed people are pushing for a system that would separate Anaheim into different wards for the City Council races. I will disclose up front that I am a resident of Anaheim Hills and an appointed member of the Anaheim Housing Commission. The concept of putting wards in place is simply a waste of time and resources.

Only 3 other Cities use a Ward system in Orange County (Santa Ana, Newport Beach, and Seal Beach) and Santa Ana has a bizarre system where the entire City votes for the Councilmembers despite the fact that they have to live in the wards.

Anaheim currently has 4 members of the Council (including the Mayor) that live in Anaheim Hills and one minority on the Council. These members were all fairly elected to the Council by the entire City, whether you like them or not they and according to the 2010 Orange County Registrar of Voters Statement of Votes Kris Murray, Gail Eastman, and Tom Tait all won the area covered by the Anaheim Union High School District (http://www.ocvote.com/fileadmin/user_upload/sov/gen2010/sov-web.pdf).

Lets take a look back at the winning candidates for Anaheim City Council/Mayor going back to 2002:

2002- Curt Pringle, Bob Hernandez, & Richard Chavez (All 3 did not live in Anaheim Hills)
2004- Lorri Galloway & Harry Sidhu (Both do live in Anaheim Hills)
2006- Curt Pringle, Lucille Kring, &  Bob Hernandez (Only 1 lived in Anaheim Hills)
2008- Lorri Galloway & Harry Sidhu (Both do live in Anaheim Hills)
2010- Tom Tait, Kris Murray, & Gail Eastman (2 live in Anaheim Hills)
(All data comes from http://www.ocvote.com/)

These numbers show that both candidates from Anaheim Hills and the flatlands win races for the City Council and Mayor. It is not some conspiracy that has been put together to keep candidates on the City Council that only live in Anaheim Hills as 2010-2012 is the only time frame i the past 10 years where we have seen 4 Councilmembers living in Anaheim Hills.

Voters should  have a right to vote for the best candidates running for City Council regardless of where they live and what race that they are. In my opinion this not only should be the rule for Anaheim but any City including Santa Ana, Seal Beach, and Newport Beach.

Arguably the 2 front-runners for Anaheim City Council in November are Lucille Kring and Steve Chavez-Lodge (neither on lives in Anaheim Hills). Much like the stock market Councilmembers in terms of where they live are cyclical. Sometimes candidates from the flatlands win and other times candidates from the hills win.

I can’t believe that I am saying this but one of the better articles that I have seen on statistical reasoning against switching to a ward system comes from Gustavo Arellano at the OC Weekly who penned this http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2012/06/aclu_anaheim_lawsuit_latinos.php. He and I may not agree on much in terms of policy but he absolutely hit it out of the park with this story even though I don’t agree with some of the ways he expressed his position in the article.

Hopefully the system in Anaheim stays the same and we can continue to simply vote for candidates that will represent all of Anaheim not just their specific wards.

Posted in Anaheim | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

What’s Next for Bustamante and What Happens to His Council Seat

Posted by Chris Nguyen on July 3, 2012

Carlos Bustamante’s Mugshot

Clearly, the biggest news in OC politics this week is the arrest of Councilman Carlos Bustamante (R-Santa Ana) on twelve felony counts, including six counts of false imprisonment, three counts of assault with the intent to commit a sexual offense, one count of stalking, one count of attempted sexual battery by restraint, and one count of grand theft by false pretense.  Additionally, there were four misdemeanor counts and a sentencing enhancement added.

These charges are in connection with his time as Director of Administrative Services for OC Public Works.

Listed with the occupation of consultant on his booking record, Bustamante was released on $100,000 bail last night at 11:25 PM.

District Attorney Tony Rackauckas will be holding a press conference at 9:30 AM this morning to discuss the Bustamante case in greater detail.

Gustavo Arrellano at OC Weekly reports that Bustamante has a court appearance on Thursday.

Whatever is the end result of his felony prosecution will be between him, his lawyers, and the DA’s office, and possibly, a jury.

However, as Bustamante is a councilman, we will now take a look at the political implications of his arrest.  He is almost assuredly not going to run for a third term in November.  Even if he does run, he will lose, unless he gets a very extreme split of the anti-incumbent vote (remember, Judge Ronald Kline still received 35% of the vote after being publicly accused of child molestation and being indicted for possessing over 100 images of child pornography).

Assuming Bustamante does the rational thing and does not seek re-election, what happens to Bustamante’s seat in the meantime?  Will it go vacant?  According to Government Code Section 1770, there are 12 ways in which a city councilmember’s seat can become vacant:

An office becomes vacant on the happening of any of the following events before the expiration of the term:

(a) The death of the incumbent.

(b) An adjudication pursuant to a quo warranto proceeding declaring that the incumbent is physically or mentally incapacitated due to disease, illness, or accident and that there is reasonable cause to believe that the incumbent will not be able to perform the duties of his or her office for the remainder of his or her term. This subdivision shall not apply to offices created by the California Constitution nor to federal or state legislators.

(c) His or her resignation.

(d) His or her removal from office.

(e) His or her ceasing to be an inhabitant of the state, or if the office be local and one for which local residence is required by law, of the district, county, or city for which the officer was chosen or appointed, or within which the duties of his or her office are required to be discharged.

(f) His or her absence from the state without the permission required by law beyond the period allowed by law.

(g) His or her ceasing to discharge the duties of his or her office for the period of three consecutive months, except when prevented by sickness, or when absent from the state with the permission required by law.

(h) His or her conviction of a felony or of any offense involving a violation of his or her official duties. An officer shall be deemed to have been convicted under this subdivision when trial court judgment is entered. For purposes of this subdivision, “trial court judgment” means a judgment by the trial court either sentencing the officer or otherwise upholding and implementing the plea, verdict, or finding.

(i) His or her refusal or neglect to file his or her required oath or bond within the time prescribed.

(j) The decision of a competent tribunal declaring void his or her election or appointment.

(k) The making of an order vacating his or her office or declaring the office vacant when the officer fails to furnish an additional or supplemental bond.

(l) His or her commitment to a hospital or sanitarium by a court of competent jurisdiction as a drug addict, dipsomaniac, inebriate, or stimulant addict; but in that event the office shall not be deemed vacant until the order of commitment has become final.

He’s alive (a), he’s not incapacitated (b), he filed his oath years ago (i), his election was valid (j), his office does not require an additional bond (k), and he has not been committed to a hospital or sanitarium (l).

If (e) or (f) apply, then he will be a fugitive from the law, as I’m pretty sure he’s not allowed to leave the jurisdiction.

He cannot be recalled (d), as Elections Code Section 11007(c) prohibits recalls when there’s less than six months left in an elected official’s term.

That leaves us with (c), (g), and (h).  However, (g) is overridden by the stricter Santa Ana City Charter Section 403:

If a member of the City Council absents himself from all regular meetings of the City Council for a period of sixty (60) days consecutively from and after the last regular City Council meeting attended by such member, unless by permission of the City Council expressed in its official minutes, his office shall become vacant and shall be so declared by the City Council.

So that leaves us with California Government Code Section 1770(c) and Section 1770(h), along with Santa Ana City Charter Section 403:

  • Now, (c) is the most straightforward: Bustamante can resign, or he can hang on to office as the legal proceedings on his charges move forward.
  • Subdivision (h) depends on the outcome of his criminal proceedings: if he pleads guilty to at least one of the felonies or if he’s convicted, then (h) will occur.
  • With City Section 403, he’s already missed the July 2 Council meeting because he was arrested on his way to that meeting.  If he misses the July 16, August 6, and August 20 meetings, then he will have absented himself from council meetings for sixty days.  The council could then declare his seat vacant at the September 3 meeting, though there’d only be two months until the election to fill his seat for the normal four-year term.  If he shows up to just one of those three meetings, then Section 403 will be rendered inoperative.

The other part of Section 403 of the Santa Ana City Charter reads:

In the event of a vacancy in the City Council, for whatever cause, the City Council shall declare the office vacant and fill the same by appointment. In each case the person so appointed shall hold office until the next general municipal election and until his successor is elected and qualified for the remainder of an unexpired term. Such appointee must, at the time of his appointment and continuously for one (1) year prior thereto, have been and be a resident of the ward from which his predecessor was elected. If the City Council shall fail to fill a vacancy by appointment within thirty (30) days after such an office shall have become vacant, it shall forthwith cause an election to be held to fill such vacancy.

In essence, if the Council fails to make an appointment within 30 days of the vacancy, then they will trigger an election.  I would note Bustamante’s term expires five months from today.  Filing for most offices closes on August 10, but for races where an eligible incumbent chooses not to file (e.g. Bustamante), the deadline is extended to August 15.

If Bustamante resigns before August 15, it’s still possible for the Santa Ana City Council to appoint someone to Bustamante’s seat in time for candidate filing.  If he resigns after that, they could appoint a caretaker or one of the candidates but that person would not have the incumbent designation on the ballot.

Posted in Orange County, Orange County District Attorney's Office, Santa Ana | Tagged: , , , | 6 Comments »

Santa Ana Councilman Bustamante Arrested for 12 Felonies, Including Assault, Attempted Sexual Battery, False Imprisonment

Posted by Chris Nguyen on July 2, 2012

Carlos Bustamante

The Office of District Attorney Tony Rackauckas has issued a media advisory indicating that Santa Ana City Councilman Carlos Bustamante (the former Director of Administrative Services for OC Public Works) has been arrested for twelve felonies: grand theft by false pretense, stalking, attempted sexual battery by restraint, three counts of assault with the intent to commit a sexual offense, and six counts of false imprisonment.  The arrest also included four misdemeanors and a sentencing enhancement, according to the media advisory:

Orange County District Attorney
Media Advisory

WHO: Orange County District Attorney (OCDA) Tony Rackauckas

WHAT: Will hold a press conference to discuss the criminal charges against Santa Ana City Councilman and former administration manager for Orange County Public Works Carlos Bustamante.

Bustamante was arrested today, Monday, July 2, 2012, at 4:30 p.m. by OCDA Investigators on six felony counts of false imprisonment, three felony counts of assault with the intent to commit a sexual offense, one felony count each of stalking, attempted sexual battery by restraint, and grand theft by false pretense, and one misdemeanor count each of battery, assault, sexual battery, and attempted sexual battery with a sentencing enhancement allegation for committing the offenses as a result of sexual compulsion and for the purpose of sexual gratification.

WHEN: Tomorrow, Tuesday, July 3, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

            Media will be permitted to set up beginning at 8:00 a.m.

WHERE: Law Library of the OCDA’s Office, 401 Civic Center Drive W., Santa Ana

Here’s the coverage from the local news media:

Here’s The Liberal OC‘s post on the Bustamante arrest.

The Associated Press has the story too, as shown here in the San Jose Mercury-News.

Elected in 2004, Bustamante is the Santa Ana Council’s sole Republican.  He is eligible to run for a third term, but this arrest makes that  campaign extremely unlikely.

Posted in Orange County, Orange County District Attorney's Office, Santa Ana | Tagged: , | 7 Comments »

Molly Munger Files Suit Over Ballot Measure Placement; Judge Halts Numbering Until 7/9

Posted by Chris Nguyen on July 2, 2012

On June 27, the State Senate passed AB 1499 on a near-party-line 24-15 vote (Democrat Joe Simitian of Palo Alto joined the Republicans in voting against the bill, with Republican Sharon Runner of the Antelope Valley not voting), the State Assembly passed the bill on a party-line 50-24 vote (with three Republicans, two Democrats, and one Republican-turned-independent Nathan Fletcher not voting), and the Governor signed the bill into law.

So what exactly does AB 1499 do?  It changes the order that ballot measures appear on the ballot.  Because this bill was a budget trailer bill, it has already become law, rather than waiting until January 1, like the average bill.

Under the law as it existed on June 26, this was the order of how measures appeared on the ballot:

  1. Bond measures proposed by the Legislature
  2. Constitutional amendments proposed by the Legislature
  3. Other measures proposed by the Legislature
  4. Initiative measures
  5. Referenda

However, AB 1499, which is now the law of the land, changed the order thusly:

  1. Bond measures (regardless of whether they were put there by the Legislature or initiative)
  2. Constitutional amendments (regardless of whether they were put there by the Legislature or initiative)
  3. Measures proposed by the Legislature that aren’t bonds or constitutional amendments
  4. Initiative measures that aren’t bonds or constitutional amendments
  5. Referenda

Molly Munger (a Democrat and the sister of Republican Charles Munger, Jr.) has filed suit to stop AB 1499 from affecting the November 2012 election.

Why is she doing this?

Well, take a look at my previous post (which went online just hours before AB 1499 made its way through the Legislature) that noted the likely order of the ballot measures.  Then, take a look at what the order will be if AB 1499 is allowed to move forward unfettered:

Proposition 30 – Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012 (This was the water bond deal of 2009 authored by then-Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill that the Legislature put on the 2010 ballot before moving it to the 2012 ballot.)

Proposition 31 – Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. (This is Governor Jerry Brown’s tax measure.)

Proposition 32 – State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. (This is the two-year budget measure.)

Proposition 33 – Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute. (This is best known as Stop Special Interest Money Now.)

Proposition 34 – Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 35 – Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 36 – Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 37 – Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 38 – Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 39 – Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute. (This is Molly Munger’s tax measure.)

Proposition 40 – Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 41 – Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

(Any initiatives or referenda that qualify now are too late for the November 2012 ballot and will have to wait for another election.  However, the Legislature can still add measures to the ballot or remove the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012 from the ballot, which would alter the numbering of the propositions.)

See what happened in the ballot measure sequence because of AB 1499: Molly Munger’s tax measure is buried near the bottom of the ballot while Governor Jerry Brown’s tax measure will be either first or second on the ballot (depending on if the Legislature removes the water bond from the ballot).  Without AB 1499, the two measures would be neighbors on the ballot.

Munger obtained a temporary restraining order from Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley preventing Secretary of State Debra Bowen from officially numbering the ballot measures.  But for Frawley’s order, she would have done so today.  However, Frawley blocked her from officially numbering the ballot measures until after Frawley holds a hearing on Munger’s suit on July 9.

Not only does Munger challenge the applicability of AB 1499 to the November 2012 ballot, but she also challenges the order of qualification, asserting that the Registrars of Los Angeles and Alamenda Counties improperly validated petitions for Brown’s ballot measure before they validated petitions for her ballot measure, as they are required by law to validate petitions in the order received (yes, Munger’s signatures were turned in before Brown’s).

Should Munger achieve a total victory on July 9 (a week from today), then this will be the ballot order for November:

Proposition 30 – Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012 (This was the water bond deal of 2009 authored by then-Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill that the Legislature put on the 2010 ballot before moving it to the 2012 ballot.)

Proposition 31 – Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute. (This is best known as Stop Special Interest Money Now.)

Proposition 32 – Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 33 – Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 34 – Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 35 – Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 36 – Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 37 – Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute. (This is Molly Munger’s tax measure.)

Proposition 38 – Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. (This is Governor Jerry Brown’s tax measure.)

Proposition 39 – Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 40 – State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. (This is the two-year budget measure.)

Proposition 41 – Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

Why does ballot order matter?

Sadly, location on the ballot actually affects odds of passage.  The earlier on the ballot a measure appears, the higher its chances of passing.  I don’t have the figures for ballot measures, but there are studies that have shown being the first person on the ballot in a long list of candidates can boost a person’s vote by as much as 5%.  (This is why candidates appear on the ballot in a random ballot lottery rather than alphabetically.)

To people who vote “yes” on ballot measures because they appear earlier and “no” because they appear later, please for the love of democracy, leave your vote on ballot measures blank!  Your ballot still counts even if you don’t fill out every slot.  If you just want to vote for Obama or Romney, your vote will still count even if you leave the rest of your ballot blank.  Let informed voters who have studied the issues cast their votes for the propositions on the ballot.  While I’m here, if you don’t know anything about candidates in down-ticket races, do not automatically vote for the candidate who appears first or has the longest name.  Let informed voters who have studied the candidates cast their votes for offices on the ballot.

Alas, there is no point to the admonition above since people who read political blogs (like you, dear reader) are not the people causing this problem, as you’re the ones actually seeking information on the issues.

(In the interest of full disclosure, Custom Campaigns has done some consulting work for Stop Special Interest Money Now, tentatively Proposition 33 under AB 1499, or Proposition 31 if AB 1499 is prevented from taking effect for the November 2012 ballot.  For the record, we do not accept payments for blogging and require disclosures when a blogger has a potential conflict of interest in a blog post, unless it’s something really obvious, like a blogger blogging about their own candidacy for office.)

Posted in California | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Bill Campbell’s Third District Report

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on July 1, 2012

This came over the wire from Supervisor Bill Campbell’s office on Friday…

Photo of Supervisor Campbell, Bill Campbell Supervisor 3rd District, Newsletter, Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in 3rd Supervisorial District | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Shawn Nelson’s Fourth District Update

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on July 1, 2012

This came over the wire from Supervisor Shawn Nelson’s office on Friday…

Supervisor Shawn Nelson - Fourth District Update Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in 4th Supervisorial District | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

More Bad Behaivor by the Majority of the Capistrano Unified School District Board of Trustees

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on July 1, 2012

It appears that for the Board majority at CUSD they have no tolerance for any opinion but their own. During the last Board meeting at which several vital budget items were being voted on (including the secretly negotiated contract with the teacher’s union) – Trustee John Alpay moved and was successful in ending debate right as Trustee Ellen Addonizio was about the make her comments on why the union contract and budget were bad for the students and the District.

I guess Trustees John Alpay and Gary Pitchard do not like Democracy in that they don’t wish for a duly elected Trustee to speak from the dias about issues before the Board. One shout out: Trustee Anna Bryson, who has been voting with the majority of late – broke ranks with them and voted against the bad contract and budget and she voted no on closing debate.

Below is an e-mail from Julie Collier of the Parents Advocate League. She has a link to a Patch article on the meeting. It includes an audio clip of Mr. Alpay’s undemocratic and insulting motion and Trustee Gary Pritchard’s “justification” of Mr. Alpay’s bad behavior. Mr. Pritchard even laughs at Trustee Addonizio while he is discussing Alpay’s motion. These two Trustees need to go back to private life!

Here is Ms. Collier’s e-mail and the link to the Patch article:

Dear PALs,

I have been to many public meetings over the last five years; however, I have NEVER witnessed such a dysfunctional and offensive public meeting as I did on June 27th at the CUSD school board meeting. This meeting was truly an insult to constituents as well as students in CUSD.

Every year I have watched CUSD make financial decisions to ease budget concerns at the risk of negatively impacting student learning. Class sizes are increased and furlough days are added with little to no regard for student success. Not to mention, LIFO (Last-In; First Out) laying off teachers because they are the newest to be hired (regardless of whether or not they have the proven ability to teach) continues to be the go to solution for CUSD. Last Wednesday was no exception.

The budget was passed 4-3 (Bryson, Addonizio, and Palazzo dissenting) with $51 million in cuts. The district administration negotiated a deal with CUEA that includes 5-15 furlough days and 1.2% salary decrease. By the way, teachers will get a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA = salary increase)

*3.2% increase for the 12-13 school year
*2.5% increase for the 13-14 school year
*2.7% increase for the 14-15 school year

District official, Jodee Brentlinger, proudly stated the negotiations with CUEA went from “. . . us vs. them and resolved into we.” Unfortunately for students in CUSD, the “we” only included CUEA and CUSD district officials that negotiated behind closed doors.

The most despicable part of the board meeting happened when the teachers’ contract and the budget of over $50 million in cuts were passed with little to no discussion. Trustees Alpay and Pritchard (both up for re-election this November) collectively and deliberately stopped any discussion twice by Trustee Addonizio a long-time student-focused school board member. Please read the article below from the MV Patch. It also includes the actual audio of the controversial shut down for discussion. You can even hear Trustee Pritchard laughing at Trustee Addonizio as he is trying to defend his actions.

Expert: CUSD Goofed in Snuffing Budget Debate  http://missionviejo.patch.com/articles/expert-cusd-trustees-did-not-follow-proper-procedure

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Trustees Addonizio, Palazzo, and Bryson for recognizing the need for discussion regarding the impact these severe budget cuts will have on students. Parents and constituents are actually entitled to hear comments from their elected officials, especially regarding cuts to student centered programs and instructional days. Trustees Pritchard and Alpay should have taken more time to consider students as opposed to what appears to be setting themselves up for a union sponsored re-election campaigning.

I cannot implore to parents enough that you must stay informed and active in your child’s education. Attending PTA meetings and volunteering in the classroom is truly wonderful, but it is still not enough. Vital decisions were made for your child and his/her education last Wednesday at the board meeting. These decisions will not only affect your student’s ability to learn next year and for years to come, but it will affect how your child will compete for college admission compared to other students across the nation.

Where were you Wednesday night? Your presence at the board meeting could have made a difference. Teachers have their union. Students have their parents. YOU are your child’s voice. It is time for YOU to stand up and use it.

Julie Collier
Parents Advocate League
http://www.facebook.com/ParentsAdvocateLeaguePALs

Posted in Capistrano Unified School District | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

Say No to Taxes, Yes to Regulatory Reform: Steel Newsletter for June, 2012

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on July 1, 2012

This came over the wire from Board of Equalization Member Michelle Steel’s office on Thursday…

Posted in Board of Equalization | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Congressman Gary Miller’s Weekly Newsletter

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on June 30, 2012

This came over the wire from Congressman Gary Miller’s office yesterday…

June 29, 2012

Congressman Miller Criticizes Supreme Court Ruling on the President’s Health Care Law

On Thursday, the Supreme Court announced that it has upheld the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Congressman Miller is deeply disappointed by the Court’s misguided ruling. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in 39th Congressional District | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Assemblymember Wagner’s June E-Newsletter

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on June 30, 2012

This came over the wire from Assemblyman Don Wagner’s office on Monday…

Don Wagner | District 70 Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in 68th Assembly District | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »