The undated joint memorandum of understanding released by Mona Field and Raphael Sonenshein on behalf of the League of Women Voters (LWV) and Cal State University Los Angeles (CSULA), a public taxpayer-funded institution, is confirmation of their corrupt and unconstitutional debate selection process, filled with lies meant to perpetuate the active voter suppression and election manipulation underway in Los Angeles.
While the joint response from all candidates addresses the need for fairness in the debate, I specifically would like to address the fraudulent and unconstitutional claims of the LMV/CSULA MOU. It is not enough to exclude certified candidates; these organizations are likely violating the law.
On its face, this undated memo is clearly an after-the-fact cover job, but CSULA and the LWV are too lazy to even cover up their corruption cleanly. They openly admit a claim to using criteria dating to March 19, the close of the candidate filing period, to set who would participate in a May 1st debate.
Even if such criteria existed, it would be so outdated as to be unreasonable and useless months later. However, no such criteria exists.
The debate organizers said they relied on evidence of “significant voter interest” as demonstrated by publicly available polling data, media coverage, endorsements, and fundraising.
First, “significant” is subjective and not a measurable term, and as such, fails any reasonability standard. No academic or institutional review board would permit such a loose and vague term, subject to personal discretion, and neither would a court of law. Criteria must have numbers, metrics, percentages. As such, item #7 of the criteria, which is what Raphael Sonenshein uses to exclude my and other campaigns, fails any constitutional test for being overbroad and for lack of specificity—a test that CSULA must legally pass as a taxpayer funded public institution.
Second, not mine nor one of the “other” our campaigns ever received a single inquiry to provide any of this information–which means that the debate organizers are simply lying about any evaluation of actual data, since they didn’t have it.
For example, because the organizers did not request fundraising data from our campaigns, they were either relying on fundraising numbers from December 31, 2021 for a debate to take place on May 1, 2022, or simply making guesses. They did not ask any campaign for a list of endorsements, and so they relied on random “party institutions” of their own preference, or made guesses. Lastly, they relied on a poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times before the filing period even commenced, which also breached numerous ethics regulations, while also itself having no criteria for inclusion or exclusion, making the poll completely invalid. Recent polling issued on April 11, 2022 also confirms that included candidates enjoy no more support than excluded candidates.
In totality, Criteria #7 is at best a matter of personal judgment, substituting the singular will of Raphael J. Sonenshein for that of the people of Los Angeles. At worst, it’s a corrupt, after-the-fact cover story designed to mask the lies and active voter suppression by Sonensehin on behalf of CSULA.
At a time when Democrats nationally are fighting to expand the voices at the table, and to give the public more access to democracy, Sonenshein is continuing a trend of institutions here in Los Angeles doing the opposite, in an affront to democracy. Shame on them all.
Thankfully, we have the law to rely on. In AETC v. Forbes (1998), the Supreme Court clearly established that debate exclusion by a public, taxpayer-funded institution must occur only as the result of “reasonable regulations.” CSULA had no regulations at the time the decision to exclude candidates was made.
Moreover, the regulations they made up after the fact are not only invalid as being ex post facto but also untruths, since these institutions possessed none of the very information they claim to have evaluated in their own fake criteria.
CSULA fails every moral and constitutional test for debate exclusion, and is in clear violation of the law, while also engaging in unethical and undemocratic behavior.
I challenge both the League of Women Voters and Raphael Sonenshein of Cal State Los Angeles to make public allcorrespondence and data on which they claim to have relied. They can either choose to do it now, or in a court of law. One way or another, we will ensure the truth comes out.
To Sonenshein, CSULA, and the LWV, and to everyone in Los Angeles participating in voter suppression, I say simply: You cannot try to manipulate an election and get away with it. You are a disgrace to our city; to democracy and the institutions you claim operate in the public interest.
Admit all certified candidates who fit criteria #1-6 to the debate immediately. The law is on our side.