Democracy in Thousand Oaks: The Integrity of Elections
“Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be.”
It was a horse, of course, but not according to its owner.
Ragtime was the miniature horse – “clean, quiet, and cute”[1] – spending most of its time in the backyard practicing tricks for horse shows and exhibitions. Though some properties in Thousand Oaks were zoned for horses, the owner’s residential neighborhood property was not; that’s why the owner, considering Ragtime a pet, “just want[ed] miniature horses reclassified.” [2]
The Council entertained the possibility of special permitting of miniature horses, but the representative from the Conejo Hills/Lynn Estates Homeowners Association came before the Council to request keeping the ordinance in place until adequate notice is provided and that residents should be allowed to offer input before laws are changed; the Council agreed on a 3-2 vote to create a Miniature Horse Ad Hoc Committee.[3]
Although multiple meetings with small-horse experts, veterinarians, and real estate appraisers were planned, 15 of the 17 committee members felt no further discussion was needed. The Conejo Hills/Lynn Estates representative, now a member of the ad hoc committee, was suspicious of the extensive study paid to the issue. [4]
Of one councilmember driving the discussion, “… he believed that it was necessary for the experts to come in and tell us whether the miniature horse was a pet or a horse. The majority [of the committee] felt that we were going to be railroaded into a decision,” she said.[5]
The committee members pilloried Council leadership in letters to City Hall and refused to attend any future meetings. One member of the committee believed the City should enforce its zoning laws that prohibit horses “no matter how cute.” [6]
After months of public debate, the Council voted to uphold the current zoning ordinances and require Ragtime’s owner to board the horse. [7] A year later, the HOA leader threw her hat in the ring for a seat on the Council. “People are concerned about clean air, quiet neighborhoods, open space and low crime,” she said. “I am unhappy with the direction that the city is going.” [8]
Now president of the larger League of Conejo Homeowners Associations, this uncompromising Southern lady would serve as the center of tumult in Thousand Oaks for the next decade.
Elois Zeanah, Thousand Oaks City Councilmember (1990-1998) and Mayor (selected 1993)
So began the political career of Elois Zeanah.
Born in Fayette, Alabama, Zeanah grew up in Tupelo, Mississippi, two doors down from their family’s church friends, Vernon and Glady Presley, and their son Elvis.[9] Her subtle Southern drawl and prim attire led some to underestimate Elois, a fierce defender of residents’ interests and capable political organizer.
In her third try, Zeanah won a seat on the Thousand Oaks City Council in 1990 and brought an uncompromising advocacy for measured city growth and open space protections. Of Elois, former Thousand Oaks Mayor Jaime Zukowski said she “was not afraid to take a minority position to fight for what she believed in. She was fearless.”[10]
Her ascendency to the Council threatened the political establishment, launching an era commonly known as the “Tuesday Night Fights” [11] for the mid-week council meetings that exemplified the city’s “out-of-control” politics[12] and was described by some as “the best entertainment in town.”[13]
Zeanah so rankled that establishment that, in 1997, opponents engineered an unsuccessful attempt to recall her from office only one year before her second term ended. Over $425,000 was spent in the recall effort, including over $390,000 from a single source,[14] and voters rejected the recall by a 2-to-1 margin.
But three years prior, the Council majority let vitriol towards their political adversary cloud their judgment in how members to the Council are selected.
The following never happened.
With the upcoming November presidential election, one congressional district election gained national attention. The incumbent, having served four years in Congress, ran for re-election, but faced fierce competition from two challengers.
One compelling candidate spent nearly ten years running a Fortune 100 corporation and received national party backing, even giving a prominent televised speech at the party’s national convention. The other, a popular, independent mayor for the prior two decades, brought together a formidable local coalition, organized to send a maverick voice to Washington.
The congressional election was a nail-biting, three-way tossup.
With a month remaining in the campaign, discussion ensued about the realistic potential of a vacancy only months after the election. The way the presidential contest was progressing, the business executive could very well be nominated to the President-elect’s Cabinet, creating a vacancy if she were elected and needed to resign from Congress to accept the post.
Much was made about how much a special election would cost and what else could be done with such funds: the library could expand its community outreach program, the police department could hire another officer, the high school could bring on another AP History teacher. In the election’s final weeks, with the prospects of saving money on a special election, state and local leaders agreed on a process to appoint someone for the term if the vacancy does occur.
Under the last-minute framework, if there is a vacancy, the next highest vote getter would be appointed, but only under certain conditions. Such an appointment would only occur if the prospective appointee was not the incumbent; it was argued that the fact that the incumbent didn’t win demonstrated that the voters no longer wanted the incumbent to represent them in Congress. Another condition stated that the appointment wouldn’t occur if the second-place finisher didn’t finish sufficiently ahead of the third-place finisher; otherwise, the appointing authority could decide how else to fill the vacancy.
Again, this never happened, but not because it is undemocratic, convoluted, or even absurd; the United States Constitution prohibits it. Elections for the House of Representatives are guaranteed by Article I, Section 2: “When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.” [15]
This means that, in the United States, there are no appointments to the People’s House. If a vacancy occurs - no matter how or when it happens - an election is held to fill the vacancy; the people decide. While the people are to be represented in their government, they must have the ability to determine who represents them, which further means holding elections and guaranteeing suffrage for the people to participate in these elections.
America’s journey has progressively, though stiltedly, expanded suffrage. Our own history has proven that those in power don’t merely grant suffrage to others; pressures are needed to force change and to guarantee a role in public decision making – to have the right to vote.
Additionally, when it comes to elections, the outcomes should be determined by the people, not by lawmakers creating the rules. However, without constraints on those in power, that power will be leveraged to engineer outcomes rather than represent the people’s will.
Unfortunately, there are numerous, wide-ranging cases of American lawmakers developing elections rules to manufacture desired outcomes. The most common practice spanning multiple centuries in America is known as the “gerrymander” which carves up legislative districts to achieve almost pre-determined electoral outcomes.[16] Other examples, both historic and current, include poll taxes,[17] literacy tests,[18] voter roll purges,[19] forensic audits in search of widespread fraud patterns,[20] reductions in the number of polling places and moving them to difficult-to-reach locations,[21] reduction and/or elimination of mail-in ballot drop boxes location in large counties,[22] voter ID laws,[23] and restrictions of day and time that polling places are open.[24]
Democracy lives when we as a people agree on the tenets of self-governance: we engage in elections, we don’t always get our way, we peacefully transfer governing authority to those who did win, and we continually repeat the process.
When those in power use their power to stay in power, democracy withers.
Constitution of the State of California
In California, “all political power is inherent in the people.” [25] Self-governance requires that any system of transferring political power from the people to decision makers is open, free, and fair. Such open, free, and fair elections validate the transfer of this power from the people to elected officials. While these officials represent the interests of the people in public decision making, they do not have the legitimate authority to grant power to others on their own; in self-government, this is reserved to the people.
While we discuss who can vote, how the votes are counted, and even the right to vote itself, there is an implicit assumption to all of this: that we hold elections at all. The creativeness of human decision making is not limited merely to manipulating the rules by which elections are held, but to rationalize whether or not to hold elections.
We should continually remind ourselves that American democracy wasn’t won hundreds of years ago with no further battles in which to engage; it’s an ideal that we must continually choose to embrace as the best form of self-governance and that we instill these values in our future generations.
Alex Fiore, Thousand Oaks City Councilmember (1964-1994) and six-time Mayor (selected 1968, 1977, 1982, 1985, 1989, 1994)
Since the city’s founding in 1964, Alex Fiore was a mainstay in Thousand Oaks leadership. Fiore, who was elected as one of the first members of the five-member City Council, was ending his tenure after thirty years on the dais. In his last year, the annual mayoral rotation allowed Fiore to claim the Mayor’s seat for a record sixth time in 1994 and ended his time in leadership dedicating the Civic Arts Plaza he long championed.
Many lauded his dedication to Thousand Oaks, allies and foes alike. Attorney and former Thousand Oaks Mayor Chuck Cohen recalled, “Alex Fiore is probably the most caring, most astute, most sensitive problem-solver who has ever occupied a council seat in Ventura County in the 30 years that I’ve been around.” [26]
However, Cohen and others did feel that Fiore had lost his patience over the past three to four years. During one exchange, Fiore tore apart the arguments of a speaker criticizing the city’s policy of appraising land. As Fiore grew more aggravated, Councilmember Zukowski chided him: “I don’t think it’s right to debate the speaker,” to which Fiore retorted: “I don’t care what you think, Jaime.” [27] An attendee from the audience shouted, “That was uncalled for, Alex!” to which Fiore told her to “shut up.” [28]
The strains resulted from the more narrowed balance of power on the Council. One example of these Council divisions came in 1993 when the majority of Alex Fiore, Judy Lazar, and Frank Schillo attempted to exert pressure and expressed grievance when the Zeanah-Zukowski minority didn’t make things easy for them; when the majority didn’t have the votes, they wanted the minority to just go along.
Members of the Thousand Oaks City Council leading into the 1994 elections, and the 3-2 split.
From left to right: Alex Fiore, Judy Lazar, Frank Schillo, Elois Zeanah, Jaime Zukowski
The city had already been split by the approaches taken to build the city’s new Civic Arts Plaza. Numerous public votes over the last decade led to mixed opinions and bitter battles on how and whether to fund the center’s $63-million development. Now, the majority wanted to use the city’s Redevelopment Agency to triple the agency’s debt limit to $120 million and expand its jurisdiction by declaring the entire four-mile stretch of Thousand Oaks Boulevard as blighted. [29] [30]
While the early June meeting started with all five councilmembers in attendance, Councilmember Schillo left at 11:15 pm to attend a meeting in Sacramento the next day.[31] [32] With his departure, the majority no longer had the third vote they needed for passage, so when the Council eventually entertained the RDA changes, Councilmembers Zeanah and Zukowski defeated Mayor Lazar’s motion for a debt limit increase on a 2-2 vote. [33] Zeanah said she opposed the RDA extension because taxpayers were “being hurt and having more and more assessments imposed on them because the Redevelopment Agency is taking money away from the fire district and other services.”[34]
Aware that Schillo had supported the RDA extension, Fiore urged that votes be changed to bow to the Council majority’s wishes. “You know what the ultimate vote is going to be,” Fiore said. “I am really disappointed we could not dispose of this.” [35] Fiore added at the meeting’s late stages that the minority need not waste their time showing up for at the next meeting since they will inevitably lose the vote.[36]
This was a new time, where the Council majority would no longer get their way so easily, and there was no perceived benefit for Zeanah and her allies to bend to the majority’s will before the votes were taken. The majority was losing its previously unchallenged influence and the minority was now exercising theirs - a small but noticeable change in council dynamics.
And these tensions fueled the environment leading into the 1994 elections. Voters knew that perennial Councilmember Alex Fiore was retiring, and this opened the floodgates to candidates seeking his open seat. At the time in Thousand Oaks, three of the five seats were up for election on a citywide at-large basis; the top three candidates were elected to the Council for four years. The remaining two councilmembers were elected in a similar at-large fashion two years later.
The competition for Fiore’s seat began early in 1994, when a former Thousand Oaks Planning Commissioner announced his candidacy in March. Andrew P. “Andy” Fox, a resident for 12 years by the time of the campaign, served professionally as a fire captain with the Los Angeles Fire Department since the early 1980s and was appointed to the Planning Commission in 1990.[37] Fox focused on issues of public safety and managed growth, and he criticized the Council for its divisiveness. “Personal public attacks by elected officials against each other and, even worse, against residents attempting to exercise their civil rights, is simply unacceptable,” Fox said in a campaign statement.[38]
City Council Candidate Forum, October 13, 1994, Scherr Forum, Thousand Oaks Civic Arts Plaza
Together with Fox and incumbent councilmembers Judy Lazar and Elois Zeanah, ultimately sixteen candidates filed for the three available seats, and the campaign very much focused on Zeanah; the targeted attacks against her came from many sides, including her colleagues on the Council. Mayor Fiore and Councilmember Frank Schillo endorsed four of Zeanah’s opponents, including Lazar and Fox, in the heated race for the three open seats. Anti-Zeanah campaigners started distributing buttons depicting a “Z” with a slash through it, along with flyers calling Zeanah “elitist” and “divisive.”[39] Detractors came to city council meetings and used the public comments section to attack Zeanah, which she characterized as “part of a well-orchestrated effort to undermine [her] campaign.” [40] One of the residents who claimed credit for the negative flyer fumed at Zeanah; “You’ve mastered the art of hate. You’ve brought out the worst in this city.” [41]
One of the additional twists came in the 1994 Ventura County Supervisor race. The incumbent supervisor chose not to seek reelection, and Councilmember Schillo, having served ten years on the Thousand Oaks City Council, chose to run for the county board seat. Schillo ran for Supervisor without the risk of losing his Council seat; if he lost the Supervisor race in the November runoff, he’d remain on the Council, but if he won, it would create a vacancy, affecting the balance of power on the city panel.
It’s here where we consider the integrity of elections.
“Voting is the most precious right of every citizen, and we have a moral obligation to ensure the integrity of our voting process.”
As mentioned earlier, elections that are open, free, and fair validate the transfer of political power from the people to decision makers. For democracy to function well, we must agree on the election rules, compete within the rules, honor the choice of the people, and transfer authority peacefully to those chosen.
And while those in power may try to persuade the voters of their preferred choices through the election campaign, they should not use their official authority to change the rules midstream or cross the line of weighing in as an official body.
The deliberations of the Thousand Oaks City Council relating to the 1994 Council elections highlight the potential fragility of democratic self-governance, when government bodies have the authority to determine whether elections are held or not.
In the earliest days of the city, when the first Council vacancy occurred in 1967, Alex Fiore then said it should be filled by election, voting against the appointment to fill the vacancy.[43] Twenty years later, when another councilmember resigned due to a career move, the Council unanimously and without significant discussion called for an off-year special election in 1989. [44] Yet, in the heat of 1994’s competitive campaigning, a Council majority put their thumb on the scales in the election’s waning days.
In cases where there is an option, the costs of elections are regularly put forward as justification for not holding elections at all. Elaborate constructs for whether to hold an election or to change what will result from an election midstream manipulates the process by which voters weigh in on their representation.
Elections, held fairly and openly, address the exact concerns of self-governance - to ensure that officials receive the consent of the governed and that our representatives express the will of the people; free and fair elections are not a “nice-to-have.”
Thousand Oaks City Council Resolution 94-207 (adopted October 4, 1994)
Resolution “endorses and encourages” Council to appoint rather than hold an election if a vacancy occurs.
With the prospect of Councilmember Schillo winning his Supervisor race, leaving a vacancy on the Council, and with just a month before Election Day, outgoing Mayor Fiore argued that the new Council weigh in officially and just appoint the fourth-place vote-getter.[45]
Councilmember Zeanah supported holding an election if a vacancy occurs and letting the voters decide, as this was “the purest form of democracy.” [46] On who might even consider seeking a seat on the Council, “I have heard some good business people say they would consider running for a two-year term, but their commitments will not allow them to run for a full term,” said Zeanah. “We may get a completely different group of candidates for a special election.” [47]
Rationalizing that costs would be $105,000 for a prospective special election from a then-$72 million general fund yearly budget, [48] [49] the Council majority of Fiore, Lazar, and Schillo passed a pre-election resolution that “endorses and encourages” [50] the newly constituted Council to appoint the fourth highest vote-getter to any vacancy if it occurs.
However, this came with a complicated set of conditions. To fill the vacancy, the appointment should only occur if the fourth-place finisher receives a “clear plurality” over the fifth-place finisher. Furthermore, possibly to prevent Zeanah from returning to the Council if she finished outside the top three, the appointment shouldn’t occur if an incumbent finished fourth, since in the majority’s view that should be viewed as a vote of no confidence.[51] [52]
The 1994 election saw former Planning Commissioner Andy Fox receive the most votes, followed closely by incumbent Judy Lazar, each receiving over 17,000 votes. Despite the bitter campaign targeted against her, Elois Zeanah finished a distant but safe third to secure re-election with just under 12,000 votes.[53]
And with Councilmember Schillo winning his Supervisor contest, the results of the election created an equilibrium on the Council, with Judy Lazar and Andy Fox forming one bloc, and Elois Zeanah and Jaime Zukowski forming the other, so the first issue that arose was to fill the fifth Council seat. The options before the Council comprised appointing someone to fill the two years remaining on Supervisor-elect Schillo’s term or holding a special election.
During the campaign, Zeanah indicated that she would prefer a special election,[54] but days after the weary contest, Zeanah appeared ready to acquiesce to an appointment of Mike Markey, a Compton police detective and one of the four Fiore-Schillo endorsed candidates, as the fourth-place finisher to avoid turmoil, even though their views diverged.
“I am willing to give in on this one,” Zeanah said. “I would like to make an effort to start this new council off on a harmonious foot.” [55]
When time came to make the official decision, Zeanah returned to her support for an election. “I’m trying to maintain an open mind,” Zeanah said. “But I certainly do have a preference for a special election. I feel that residents deserve their right to directly elect the fifth council member.” From her perspective, Zeanah didn’t feel that Markey’s finish met the standards the Council set out for making the appointment. [56]
“I was initially leaning towards appointment when we were thinking that the final vote would end up giving Markey a clear plurality,” Zeanah stated, referring to Markey’s finish over fifth-place finisher and former Councilmember Lee Laxdal; Zeanah won her seat in a third-place finish with nearly 12,000 votes, but Markey received less than 10,000 votes and only bested Laxdal by a margin of 500.[57] “There isn’t [a clear plurality]. There is just a mere fraction of a percentage point.” [58]
Markey’s appointment to the Council would give Councilmembers Fox and Lazar an ally and thus Council control. Before the election, Fox supported appointment when the Council passed its pre-election resolution[59] and stood firm for appointing Markey after the election, feeling that the public supported that position. “I’m convinced that this [appointing Markey] is what the majority of the people want to do,” Fox said. “I really think the city is tired of campaigns.” [60]
In a pre-election exchange with Mayor Alex Fiore, Mayor Pro Tem Jaime Zukowski responds to the targeted campaign against Councilmember Elois Zeanah during the meeting’s public comments section.
Thousand Oaks City Council meeting, October 18, 1994.
[Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PtpsJSLSpU]
In the meeting following the mayoral rotation, the Council considered whether to hold an election. Residents on both sides of the issue urged the Council to make their preferred choice. Those in favor of appointment focused on the $100,000 cost of an election and revival of acrimony an election campaign can bring. Others said replacing Schillo without an election would leave residents without a say of the key Council swing vote with some of the biggest development issues facing the city. [61]
While some argued an election would be contentious, the very decision to hold an election itself was proving equally rancorous. Mayor Jaime Zukowski said before the meeting that she had been threatened with recall if she didn’t support appointment. “I find it very interesting that that would be the kind of approach used,” Zukowski said. “It’s rather hypocritical if cost is really the issue to the city since recalls are expensive.” [62]
Zeanah highlighted the very same contradictions in the arguments from appointment supporters during the meeting, including their announced effort to recall her as well. “…I found humorous was, many of the speakers said that they did not want to spend $100,000 for a special election, this would be a waste of taxpayer funds. Then they turned around and said that if I didn’t vote for an appointment, they would mount a recall on me, and that would require a special election in the same funds.” [63]
Zeanah continued, “We’ve heard tonight that $100,000 would buy one traffic signal. $100,000 would also buy one mountain bike. We’ve heard that we spent $150,000 on a copper curtain.[64] We also spent $150,000 of gas taxes for landscaping for the auto mall. We also spent $200,000 to condemn a small home on Hillcrest to widen the road. The Council also spent $300,000 to expedite the completion of this facility by one month. I ask you, is $100,000 worth any of those to allow the democratic process to go forward?” [65]
Supported by Zukowski on this point, Zeanah also argued the voters haven’t been fully heard. Zeanah stated: “The voters only had three votes, the voters have not spoken… People did not vote for four people, so the voters did not speak on this issue.”[66]
Recalling previous Council precedent, Zukowski reminded the Council that “[w]hen the Council made an appointment in the past…, there was one no vote to appointment, and that was Alex Fiore who felt very strongly a special election should be held.” Fox argued that if the Council were to consider an appointment, “…it would be foolish to choose somebody who got less votes than the person who finished fourth… we would then be substituting ourselves for the voters.” Lazar wanted it to be clear that she was “in opposition to a special election” and she wanted “to go on record regarding that.” [67]
During the debates on filling the vacancy, a resident, vehemently opposed to a special election supported by Zeanah, said that the Council needed to set a precedent for how to fill council vacancies since “accidents do occur.” [68]
Given the heated “bursts of vitriol”[69] directed at councilmembers during the meeting, Zeanah considered the woman’s comments a threat and asked sheriff’s deputies for advice on handling the issue. [70] [71] Lazar blasted Zeanah for calling the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department over a questionable comment at a public hearing; Zeanah snapped back at Lazar, asking her to stop using words such as “paranoid” to describe her.[72]
Lazar continued to press Zeanah, stating that she didn’t dispute Zeanah’s right to call deputies, but “it is the public’s right to come back and say they feel intimidated when they are under investigation,” Lazar said. Zeanah shot back, “How many times do I have to correct Mrs. Lazar? There was no investigation.” [73]
Lazar continued to raise the rhetoric and placed blame squarely at Zeanah’s feet. “I would prefer not to get this to a personal level,” Lazar said. “But, in reality, when you look back, there is no one other than Mrs. Zeanah who has chosen to attack more people in the community. I think you reap what you sow.” [74]
This was the decision making environment present on whether or not to allow voters to determine who sits on the Council.
After two meetings were held to act on filling the vacancy, the Council ultimately deadlocked, reaching no consensus on whom or whether to appoint. Given the only remaining alternative under state law, at a third meeting, the Council quietly passed a special election resolution via consent calendar. [75]
The Council continued its divisions on a number of topics. Councilmember Zeanah’s proposal to hold a public discussion on campaign reform failed when Fox and Lazar opposed the issue.[76] Many public hearings were delayed either indefinitely or at the applicant’s request until the summer to wait out the Council split. Acquiescing to the perpetual 2-2 splits, the Council voted to cancel seven of their meetings until the June special election.[77]
New members of the Thousand Oaks City Council after the 1994 and 1995 elections
From left to right: Andy Fox, Mike Markey
Finishing fourth in the most recent contest, Mike Markey ran for Council again in the 1995 special election and faced stiff competition from Trudi Loh, who previously ran a competitive campaign for County Supervisor, narrowly losing to Frank Schillo 51%-48%. Of the six candidates in the city council field, Markey and Loh presented the primary choice for voters.
The campaign against Loh started early when in December she received harassing phone calls shortly after expressing interest in running for the vacant Council seat. A police investigation tied one of the calls to a key member of a group called Thousand Oaks’ Citizens to Save Our City.[78] The pro-business political group was formed in the last few weeks of the 1994 campaign to oppose the candidacies of Elois Zeanah and others aligned with her. For the June 1995 election, the group chose to back Markey, but the episode forced Markey to disassociate himself from the group’s support.[79] In the end, Markey’s campaign proved much stronger; of over 17,000 votes cast, Markey garnered nearly 2,000 more votes than Loh, tipping the majority Council balance to Fox and Lazar.[80]
In the end, an election was held, but not without a serious attempt to engineer the outcome through undemocratic means. When given the choice of appointing an ally or allowing the voters to decide, choosing democracy was not the natural choice for some. The only thing that stopped forgoing the election itself was an equal number of democratically-minded councilmembers.
While there is national focus on the plight of American democracy, these antidemocratic tendencies are not new and can come out when polarizing splits are present and the desire to keep power is evident. As we see from the 1994 episode in Thousand Oaks, the personal preference for and animosity towards other councilmembers can cloud the judgment of some for upholding our democratic traditions.
Unless mandated to hold elections, those in power can be tempted to dispense with elections altogether when the circumstances suit them.
While a 2-2 vote protected the right of the people to choose their leaders, if the balance were 3-1, would antidemocratic tendencies prevail?
We find out in our next episode.
[1] Sam Enriquez, “Tiny Horse Kicking Up a Big Fuss: Owner Denies ‘Pet’ Is Farm Animal, Which Zoning Bars,” Los Angeles Times, May 4, 1987.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, January 20, 1987.
[4] Enriquez, “Tiny Horse Kicking Up a Big Fuss”
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, May 5, 1987.
[8] Sam Enriquez, “Councilman in Thousand Oaks to Seek Reelection,” Los Angeles Times, July 19, 1988.
[9] “Elois Zeanah Endowed Scholarship,” The Community Foundation of West Alabama, http://www.thecfwa.org/scholarships/ez-scholarship/
[10] Wendy Leung, “Ex-Thousand Oaks mayor was fierce champion of open space,” Ventura County Star, January 30, 2015.
[11] Miguel Bustillo, “Many Citizens Say City Hall Fighting and Recall Efforts Have Gone Too Far,” Los Angeles Times, February 23, 1997.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Kate Folmar, “Spending in Zeanah Recall Fight Topped $500,000,” Los Angeles Times, February 3, 1998.
[15] United States Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 4.
[16] Elmer C. Griffith, The Rise and Development of the Gerrymander (Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1907), 17.
[17] “Poll Taxes,” National Museum of American History, Smithsonian, https://americanhistory.si.edu/democracy-exhibition/vote-voice/keeping-vote/state-rules-federal-rules/poll-taxes.
[18] “Literacy Tests,” National Museum of American History, Smithsonian, https://americanhistory.si.edu/democracy-exhibition/vote-voice/keeping-vote/state-rules-federal-rules/literacy-tests.
[19] “Voter Purges,” Brennan Center for Justice, https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression/voter-purges.
[20] David Schwartz and Nathan Layne, “’Truth is truth’: Trump dealt blow as Republican-led Arizona audit reaffirms Biden win,” Reuters, September 21, 2021, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/arizona-republicans-release-findings-widely-panned-election-audit-2021-09-24/.
[21] “Latino-majority town in Kansas moves its lone polling site outside city limits, triggering ACLU suit,” Los Angeles Times, October 27, 2018.
[22] Jolie McCullough, “Texas counties will be allowed only one drop-off location for mail-in ballots, state Supreme Court rules,” Texas Tribune, October 27, 2020.
[23] “Voter ID,” Brennan Center for Justice, https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression/voter-id.
[24] Eugene Scott, “New Georgia legislation would curb ‘souls to the polls’,” Washington Post, February 24, 2021.
[25] California Constitution, Article II, Section 1.
[26] Stephanie Simon, “Fiore is Thousand Oaks’ Architect of Change,” Los Angeles Times, June 13, 1994.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Stephanie Simon, “Council May Declare Boulevard Blighted,” Los Angeles Times, June 3, 1993.
[30] Stephanie Simon, “City Council Breaks Deadlock, Backs Expanded Redevelopment,” Los Angeles Times, June 4, 1993.
[31] Simon, “Council May Declare Boulevard Blighted”
[32] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, June 1, 1993.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Simon, “Council May Declare Boulevard Blighted”
[35] Ibid.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Carlos V. Lozano, “Ex-Commissioner to Run for Council,” Los Angeles Times, March 16, 1994.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Matthew Mosk and Stephanie Simon, “Campaign Attacks Spill Into City’s Public Meetings,” Los Angeles Times, October 20, 1994.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Ibid.
[42] Hillary Clinton, “Senators Clinton and Boxer, Representative Tubbs Jones and Others to Unveil Major Election Reform Bill,” http://web.archive.org/web/20050219040101/http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2005/2005217501.html, February 17, 2005.
[43] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, February 7, 1967.
[44] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, July 11, 1989.
[45] Stephanie Simon, “Council, Candidates to Debate Plans to Fill Possible Vacancy,” Los Angeles Times, October 4, 1994.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Ibid.
[48] Matthew Mosk, “4th-Place Finisher May Fill Schillo’s Job,” Los Angeles Times, October 6, 1994.
[49] Stephanie Simon, “City Manager Proposed Seeking Community Input on Budget,” Los Angeles Times, September 20, 1994.
[50] Resolution 94-207, Thousand Oaks City Council, adopted October 4, 1994.
[51] Mosk, “4th-Place Finisher”
[52] Resolution 94-207, Thousand Oaks City Council, adopted October 4, 1994.
[53] Statement of Votes Cast at the General Election, November 8, 1994,” Richard D. Dean, County Clerk and Recorder, County of Ventura, 309, 313.
[54] Simon, Stephanie, “Council to Hear Debate on Plans to Fill Possible Vacancy,” Los Angeles Times, October 4, 1994.
[55] Stephanie Simon, “3 Council Victors Vow Unity, Say Markey May Succeed Schillo,” Los Angeles Times, November 10, 1994.
[56] Ibid.
[57] “Statement of Votes Cast at the Direct Primary Election, November 8, 1994,” Office of the Ventura County Clerk and Recorder, https://recorder.countyofventura.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/1994-Nov.-SOV1.pdf.
[58] Simon, “3 Council Victors Vow Unity”
[59] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, October 4, 1994.
[60] Ibid.
[61] Mary F. Pols, “City Must Hold Special Election for Council Seat,” Los Angeles Times, December 14, 1994.
[62] Ibid.
[63] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, December 13, 1994.
[64] The “Copper Curtain” is piece of artwork on the side of the Thousand Oaks Civic Arts Plaza to complement the CAP’s contemporary block style architecture; the piece was designed by CAP architect, Antoine Predock. Views of the “Copper Curtain” can be found here: https://www.conejovalleyguide.com/dosomethingblog/thousand-oaks-civic-arts-plaza.html
[65] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, December 13, 1994.
[66] Ibid.
[67] Ibid.
[68] Mary F. Pols, “Election Required for Council Seat,” Los Angeles Times, January 5, 1995.
[69] Ibid.
[70] Mary F. Pols, “Police Questioning of Resident Raises Concerns of Free Speech,” Los Angeles Times, January 24, 1995.
[71] Mary F. Pols, “2 Thousand Oaks Councilwomen Still at Odds,” Los Angeles Times, January 26, 1995.
[72] Ibid.
[73] Ibid.
[74] Ibid.
[75] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, December 13, 1994, January 3, 1995, and January 17, 1995.
[76] Mary F. Pols, “Zeanah Bid to Discuss Finance Reform Rejected,” Los Angeles Times, February 16, 1995.
[77] Mary F. Pols, “Thousand Oaks Council Cancels 7 Meetings,” Los Angeles Times, March 2, 1995.
[78] Mary F. Pols, “’Citizens to Save Our City’ Group to Stay Out of Candidate’s Campaign,” Los Angeles Times, March 31, 1995.
[79] Ibid.
[80] Resolution 95-71, Thousand Oaks City Council, adopted June 13, 1995.
