Longtime Councilmen come out swinging
Two longest-serving Councilmen defend majority's actions, temporarily discarding facemasks.
November 18, 2021
LAKEWOOD, CALIF. — Dismissing public outcry against a suspicious election map, longtime Councilman Todd Rogers literally took the mask off.
“The reality is that the vast majority of Lakewood residents are not engaged in this issue despite social media attempts to inflame,” said Rogers at Tuesday’s meeting.
A majority of Council approved a revised electoral map numbered 104, which provides safe districts to Vice Mayor Steve Croft and his unelected appointee, Councilwoman Vicki Stuckey. The Council majority—Croft, Stuckey and Ariel Pe—accomplished this by violating Council’s guideline for electoral maps, and by temporarily disenfranchising a huge swath of central Lakewood.
Mayor Jeff Wood voted against map 104, while Rogers abstained from the vote.
Croft did not get everything he originally wanted.
At an Oct. 26 special meeting, Croft floated the idea of adopting the original map 104, which only allowed for an election sequence that excluded East Lakewood—the one Lakewood region without a resident on Council—from voting till 2024.
This would had allowed the two longtime Council members in Croft and Rogers, who have served a combined 36 years, and Croft’s unelected appointee in Stuckey to run next year.
After public outcry and threats of lawsuits, Stuckey suggested at the Nov. 9 meeting that map 104 be approved with an election sequence that would force her district to go without a Council member living there in favor of East Lakewood being allowed to vote next year.
It was this Croft-Stuckey proposal that Council formally adopted Tuesday.
Longtime Councilmen take the masks off
Abiding by state coercion, Council members regularly wear their facemasks even while speaking. Yet Rogers took off his before beginning his speech against those opposing map 104.
“While most of the people we heard from have been great, others have been trying to fan these flames with lies and misleading comments. And, to them, I will just say stop. Knock it off,” Rogers said.
It is unclear whether Rogers was referring to the Lakewood Populist, or to others like the 11 members of the public who at the Oct. 26 and Nov. 9 special meetings spoke against Croft’s plan to force East Lakewood to be temporarily disenfranchised.
Rogers also addressed those speaking out against “people who are railing against white Council members”, citing how Croft is married to a Filipina and how a Mexican man cared for Rogers as a child.
Rogers, like Croft at the Oct. 26 meeting, noted how map 104 would prevent a Pe-Stuckey—minority versus minority—electoral standoff.
“I’m not sure why someone would consider that a bad thing,” said Rogers, before addressing his critics. “These are people that don’t know me. They don’t know Steve Croft.”
Much of these statements appeared directed against the Lakewood Populist, which has sought to hold Croft to account over his public comments. Croft, a white man, said he rejected map 102 for the sake of diversity on Council.
However, as the Lakewood Populist has reported, the revised map 104 needlessly forces an African American councilwoman off Council till at least 2024. A Pe-Stuckey electoral contest could had been avoided and Stuckey could had been able to run next year via map 103. However, that map would had pitted Stuckey against Croft.
Croft accused critics like the Lakewood Populist of hypocrisy. But, unless he could show otherwise, Croft’s accusation was factually incorrect.
The Lakewood Populist has reported how map 104 was a gerrymandered map that veered off a main street and into a storm drain near Del Amo Boulevard and Palo Verde Avenue. It was this move that barely provided Stuckey with her own district by pushing the duly-elected Pe into a runoff with the duly-elected Wood.
Croft said that map 103, like map 104, uses the same storm drain as a boundary. IT DOES NOT, per screenshots of map 103.
Croft also addressed other critics upset over the division of school districts, saying the same thing occurs with map 103.
“I won’t use the term hypocrisy,” said Croft before being interrupted from the audience.
“You just did!” yelled someone, not the Lakewood Populist.
Council-majority violates election guideline
“Each council district shall respect the previous choices of voters by avoiding the creation of head-to-head contests between Council Members previously elected by the voters,” says one of the election map guidelines adopted by Council. These guidelines, along with the Federal Voting Rights Acts and the California Voting Rights Act, were to help Council in choosing district election maps.
Because of the California Voting Rights Act, the region known as East Lakewood—anything east of the 605 Freeway or the San Gabriel River—was guaranteed to have its own electoral district due to it being a community of interest with the city’s largest immigrant, Hispanic and Asian populations. As a result, at least two of the current Council members were going to be forced into the same district since none live in East Lakewood.
However, Stuckey was never “previously elected by the voters” but was instead appointed in 2020, with her term set to expire next year. Therefore, Council could had still followed its guideline of giving each previously-elected Council member their own electoral district.
To his credit, Rogers took this matter head on.
“I’ve heard conversations about the will of the voters versus the appointed incumbent [Stuckey], while railing against long-term Council members,” said Rogers, who along with Croft have been on Council a combined 36 years. “Well, the tenure of Council members is, in Lakewood, the will of the voters.”
Yet Roger’s statement does not refute the fact that Stuckey by definition is NOT one of the “Council Members previously elected by the voters.”
As a result, Council needlessly violated its guideline in map 104 by pitting two duly-elected Council members, Wood and Pe, in the same electoral district. They will run against each other in 2024 if they both wish to remain on Council.
Pe & Stuckey, questions need to be answered
Pe’s support for the Croft-Stuckey plan was suspicious since it went against his publicly-stated interests. At the Oct. 26 meeting, Pe said he planned to remain on Council for the long-term.
“In all honesty, I didn’t sign up for one term,” Pe said at the Oct. 26 meeting. “Now it is my opportunity to give back to the city. I’m here to stay.”
So, why did Pe choose the one map that would force him into a runoff with an incumbent previously-elected by the voters?
The Lakewood Populist has privately attempted to contact Pe for an interview without much success. The Lakewood Populist has since called on Pe to publicly say what guided him in his decision.
The Lakewood Populist has also emailed Stuckey, asking her if she plans to run in 2024. However, Stuckey has not responded.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Article was updated at 4:49 p.m. with the final subhead to better map out the article.