Disney Referendum Qualification: A Near-Run Thing

Disney is a corporate behemoth with a 50-year presence in Anaheim in the form of iconic Disneyland. The conventional wisdom was Disney, given that history and the massive resources it and its allies poured into the referendum effort, would have no problem qualifying it for the ballot.

You'd think. 

Regardless of what side of this battle one is one (and I am a member of the SunCal consulting team), it's interesting to note what a near-run thing the qualification was for Disney/SOAR. They had paid and circulators, supplemented by volunteer circulators, at almost every Anaheim shopping center and walking city neighborhoods to collect them door-to-door.

One May 21 -- nearly four full days before the deadline -- Disney/SOAR turned in 21,241signatures. Here's how they broke down according to the Certificate As To Verification Of Signatures On Petition from the Registrar of Voters, issued on June 20:

• Number of signatures required: 13,192

• Number of signatures verified: 20,597

• Number of signatures found valid: 14,200

• Number of signatures found invalid: 6,397

As you can see, Disney/SOAR's margin was just 1,008 signatures -- and there were only 644 signatures left to verify. A near-run thing, indeed.

Comments

[Jeff Flint]

Matt:

No referendum qualification attempt is ever a slam dunk, despite your attempts to spin otherwise. Local referenda are even harder than state ones. You have 30 days from the date of the city council action, as opposed to an initiative, where you have 160 days from the date you get title and summary. So when the city council takes action, there will be a few days to create the petition, get it in a form approved by the City Clerk and City attorney, and then hit the streets.

Qualifying is harder when there is active petition blocking going on, which your side was engaged in.

With that all said, SOAR got 21,000 signatures in 21 days of circulation, or about 1,000 per day. If they had gone four more days, as they were allowed, they would have had another 4,000 signatures, with maybe 2,500 of them good. That would have more than tripled the margin of error. Would you still spin those numbers as a "near-run thing?"

But hey, spin away...

[Anaheim H.O.M.E.]

Jeff is trying to spin Disney, the master of deceit, into being honest with Anaheim residents.

Many members of our Anaheim homeowners group, who are knowledgeable of past Disneyland treachery, were still tricked into signing the petition by clever Disney circulators.

[Jeff Flint]

Anaheim HOME:

1. I am not a paid consultant to Disney or SOAR. My firm and I have been involved in many referenda campaigns, probably more than anyone in the country. So when Matt tries to paint qualifying a referendum in just over 20 days as anything less than a victory, I have some expertise in refuting that point.

2. If your members were "tricked" into signing the referendum petition, and then failed to sign the recission postcard which was easily available, then maybe they weren't tricked at all. Maybe that's what they're just telling you. Do you really represent anyone but a few malcontents?

[Jubal]

Qualifying is harder when there is active petition blocking going on, which your side was engaged in.

Do you mean our circulators who were asking residents to sign a petition expressing support for Councilmembers Lucille Kring, Lorri Galloway and Bob Hernandez?

Or when one of our circulators rebutted various untruths which Disney circulators used to entice voters to sign the referendum, such as this beauty: "We're asking people to sign this referendum because when the City Council approved the low-income housing project, it nullified Disney's initiative."

Or just there very presence at the same supermarket entrance? I didn't realize Disney's desire to control property it doesn't own extended to supermarket entrances, as well.

[Jubal]

Anaheim HOME:

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and on the Resort District question Jeff and I disagree.

But your characterization of Jeff and the Earthlink deal are just wrong. I'm going to delete them and Jeff's response and this comment. And that shall be the warning.

[Jeff Flint]

Matt:

To be fair, "petition blocking" means anything done to create controversy near petition gatherers, so that potential signers/voters just walk by, avoid the controversy, and don;t sign anything. The Sun-Cal petition was effectively petition blocking, regardless of your intent.

I was told, by the way, that the firm Sun-Cal used for their "petition" was the same firm that Disney/SOAR used for their initiative and then fired for the referendum.

I don't live in Anaheim, never spent anytime witnessing and taping petition efforts, so I can't address your question about what a Disney/SOAR petitioner may have said while in the field. I can tell you that when our firm is involved in qualifying a measure, we supply the petition firm we hire to distribute legally approved talking points to their crews, and take action if those talking points are not followed. But again, I can't speak for this measure because I'm not managing it.

Jeff

[Jubal]

I was told, by the way, that the firm Sun-Cal used for their "petition" was the same firm that Disney/SOAR used for their initiative and then fired for the referendum.

Disney used Progressive Campaigns (and another circulator firm, I'm told) on their initiative.

They hired Monster Petitions for the referendum, and we used Progressive for our petition.

But regardless of the circulator company Disney used, the message from the circulators was the same -- so it's pretty clear the message was coming from Disney/SOAR and wasn't just stuff the circulators were making up.