After a proposed resolution calling for a “legally valid” 2024 election sparked both fury and support, the Gilroy City Council decided to kill it.
At a fiery council meeting Monday night, proponents of the resolution argued they were supporting free and fair elections while those against it contended the resolution questioned the legitimacy of the election process.
“The only thing we want is free, fair elections. To me it was just common sense,” said Councilmember Carol Marques, who originally added the item to the agenda.
The resolution was originally proposed at an August city council meeting by members of the group United Sovereign Americans, and the council voted 4-3 last week to discuss the resolution.
The nationwide group has made the claim that millions of votes were cast by ineligible registrants in the 2022 election across the United States, and has filed lawsuits in seven states, claiming that boards of elections did not do enough to secure elections.
Local representatives of the group have appeared at several other city council meetings throughout the Bay Area, including Saratoga, San Jose, and Los Altos Hills, according to volunteers for the organization. They have been touting a resolution calling for a “legally valid” 2024 election and claiming, without evidence, that the 2022 California general election “appears to be invalid” due to millions of votes cast illegally.
The resolution requested, among other things, the access of “trained citizen witnesses” to ballots and voter rolls available for “public review and challenge.” However, their requests to add the resolution to other city council agendas had been largely ignored.
At this week’s meeting, Marques distanced herself from the original resolution’s claims of improper votes. She asked the council to consider a version of the resolution that would have removed the section that involved the unsupported claims and the specific requests, and put the focus solely on supporting properly held elections.
“It’s talking about a concern that we all have,” said Councilmember Tom Cline in support of the amended resolution. “It should be something we should guard.”
However, Councilmember Rebeca Armendariz called the resolution “at best, vitriol” and “fear mongering” which undermined the legitimacy of the current democratic process and echoed discriminatory voter ID laws and roll purges. “This is not something we should pass so carelessly or even discuss or legitimize so flippantly,” she said.
Over a dozen speakers spoke out against the resolution, regardless of the proposed amendments. “By putting this on the agenda, you legitimize their position, which is that our elections in this country are not free,” said Erin O’Brien, one of the speakers. “That is so undermining of our democracy, and we’re feeling across the country the consequences of that.”
Daniel Donovan, a Gilroy resident and poll worker for Santa Clara county, said that he had seen the process first hand. “We have fair and equal elections … and this kind of language encourages people who may be on the fringes,” said Donovan.
Still, a handful of speakers argued that the language represented a stand for fair, legitimate elections. “This is not a partisan issue, nor is it an assault on election workers in our county and state. It is a civil rights violation if an eligible citizen voter has their vote polluted by those ineligible to vote,” said Sue Bazzini, a volunteer for United Sovereign Americans.
The debate left some of the original supporters on the council split.
“I’m really not sure what to do on this. I know that the Santa Clara County registrar of voters, they’re top notch, they do an excellent job,” said Councilmember Dion Bracco. “But looking at this with the corrections … it’s simple: either you’re for a legitimate election or you’re not.”
Following the discussion, the council voted to reject the resolution outright, with Marques joining the majority for a 4-2 vote, with Councilmember Dion Bracco and Tom Cline in opposition, and Zach Hilton absent.
