Josh Gross Has Given Voters Every Reason to Reject Isabel Hacker

One of the barometers for waning civic engagement in politics was declining voter turnout in off cycle local elections. California State Senator Ben Allen, a former SMMUSD School Board President, addressed the issue when he chaired the Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments. Senator Allen introduced Senate Bill 415, entitled the California Voter Participation Rights Act (“Act”). The Act was signed into law in 2015. The Act required cities and school districts to consolidate their elections with statewide even-year contests.

Josh Gross, the publisher of the Beverly Hills Weekly, recently proffered his school board endorsements. In his endorsement article, Gross spent an inordinate amount of column inches calling for the repeal of the California Voter Participation Rights Act. Gross contends that the Act has “severely restricted our power to elect ourlocal Board of Education.” Who is the “our” Gross is referring to in his statement?

By way of history, Gross did not call for the repeal of the Act when the two candidates he endorsed were successfully elected to the school board in November 2018. Gross also did not call for the repeal of the Act when both incumbents were successfully re-elected to City Council in March 2020.

So, why does Gross now want to repeal the Act?

Gross recently gave the community some insight into his reasoning. As the host of Beverly Hills View, a public affairs television program, Gross interviewed Isabel Hacker. Despite Hacker having served five years on the Beverly Hills Board of Education, Gross strained to find anything positive Hacker had accomplished.

At the end of his 25-minute interview, Gross asked, “What’s next for Isabel Hacker, what’s your next move?” Hacker responded, “You’ll be hearing from me, Josh.” Gross enthusiastically responded, “I am sure we will.” Perhaps, Gross’ preferred candidate for the next Beverly Hills City Council race is soon to be former school board member Isabel Hacker. When Gross stated the Act has “severely restricted our power to elect,” maybe he meant it restricts him from anointing Hacker to our City Council.

It is important to point out that in 2015, in what was the district’s final odd-year election, Hacker was the first-place finisher with a mere 1,952 votes. However, in the first ever even-year school board election in November 2018, first-place finisher Rachelle Marcus garnished 7,081 votes, or 263% more votes than Hacker received in 2015. Marcus won her seat with the approval of one-third of all registered voters. Hacker obtained her seat with the approval of only 9% of all registered voters.

Not surprisingly, the third-place finisher in November 2018, Marvin Winans, Jr., who did not win a seat on the school board, received a total of 3,224 votes or 65% more votes than Hacker did in 2015. This validates the stated goal of the Act, to increase turnout in local elections. This also demonstrates that Hacker did not have a mandate in 2015.

Hacker did not run for re-election after only one term on the school board. Perhaps, Hacker used her time on the board as a steppingstone for a future run for City Council. Or perhaps, Hacker chose not to run for re-election because she knew she would lose in a “Blue Wave.” There are several highly qualified candidates for school board in this election. Coming off an election loss after just serving as the board president would have severely impaired, if not obliterated, a run by Hacker for City Council.

The problem facing Hacker’s potential run for City Council is that she is registered as “Decline to State.” Could it be that Gross, a trusted friend of Hacker and an astute political tactician, recognizes that if Hacker mounts a run for a seat on the City Council in an even- year election, she would be out voted by candidates aligned with a political party? Although school board and city council races are non-partisan, it cannot be lost on Gross that all the even-year candidates whom have won, are all registered Democrats.

Los Angeles County charges each governing body, including school districts, to conduct their elections. As other governing bodies aligned their election schedules with the California Voter Participation Rights Act, fewer governing agencies were available to share the costs of reimbursing the County for off-cycle elections. This was certainly the case for the last odd-cycle school board election, in November 2015. The cost to BHUSD for the November 2015 school board election was $132,238.88.

The projected cost to hold the next scheduled school board election, in an odd-year election cycle, would have been in excess of $250,000. In 2016, as Board President, I brought a Resolution to change future school board elections to even-years. By changing from odd-year election cycles to even-year election cycles, starting in November 2018, we saved the taxpayers at least $200,000 for each and every subsequent election. The November 2018 school board election, by contrast, cost the district a mere $49,875.00.

As I correctly predicted back in 2016, even-numbered elections increased voter participation and saved taxpayers money. Dollars that could be better spent in the classroom. Yet, both Hacker and Mel Spitz selfishly voted against the board Resolution to change our election cycles. A vote that they knew would cause the district to expend a greater sum of money on odd-cycle elections. Once again, Hacker and Spitz find themselves on the wrong side of history.

Instead, Hacker vigorously argued to reduce the board’s term by one year. After Gross’ recent interview with Hacker, her reason is now crystal clear. Hacker wanted the board to vote to end its term early, enabling her to run for City Council in March 2019. Fortunately for the electorate, two other colleagues joined me in passing the Resolution thus changing our election cycles to even-year. In 2017 the Beverly Hills City Council also voted to change its election cycles and extend their terms by one year to meet the requirements of the Act. Ironically, the only reason Hacker is board president today is due to the one-year extension provided by the Act. The very extension that Hacker herself voted against.

Finally, under the Act, if a governing agency failed to comply with the State mandate to change their election, the Act authorizes any local citizen to file a lawsuit against the district to change to even-year election cycles. Under the Act, a court has the jurisdiction to ensure that future elections occur in even-numbered years. A court also has the jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees and costs to the successful complainant. As Gross always reminds his readership the last thing this district needs are to spend more tax dollars on another lawsuit.

What I find most duplicitous is that Hacker always recited Board Policy when it served her purpose and totally disregarded Board Policy when it suited her purpose. Board Bylaw 9220 mandates that, “Whenever possible, the Board shall consolidate Board elections with the local municipal or statewide primary or general election. Board election procedures shall be conducted in accordance with state and federal law.” Hacker’s willful failure to vote affirmatively for the Resolution ran contrary to our own Board Bylaws, and State law. Hacker placed her political ambition above the voice of the electorate, board regulations, and state law.

Political cronyism and fringe voting groups tend to vote at higher rates regardless of when the election is held. The low turnout, in off-cycle years, enhances the effectiveness of fringe voting groups’ mobilization efforts and creates the fallacy that they are representing the majority of voters. When in actuality, they only represent the vocal minority. Hacker represents the vocal minority, the “our” in Gross’ universe. Perhaps the the reason Gross is advocating for the repeal of the California Voter Participation Rights Act and a return to fringe voting groups dictating our local policy decisions is that it increases Hacker's chance at a City Council seat?

As a civil rights attorney, and charter member of the Southern Poverty Law Center, I actively fight against voter suppression and advocate for greater voter participation throughout the United States. When significantly fewer voters turn out for off-cycle elections, a politically motivated minority of voters dictate local policy decisions.

The California Voter Participation Rights Act may not suit Gross’ quest to get Hacker elected onto the City Council in March 2022. Nonetheless, the Act is an important first step in strengthening our Republic and keeping fringe groups from dominating local politics.