CA_KONOCTI_MEASURE_U_V3.pdf submitted by Alan Fletcher / C4H

C4H opposed this ballot, calling it "a matter of morals, not majority".

In addition to the concept, the ballot measure was totally minimal: "Shall the Board of Supervisors recommend approval of the proposal to change the name of the town of Kelseyville to Konocti"

We chose not to campaign on the issue, and given the demographics, regard the 30% "yes" vote as a significant show of support.

In the end, the board decided 3-2 to support the change.

From Lake County Registrar of Voters - Nov 5, 20204 Election:

County of Lake Advisory Measure U

Advisory Vote Name Change "Kelseyville" to "Konocti"
The measure text is: "Shall the Board of Supervisors recommend approval of the proposal to change the name of the town of Kelseyville to Konocti"
Impartial Analysis - Measure "U"
'On or about October 19, 2023, an application was submitted to the U.S. Board of Geographic Names ("BON") proposing to change the name of the town of "Kelseyville" to "Konocti".'
Measure U in the Voters Pamphlet

Final County Measure U Results 29% YES 71% NO
Statewide results

The Lake County Board Of Supervisors abnegated their moral responsibility and initiated a meaningless ballot issue - Measure U: Shall the Board of Supervisors recommend approval of the proposal to change the name of Kelseyville to Konocti

It was sprung on us by Supervisor Pyska at the last possible moment. I'm guessing the other supervisors were also informed until it was too late to put a "vote now" item on the agenda.

We (C4H) have repeatedly asked the BoS to hold an open discussion with the groups involved - The Tribes, Save Kelseyville, and Citizens For Healing.

The BoS allocated two DAYS for Community input, but wrapped it up in one session. Community input was cut down from the usual 3 minutes per person, to 2 minutes. 120 seconds to comment on a complicated matter. I used my 2 minutes to oppose the ballot, and submitted an eComment with my suggestion on how to make the ballot text better.

We have grave concerns with the Measure U election, and decided not to campaign as an organization.

In the end the results are 29% Yes and 71% No.

The Board was faced with three options - support, oppose or neither - the change in their response to the BGN.

The text of the ballot, and of the arguments are likely to skew the results in the opposition's favor.

This is the ballot measure as presented to voters:

That's rather uninformative.
Recommend to whom?
Proposal by whom?
Why?

The Voter's Pamphlet (pages 17U1-2) explains it -- but many people discard their pamphlet (the Lucerne Post Office temporarily removed their trash bins because they were overflowing with discarded election literature), and very few voters are likely to take the sample with them to the polling booth.

Neither the measure text, nor the Impartial Analysis, includes the reason for the change: that the atrocities committed against the native tribes by the town's namesake, Andy Kelsey (with his brothers Ben and Sam) make the name offensive to the tribes.

So voters are faced with this minimalist question.

Here is an example of how it could have been written:

There has been some concern that if the name is to be changed because Kelseyville is offensive, is there another name that voters prefer?

Note that ANY individual or group can submit a different name to the BGN. Our opponents have gone with "Kelseyville forever" .. and then complain that they had no input.

We (C4H) proposed this at the BoS meeting, in an eComment.

C4H wrote arguments For the ballot, but we deferred that to Chairman McCloud of Big Valley.

Save Kelseyville did not rebut Chairman McCloud's argument For.

Save Kelseyville (SK) wrote the argument Against Measure U. Chairman McCloud wrote a rebuttal, in general terms.

We regard SK's argument as highly problematic. A detailed analysis is at citizensforhealing.org/measure-u-arg-rebut.php
Quick summary: they claim in scary bold text that the BGN and C4H violated procedures. But they completely mis-understand BGN's policy guide. They say C4H did not solicit local input: they attended several of our meetings. (SK held none.). They claim Kelseyville is named for some other Kelsey: bunk. They say every resident has to file a change of address with every company or agency they deal with: no. And they don't even mention the Tribes!

This ballot measure was a flawed concept, with a flawed implementation.

SK changed its filings several times. They claim to have spent about $10,000 on "non-political" campaigning, and about $2,000 on Measure U itself.

The top contributors were Mark Borghasanii at $8,000 and Rachel White at $3,000, with a few donors making up $1,000.

Given the meaningless Measure U and the text of the measure, we estimated that we would get about 30% Yes. I guessed that county-wide would also be 30% No (where District 5 might be 80% No) - leaving 40% unaccounted for.
An electoral consultant said the best way to campaign would be a mailing to every household - which might cost $10,000 to $15,000 and would move the needle only 10%, up to 40% Yes.

The opposition also got an endorsement from the Republican party, which got almost 50% of the presidential vote.

Election Results

Measure U Election Results Analysis

Alan Fletcher 12/9/24

The Measure-U Election results look very clear : 71% NO 29% YES.

But are these results representative of the County as a whole?

In this table I present an analysis of the votes, casting a wider and wider net.

"Unconsidered" in each case is calculated as "Total - (Yes + No)"

Total ballots 27127 ( Turnout 72% )
Registered Voters 37929 Estimated Eligible Voters 51168

Method Yes No Unconsidered The total used to calculate the percentages
Row 1 29%
7474 71%
17934 N/A
Those who voted Yes or No
25408
Row 2 28%
7474 66%
17934 6%
1719 Those who voted, but skipped measure U
27127
Row 3 20%
7474 47%
17934 33%
12521 Registered Voters
37929
Row 4 15%
7474 35%
17934 50%
25760 Estimated Eligible Voters
51168
Row 5 14%
7474 33%
17934 53%
28792 Estimated Total Voting-Age Population
54200
Row 6 11%
7474 26%
17934 63%
42755 Total Population
68163

Note that the demographics - in terms of population, registered voters, and the percentage who vote - are heavily skewed to white voters.

Here are the results by district, and by precinct.

District Registered Votes Percent Yes No Yes (%) No (%)

4th Congressional District 37,929 27,127 71.5 7,474 17,934 29.4 70.6

2nd Senatorial District 37,929 27,127 71.5 7,474 17,934 29.4 70.6

4th Assembly District 37,929 27,127 71.5 7,474 17,934 29.4 70.6

State Board of Equalization Dist 2 37,929 27,127 71.5 7,474 17,934 29.4 70.6

1st Supervisorial District 8,083 5,892 72.9 1,609 3,827 29.6 70.4

2nd Supervisorial District 6,038 3,604 59.7 1,110 2,196 33.6 66.4

3rd Supervisorial District 7,416 5,264 71.0 1,643 3,314 33.1 66.9

4th Supervisorial District 7,812 5,870 75.1 1,453 4,041 26.5 73.5

5th Supervisorial District 8,580 6,497 75.7 1,659 4,556 26.7 73.3

City of Clearlake 7,178 4,273 59.5 1,309 2,611 33.4 66.6

City of Lakeport 3,123 2,380 76.2 636 1,581 28.7 71.3

Unincorporated Area 27,628 20,474 74.1 5,529 13,742 28.7 71.3

Vote by Mail Totals 37,929 23,550 62.1 6,493 15,618 29.4 70.6

Election Day Voting Totals 37,929 3,577 9.4 981 2,316 29.8 70.2

Grand Totals 37,929 27,127 71.5 7,474 17,934 29.4 70.6

District Registered Votes Percent Yes No Yes (%) No (%)

111 Middletown/CentralPark 1169 916 78.4 260 603 30.1 69.9

113 HVL1/HVL2/HVL3 1754 1340 76.4 413 814 33.7 66.3

116 HVL4/HVL5/HVL6/Ranchos 2207 1663 75.4 425 1086 28.1 71.9

121 SpruceGrove 243 178 73.3 40 125 24.2 75.8

122 Jerusalem 28 17 60.7 9 8 52.9 47.1

123 CoyoteValley 170 116 68.2 16 94 14.5 85.5

126 TwinLakes/LowerLake 1159 848 73.2 212 578 26.8 73.2

128 CLDam 44 27 61.4 12 14 46.2 53.8

130 PeriniHill 18 15 83.3 7 8 46.7 53.3

131 BellPark 140 85 60.7 11 70 13.6 86.4

132 MorganValley 40 33 82.5 13 18 41.9 58.1

141 CL/OldHwy/CLVillage 1111 654 58.9 191 409 31.8 68.2

211 CL/MonitorPt/CLBurmsVly 1749 1045 59.7 315 620 33.7 66.3

213 CL/AustinPk/CLOlympic 1002 694 69.3 237 407 36.8 63.2

215 CL/Hillcrest/CLLakeshore 834 479 57.4 143 297 32.5 67.5

217 CL/Davis 870 489 56.2 134 314 29.9 70.1

218 CL/Molesworth/CLPierce 1568 885 56.4 277 550 33.5 66.5

222 BallyPeak 15 12 80.0 4 8 33.3 66.7

311 UpperLake/Bachelor 1602 1148 71.7 313 777 28.7 71.3

341 Nice/NiceHarbor 1390 971 69.9 312 612 33.8 66.2

343 FortySprings 19 13 68.4 3 10 23.1 76.9

351 Lucerne/TheCastle/KonoTayee 1669 1171 70.2 396 719 35.5 64.5

354 Glenhaven 164 104 63.4 50 48 51.0 49.0

361 Gravelly 58 49 84.5 17 26 39.5 60.5

371 Bartlett 4 4 100.0 1 3 25.0 75.0

381 LongVly/ELake/KeysW/KeysE 2133 1551 72.7 462 981 32.0 68.0

390 LakeshorePark 184 127 69.0 48 67 41.8 58.2

391 SulphurPark 177 120 67.8 40 67 37.4 62.6

392 BaldMtn 16 6 37.5 1 4 20.0 80.0

411 LP/Lange/LPWillowTree 1451 1149 79.2 295 787 27.3 72.7

413 LP/Government 729 564 77.4 165 365 31.1 68.9

414 LP/Fairgrounds 943 667 70.7 176 429 29.1 70.9

421 CowMtn/ScottsValley 936 763 81.5 165 549 23.1 76.9

430 Sutter/RobinHill/Westlake 1965 1457 74.1 365 991 26.9 73.1

441 BigValley 389 283 72.8 47 217 17.8 82.2

442 LandsEnd/Adobe 944 658 69.7 157 473 24.9 75.1

452 LakesidePark 95 79 83.2 9 65 12.2 87.8

455 SodaBay 259 173 66.8 52 113 31.5 68.5

461 DonovanValley 69 54 78.3 17 35 32.7 67.3

471 HighlandSpgs 32 23 71.9 5 17 22.7 77.3

511 Gaddy 96 61 63.5 11 47 19.0 81.0

519 Heights/LittleBorax 1162 954 82.1 256 671 27.6 72.4

520 Kville/ColeCrk/KelseyCrk 2375 1723 72.5 287 1389 17.1 82.9

530 WheelerPt/Hawaina 907 731 80.6 182 514 26.1 73.9

532 Riviera/ElyFlat/Yaquima 1729 1219 70.5 296 865 25.5 74.5

551 ThurstonLake 119 97 81.5 34 58 37.0 63.0

561 LLom/HobergsMtn 1074 829 77.2 300 482 38.4 61.6

571 Glenbrook/WPines 1118 883 79.0 293 530 35.6 64.4

--- VoteByMailTotals 37929 23550 62.1 6493 15618 29.4 70.6

--- ElectionDayVotingTotals 37929 3577 9.4 981 2316 29.8 70.2

--- GrandTotals 37929 27127 71.5 7474 17934 29.4 70.6

Method	Yes	No	Unconsidered	The total used to calculate the percentages
Row 1	29% 7474	71% 17934	N/A	Those who voted Yes or No 25408
Row 2	28% 7474	66% 17934	6% 1719	Those who voted, but skipped measure U 27127
Row 3	20% 7474	47% 17934	33% 12521	Registered Voters 37929
Row 4	15% 7474	35% 17934	50% 25760	Estimated Eligible Voters 51168
Row 5	14% 7474	33% 17934	53% 28792	Estimated Total Voting-Age Population 54200
Row 6	11% 7474	26% 17934	63% 42755	Total Population 68163

District	Registered	Votes	Percent	Yes	No	Yes (%)	No (%)
4th Congressional District	37,929	27,127	71.5	7,474	17,934	29.4	70.6
2nd Senatorial District	37,929	27,127	71.5	7,474	17,934	29.4	70.6
4th Assembly District	37,929	27,127	71.5	7,474	17,934	29.4	70.6
State Board of Equalization Dist 2	37,929	27,127	71.5	7,474	17,934	29.4	70.6
1st Supervisorial District	8,083	5,892	72.9	1,609	3,827	29.6	70.4
2nd Supervisorial District	6,038	3,604	59.7	1,110	2,196	33.6	66.4
3rd Supervisorial District	7,416	5,264	71.0	1,643	3,314	33.1	66.9
4th Supervisorial District	7,812	5,870	75.1	1,453	4,041	26.5	73.5
5th Supervisorial District	8,580	6,497	75.7	1,659	4,556	26.7	73.3
City of Clearlake	7,178	4,273	59.5	1,309	2,611	33.4	66.6
City of Lakeport	3,123	2,380	76.2	636	1,581	28.7	71.3
Unincorporated Area	27,628	20,474	74.1	5,529	13,742	28.7	71.3
Vote by Mail Totals	37,929	23,550	62.1	6,493	15,618	29.4	70.6
Election Day Voting Totals	37,929	3,577	9.4	981	2,316	29.8	70.2
Grand Totals	37,929	27,127	71.5	7,474	17,934	29.4	70.6

District	Registered	Votes	Percent	Yes	No	Yes (%)	No (%)
111 Middletown/CentralPark	1169	916	78.4	260	603	30.1	69.9
113 HVL1/HVL2/HVL3	1754	1340	76.4	413	814	33.7	66.3
116 HVL4/HVL5/HVL6/Ranchos	2207	1663	75.4	425	1086	28.1	71.9
121 SpruceGrove	243	178	73.3	40	125	24.2	75.8
122 Jerusalem	28	17	60.7	9	8	52.9	47.1
123 CoyoteValley	170	116	68.2	16	94	14.5	85.5
126 TwinLakes/LowerLake	1159	848	73.2	212	578	26.8	73.2
128 CLDam	44	27	61.4	12	14	46.2	53.8
130 PeriniHill	18	15	83.3	7	8	46.7	53.3
131 BellPark	140	85	60.7	11	70	13.6	86.4
132 MorganValley	40	33	82.5	13	18	41.9	58.1
141 CL/OldHwy/CLVillage	1111	654	58.9	191	409	31.8	68.2
211 CL/MonitorPt/CLBurmsVly	1749	1045	59.7	315	620	33.7	66.3
213 CL/AustinPk/CLOlympic	1002	694	69.3	237	407	36.8	63.2
215 CL/Hillcrest/CLLakeshore	834	479	57.4	143	297	32.5	67.5
217 CL/Davis	870	489	56.2	134	314	29.9	70.1
218 CL/Molesworth/CLPierce	1568	885	56.4	277	550	33.5	66.5
222 BallyPeak	15	12	80.0	4	8	33.3	66.7
311 UpperLake/Bachelor	1602	1148	71.7	313	777	28.7	71.3
341 Nice/NiceHarbor	1390	971	69.9	312	612	33.8	66.2
343 FortySprings	19	13	68.4	3	10	23.1	76.9
351 Lucerne/TheCastle/KonoTayee	1669	1171	70.2	396	719	35.5	64.5
354 Glenhaven	164	104	63.4	50	48	51.0	49.0
361 Gravelly	58	49	84.5	17	26	39.5	60.5
371 Bartlett	4	4	100.0	1	3	25.0	75.0
381 LongVly/ELake/KeysW/KeysE	2133	1551	72.7	462	981	32.0	68.0
390 LakeshorePark	184	127	69.0	48	67	41.8	58.2
391 SulphurPark	177	120	67.8	40	67	37.4	62.6
392 BaldMtn	16	6	37.5	1	4	20.0	80.0
411 LP/Lange/LPWillowTree	1451	1149	79.2	295	787	27.3	72.7
413 LP/Government	729	564	77.4	165	365	31.1	68.9
414 LP/Fairgrounds	943	667	70.7	176	429	29.1	70.9
421 CowMtn/ScottsValley	936	763	81.5	165	549	23.1	76.9
430 Sutter/RobinHill/Westlake	1965	1457	74.1	365	991	26.9	73.1
441 BigValley	389	283	72.8	47	217	17.8	82.2
442 LandsEnd/Adobe	944	658	69.7	157	473	24.9	75.1
452 LakesidePark	95	79	83.2	9	65	12.2	87.8
455 SodaBay	259	173	66.8	52	113	31.5	68.5
461 DonovanValley	69	54	78.3	17	35	32.7	67.3
471 HighlandSpgs	32	23	71.9	5	17	22.7	77.3
511 Gaddy	96	61	63.5	11	47	19.0	81.0
519 Heights/LittleBorax	1162	954	82.1	256	671	27.6	72.4
520 Kville/ColeCrk/KelseyCrk	2375	1723	72.5	287	1389	17.1	82.9
530 WheelerPt/Hawaina	907	731	80.6	182	514	26.1	73.9
532 Riviera/ElyFlat/Yaquima	1729	1219	70.5	296	865	25.5	74.5
551 ThurstonLake	119	97	81.5	34	58	37.0	63.0
561 LLom/HobergsMtn	1074	829	77.2	300	482	38.4	61.6
571 Glenbrook/WPines	1118	883	79.0	293	530	35.6	64.4
--- VoteByMailTotals	37929	23550	62.1	6493	15618	29.4	70.6
--- ElectionDayVotingTotals	37929	3577	9.4	981	2316	29.8	70.2
--- GrandTotals	37929	27127	71.5	7474	17934	29.4	70.6

Summary

Highest Yes Percentage: 122 Jerusalem with 52.9%
Highest No Percentage: 452 LakesidePark with 87.8%

Lake County Demographics Overview

This section provides an overview of the demographics of Lake County, California, relevant to the election analysis.

Total Population

The total population of Lake County is approximately 68,163 residents.

Population of Voting Age (18 or Older)

The voting-age population (18 years or older) is approximately 54,200 individuals.

Ethnic and Racial Composition and Voter Registration

The following table outlines the ethnic and racial composition of the voting-age population in Lake County, along with the estimated percentage and number of registered voters within each group:

Ethnic/Racial Group	Population (Voting Age)	% of Voting-Age Population	Estimated % Registered	Estimated Number Registered	Estimated Percent Registered
White	40650	75%	74%	30090	84%
Hispanic or Latino	10840	20%	46%	4986	14%
Native American	1626	3%	55%	895	2%
Total	53116			35971	100%

Note: the number of registered voters in this table is slightly smaller than the final number, but the percentages will not change.

This combined information highlights both the size of each demographic group within the voting-age population and their estimated voter registration rates. Understanding these figures is crucial for analyzing voter turnout and the potential impact of each group on election outcomes.

Sources

U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 2021 Estimates
California Secretary of State, Voter Registration Statistics
Pew Research Center, Voter Registration Rates by Race/Ethnicity
1890 Count Part 1
1890 Count Part 2

This analysis was performed by me, with the assistance of ChatGPT o4-provisional.
The chat log is at chatgpt.com
Note that half-way down the log that I change the output from converstational, to generating this web page (in a combination of PHP, HTML and CSS.) You can view the entire web page in your browser using its "View Source" option.

What does the vote mean?

We argue that it is effectively meaningless.

Suppose that the Lake County voting population is 3% Natives and 97% Settlers.

And suppose that all the Natives vote YES (they are, after all, the ones who find the name offensive), and all the Settlers vote NO (it's a different Kelsey, changing their history, too expensive ...)

YES: 3% NO: 97%

Does that make the name "Kelsey" UN-offensive? No.

As Supervisor Sabatier said: "The request that was brought to BGN does not equate to the idea of a majority vote. It was a minority voice that utilized a system that was set up for that minority voice to be heard."

We estimate that the votes are heavily skewed to white voters, with only about 2% Natives.