As expected, the San Diego Republican Party asked for the resignation of Redistricting Commissioner Carlos Marquez at tonight’s public meeting, providing evidence from a month-long private investigation that alleges Marquez does not live in San Diego.
After listening to more than 30 other speakers defending Marquez and accusing the Republican Party of “smear tactics” and “creepy” activities, Commission Chairwoman Anisha Dalal directed the city’s attorney’s office to investigate the allegations.
Republican Party Chairman Tony Krvaric told the commission that after learning about Marquez taking a job in Los Angeles, the Party hired a private investigator to establish his true residency. That private investor was Derrick Roach, a licensed private investigator and the secretary for the San Diego Republican Party.
“In fact, it is without question, in our minds that he does not live in San Diego,” Krvaric told the commission. “A Los Angeles resident should not be deciding the district lines that actual San Diego residents will live with for the next 10 years. Mr. Marquez should do the honorable thing and resign from the commission.”
Krvaric was the fourth speaker at tonight’s commission meeting, during the non-agenda item public comments. The majority of the speakers after Krvaric responded to the Republican’s allegations with overwhelming support for Marquez.
“I am a San Diegan and I live in District 3, actually several blocks away from Carlos Marquez,” said Tres Watson. “I would like to say to the Republican operatives that this is nothing more than a charade in an attempt to discredit a trusted and respected member of the community.”
Elizabeth Maldonado said, “Regardless of what a private investigator thinks he knows about you, we know you. We believe in you. We trust you. And we stand with you.”
“To the folks who hired a private investigator, I think this is unfortunate. I think that money could have gone to hiring a community organizer to encourage more public to come down here and get involved in this important process,” said Graham Forbes.
In addition to providing support for Marquez, many of the speakers questioned the Republican Party’s use of a private investigator, and legitimacy of the investigation. Speakers called it a “smear tactic,” “creepy,” “sordid” and “reprehensible.”
“I wanted to voice my outrage to the smear campaign,” Waynee Lucero said. “It is disappointing how the Republicans are attacking the commission, especially Carlos Marquez. He is not only young, he is Latino and he is gay. It is that diversity that we need on the commission.”
Even one Republican defended Marquez. “I am a registered Republican and I am tired of defending my party’s actions over and over again,” said Cameron Stewart.
After the more than one hour of public testimony, Chairwoman Dalal said the commission could not discuss of take action based on any of the comments (citing regulations in the Brown Act), but the commission could make a referral.
“At this time, I would like to refer the issue to the city attorney’s office for review,” Dalal said, adding, “along with a request that Commissioner Marquez provide the city attorney’s office with any information it requests and that he cooperate fully with that office as it reviews the matter.”
“Given the public outcry, I do believe it is an appropriate thing to do. I concur with your referral,” said Commissioner Frederick Kosmo.
Marquez responded, “I am looking forward to working with our city attorney so that it is proven once and for all that I am a resident of San Diego and I am sure that this matter will be resolved very shortly.”
San Diego’s city attorney’s office confirmed there is no requirement for a commissioner to have a residence in San Diego, only be a registered voter.
“Per your inquiry, Charter section 5.1 requires that each member of the Commission shall be registered to vote in the City of San Diego,” said Gina Coburn, Communications Director for the Office of the City Attorney, in an email to LGBT Weekly. “We are aware of the allegations in regards to Mr. Marquez and have requested information. We don’t have a comment beyond that at this time.” The email was received before the commission meeting.
