Yesterday someone tweeted at us:

Has anyone wondered WHY it takes longer to count votes than years past? Shouldn’t we be getting faster as technology evolves. Why doesn’t this seem to matter to anyone? Other countries like Brazil have their results in a day or two but here we are….

— Darren J London (@DRL707) November 9, 2022

It’s a fair question! We assayed an answer:

Because it takes more time to verify/process/tally vote-by-mail ballots, which are now ubiquitous. Funny you mention Brazil — they do everything electronically, no paper trail. It’s quick, but there are downsides!

— Lost Coast Outpost (@LCOutpost) November 9, 2022

Yes, technology is amazing, but we made a conscious decision not use technology to its full effect in this realm of our lives. And for good reasons! One reason: We want to make voting as easy and accessible to as many people as possible. Second reason: We want to make sure the vote is accurate and secure. And that means poring over lots and lots of individual ballots and records to make sure that no one attempted to vote twice, or to vote if they are not eligible to vote, and etc.

Way back when, early in the electronic voting machine era, the county had machines that could beam their tally back to home base via the Internet right after the polls closed. But then the world cottoned on to the fact that there were such things as hackers, and some of those hackers were taking an interest in the electoral system. So, instead, the county never let those machines go online. Instead, they physically drove them back to Elections HQ after the polls closed, pulled their SD cards and plugged them into a secure computer to count the vote. That took longer. Mail ballots, of course, take much longer still.

So here we are! There are at least three high-profile local races that we won’t know the results of until, perhaps, weeks from now. They are:

Someone has won, but we don’t yet know who. Anyone can make a semi-educated guess, based on the way that late-counted votes have historically leaned leftward, but we only have one example of that in the post-pandemic, universal vote-by-mail era, and in at least one of these cases it’s hard to know what “leftward” means. Plus the fact that there are untold tens of thousands of votes left to count.

Do you think you know who has won these races? If so, please let us know by telling us via one or more of the following pollz.

Press release from the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office:

On Nov. 9, 2022, at about 8:44 a.m., a Humboldt County Sheriff’s deputy on patrol in the area of the 1800 block of 5^th Street, in Eureka, observed a vehicle traveling recklessly at a high rate of speed.

The deputy attempted a traffic stop on the vehicle and the vehicle failed to yield, fleeing northbound on U.S. Highway 101 reaching speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour. The deputy pursued the vehicle for approximately 1.5 miles before discontinuing due to public safety concerns. Shortly after discontinuing the pursuit, the deputy received information that that vehicle was involved in a single-vehicle traffic collision in the area of Highway 101 and the Sunset Avenue overpass, near Arcata. Following the collision, the driver, 22-year-old Mauricio Malakai Casillas, fled on foot. Casillas was later located and detained by officers with the Cal Poly Humboldt University Police Department on the 3400 block of LK Wood Boulevard.

Casillas was arrested and booked into the Humboldt County Correctional Facility on charges of evading a peace officer (VC 2800.2), reckless driving (VC 23103(a)), hit and run (VC 20002(a)) and driving under the influence (VC 23152(e)).

The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office would like to thank the following agency for their coordination and assistance with this investigation: Arcata Police Department, California Highway Patrol and Cal Poly Humboldt University Police Department.

Anyone with information about this case or related criminal activity is encouraged to call the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office at (707) 445-7251 or the Sheriff’s Office Crime Tip line at (707) 268-2539.

Voting down Proposition 30 might seem a little off-brand for the California electorate.

These are the voters, after all, who showed no qualms just a decade ago about hiking income taxes on top earners and also hit millionaires in 2004 to pay for mental health services. These are the California majorities who, as recently as June, told pollsters that they were either considering or had already purchased an electric car. Most named air pollution, wildfire and climate change as areas of major personal concern.

And yet the ballot measure that would have increased taxes on about 43,000 multimillionaires (on income above $2 million a year) to fund electric car rebates and combat wildfires has suffered an unambiguous defeat. In the statewide vote count as of late Wednesday, 59% rejected the proposal.

At first glance, the fate of Prop. 30 may be the most compelling head-scratcher of the 2022 California election. But for the campaigns on both sides of the highly contested measure, and for many independent political observers to boot, there’s an obvious answer to this electoral mystery — and its name is Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“You can’t remove the governor from it,” said Matt Rodriguez, campaign manager for No on 30. “He’s a credible messenger on the opposition side, simply because I think a lot of people and a lot of Democrats take their cues from him.”

Newsom’s decision to come out swinging against Prop. 30 in mid-September caught many political observers by surprise. That’s both because his position seemed at odds with his reputation as a climate advocate in general and a booster of electric cars specifically, and because his opposition was so fervent. Of the seven measures on the state ballot this year, the governor only lent his likeness and directed his own campaign resources to two — the overwhelmingly successful Prop. 1 to codify abortion rights in the California constitution, and Prop. 30, a riskier political gambit.

That was a coup for the anti-Prop. 30 forces. Comparing polls taken before and after the governor cut his first “No on 30” ad, public support wilted — especially among supporters.

“The drop among those who approve of Newsom was three times greater than those who were disapproving,” said Dean Bonner, associate survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California. The No campaign found a similar shift in its private polling.

Mary Creasman, CEO of California Environmental Voters and a member of the campaign supporting Prop. 30, also said Newsom’s role “100%” contributed to the measure’s demise, though she also blamed the “No” campaign for what she said were “lies” about what the ballot measure would actually do.

Prop. 30 “had a record number of billionaires against it, it had complete falsehoods thrown at it, and it had the most popular Democratic leader in the state against it,” she said. “And we still got 40% of the vote.”

Specifically, Creasman said the suggestion, made by Newsom and in many No on 30 ads, that Prop. 30 would have specifically benefited Lyft was false. In fact, though the measure could have helped the rideshare company meet some of the state’s vehicle electrification mandates, it would have done so by subsidizing zero-emission vehicles and expanding charging infrastructure in general, not by providing money to Lyft directly.

Lyft, however, provided roughly 94% of the funding, nearly $48 million, for the Yes on Prop. 30 campaign.

Creasman said she was especially puzzled by the governor’s position, given his support for a state policy to phase out the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035. The governor and Legislature have committed $10 billion on zero-emission programs and subsidies over the next five years. But Creasman argued that making the mandated transition will require more, and more reliable, public funding.

The failure of Prop. 30 puts the ball in the governor’s court, she added.

“Where’s the money going to come from?” said Creasman. “If the governor has some exciting, innovative new stuff that he can pull out of his pocket and say, ‘Here’s how we’re gonna pay for it,’ we are all in.”

Not a referendum on climate

Both Creasman and Rodriguez cautioned against drawing any sweeping conclusions about California voters’ policy preferences from the outcome of this single contentious proposition.

Will voters “still be progressive on tax policy? I think possibly,” said Rodriguez. “Will they still be very progressive on climate? I think absolutely. I don’t think any of that is gone. I just think that voters weren’t fooled.”

David Vogel, author of “California Greenin’: How the Golden State Became An Environmental Leader” and a UC Berkeley professor emeritus, agreed.

“I don’t see it as a referendum at all on climate change or the environment,” he said of Prop. 30. He pointed to the governor’s opposition, the neutrality of some high-profile environmental organizations including the Sierra Club and the allegations of self-dealing by Lyft as top reasons for voter skepticism.

The Sierra Club’s decision not to endorse was motivated by concerns that some of the money that the measure would have directed toward wildfire mitigation could have funded clear-cutting forests.

But that was only one of many dueling endorsements and non-endorsements in the Prop. 30 campaign that may have confused voters.

In opposing the measure, Newsom joined traditional allies in the state’s two largest teachers’ unions, which warned that Prop. 30 could reduce state funding to public schools. But he broke with many Democrats and was on the same side as stranger political bedfellows, including the California Republican Party, the state Chamber of Commerce and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

On the yes side, the Democratic Party, many environmentalists and trades unions joined Lyft, even though they battled the corporate giant just two years over its successful referendum to exempt the company’s driver’s from a state labor law.

The utter strangeness of those coalitions likely contributed to the defeat of Prop. 30 too, said Paul Mitchell, with Political Data Inc., an election analysis firm that works with Democrats.

“I don’t think it was so much the governor’s messaging, but it was confusing to voters. It was like, ‘Wait, this is an environmental thing? It’s a Lyft thing? The governor isn’t for it?” he said.

Mitchell pointed to the trend in California politics that ballot measures frequently lose support as Election Day nears. That’s often because undecided and puzzled voters are driven by a “first do no harm” principle and. erring on the side of the status quo, vote “no.”

“Confusion is the best friend of the ‘no’ side,” said Mitchell. “You don’t have to even win the argument, you just have to muddy the waters.”

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Thomas Joseph Doss
Dec. 23, 1993 - Sept. 20, 2022

Thomas Joseph Doss was born Dec. 23, 1993 to Larry O. and Linda Jo Doss at Mad River Hospital in Arcata.

A native of Humboldt County, he attended Teacher’s Pet, Washington Elementary, Winship Jr High, and did a half year at Eureka High before transferring to St. Bernard’s High, where he played varsity football and graduated in 2012. Thomas started football officiating with his dad while still in high school and went on to officiate in Oregon and California until the end of 2018.

After graduation, Thomas went to work locally until he moved to Central Oregon full-time in 2014 to help take care of his ailing Grandma, Carol Lee Alexander, and help his Grandpa Tom on the family farm. He also worked full-time for the McKinnon Ranch. While in Oregon, he attended Central Oregon Community College and obtained his AA degree.

He moved back to California in the fall of 2017 to be closer to friends and help his dad and stepmom on their ranch in Orick. He also began working at the Grocery Outlet in McKinleyville. This was a job Thomas loved and worked until he got sick and was hospitalized.

Thomas had multiple passions in life. First on the list was comedy. Thomas was known for his dry sense of humor and quick wit. He could find humor in almost any situation. Comedy podcasts, music, gaming, science, agriculture and animals-especially his dog Jaxon and cat Savage, fishing, target shooting, spending time with family, cooking and creating recipes. He was an avid fan of the San Jose Sharks and football… Go Raiders!!

Thomas had a tender heart and he loved children. He became a father himself in the summer of 2021. He loved his son Lukas and was looking forward to his newfound fatherhood and raising his little boy.

Thomas enjoyed time in the redwoods and continued to make that his special place throughout his life. Another favorite pastime was going to the ocean and beach with Jaxon, his dog, and with his friends. His greatest gift though was making friends and being the best friend, he could be. Thomas had a loving compassionate heart, kind words and a smile for everyone.

He is survived in death, by his parents, Larry & Cassandra Doss; mother, Linda Jo Alexander; brother, Foster Doss; sister, Laurel Doss; his only son, Lukas Kuttler; and his loving Grandparents, Jan Doss, and Tom Alexander. Other family members include Aunt Heidi & Uncle Paul Leslie; cousins Amanda, Robbie and Merit Duggan, and Andrew Leslie; cousins Ben, Leslie and Henry Smith; cousins Shawn, Maggie and Grayce Griggs; great-aunt and uncle Debbie & Steve Razwick; and many other cousins and extended family members in California and the Midwest.

A memorial service will be held Saturday Nov. 12th at 11 a.m. at the First Presbyterian Church, 819 15th Street, Eureka, CA at 11 a.m.

There will be live-streaming on Facebook of the service on the church’s Facebook page.

Gifts in lieu of flowers can be made to the following organizations:

• Sequoia Park Zoo Foundation 
• Sequoia Humane Society 
• Kiwanis Family House

###

The obituary above was submitted on behalf of Thomas Doss’s loved ones. The Lost Coast Outpost runs obituaries of Humboldt County residents at no charge. See guidelines here. Email news@lostcoastoutpost.com.

Stanley Allan Francis, 75, of Eureka passed away October 31, 2022 at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles.

He was born on August 6, 1947 in Pasadena to Oscar Renfrew Francis Jr. and Bertha Helen Francis.

Stanley was only 17 years old when he lost his father. He was responsible for his mother and younger sister, leaving him the only man of the house. Stanley left Gardena High School half way through his senior year to work and care for his family. He went to work for his Uncle Stanley, who owned a refrigeration business. Later, Stanley went to Harbor Junior College to study refrigeration and continued to work for his uncle.

Stanley was 19 years old when I met him and became his wife of over 53 years. I was 17 years old and a senior at Inglewood High School. We married on February 14, 1969. Our first child, Sabrina was born in 1970 in Inglewood. We moved to Eureka when Sabrina was 10 months old, and arrived January 1, 1971 with my family. We opened Sabrina’s Pizza House March 1971. We had our first son, Jason, in 1973. We had our second son, Heath, in 1976. Stanley was hired to work for Varsity Ice Cream in 1976. He was their first employee. Stanley and I opened Babetta’s Ristorante in 1998 and he stayed with Varsity Ice Cream. Stanley retired from Varsity Ice Cream in 2019. He was there for 43 years.

Stanley’s hobbies and interests were hunting and fishing with his kids and good friend, Joe Rosa. Stanley was such a loving husband, father, grandfather and great-grandfather. He loved his family more than life itself. Stanley also loved people and took a personal interest in their lives. He was very well-known throughout the community; they called him “Stan the ice cream man”, and sometimes “Huggy Bear.” Stanley always had a smile on his face, and a booming laugh. He was known for his stories and jokes. He also loved to play pranks on other drivers who found it very hard to reciprocate. Stanley was kind-hearted and very deep. He was a loyal friend. He was brave, a protector, and a straight shooter. He was very real and down to earth. He was a man’s man. He walked his talk.

My Stanley was so strong and powerful and I always felt safe when he was next to me. He had so many capabilities and very confident, yet so humble and gentle. I’ve witnessed him protecting not only his family and friends, but strangers as well. He was my hero! Stanley had many hidden talents. His singing range was over four octaves, but he would never sing. He was an amazing artist and he never drew. He had quick and accurate reflexes and was very athletic for such a big man and he only played football one year. He only bragged about his family. He allowed me to run the show, and make most of the decisions, but every so often he would chime in and give his thoughts if he felt strongly. It always stopped me in my tracks, and I always listened. Our personalities were different in so many ways, but we were friends to each other’s interests. Stan was not a complainer. I was very blessed by this loving man, and I already miss him so much. I know he’s in heaven, watching and protecting us, and he is in no pain. He was a man; a tough man. I called him Stan my man. I will forever miss you, until we meet again. I love you. Your loving wife, Babetta Francis

Stanley was preceded in death by his father, Oscar Renfrew Francis Jr, and mother, Bertha Helen Francis, sister Mary Jane Francis Vanwagoner, and mother in law, Saralene Janet Kinnebrew. He is survived by his wife, Babetta Francis, daughter Sabrina Gasdik (Arturo), son Jason Francis (Monica), and son Heath Francis (Angela), grandsons Heath and Tyus (Moriah) Francis, granddaughter Amelia Francis, granddaughters Mileena and Arabella Maki, great-granddaughter Delilah Francis, and extended family and friends (too many to mention).

There will be a Celebration of Stanley’s Life held at the Elks Lodge 445 Herrick Ave, Eureka on Saturday, Nov. 26, from 2 to 5 p.m.

###

The obituary above was submitted on behalf of Stanley Francis’s loved ones. The Lost Coast Outpost runs obituaries of Humboldt County residents at no charge. See guidelines here. Email news@lostcoastoutpost.com.

Frances Ann Lintvet Gilkey passed away peacefully on November 3, 2022.

Frances was born January 12, 1924 to Selmer and Beda Lintvet in Lake Park, Minnesota. At a young age she helped the war (WWII) effort Rosie the Riveter-style, by working in a factory. She then joined the Marines, stationed in D.C. and later transferred to San Diego.

She belonged to the Arcata United Methodist Church, where she served on many boards. In 2008 she began attending the United Methodist Church of the Joyful Healer. In the last five years she attended the Wesleyan Church of the Redwoods. She was active at the McKinleyville Senior Center, attending classes and serving on the board.

She lived a very long (nearly 99 years) and happy life. She and her husband were married nearly 60 years when he died. They had four children, sadly losing one at three years of age. She was a den mother for her boys Boy Scouts and for her daughters Girl Scouts. She has 10 grandchildren and 22 great grandchildren and 5 great-great grandchildren!

She was preceded in death by her beloved husband of 57 years, Estol “Gil” Gilkey, her parents, her older brother Don Lintvet, and a daughter Donna EvaMarie. She is survived by her children and their spouses, Darrel and Brenda Gilkey of Columbus, Georgia: Duane and Mary Gilkey of Birmingham, Alabama; Diane and John williamson of McKinleyville, California; grandchildren Sarah and Jason Hardin of Carmel, Indiana; Martha and Garet Mason of Las Vegas, Nevada; Joseph Gilkey of Birmingham, Alabama; Erick and Mackenzie Gilkey; Joel and Linh Eagle of Belmont, North Carolina; Chris and Andrea Eagle of Columbus, Georgia; Lorretto and Jim Klug of Thiensville, Wisconsin; Lyn and Matt Garrison of Jackson, Georgia; Larry and Kim Eagle of Phenix City, Alabama and Jay Eagle of Spokane, Washington. Frances is a;so survived by 22 great grandchildren, five great-great grandchildren and numerous nieces and nephews.

Fran loved flowers and she loved giving to others. Gifts in memory may be made to the Wesleyan Church of the Redwoods or Hospice of Humboldt. Written memories may be left with Humboldt Cremation & Funeral Service.

###

Nordic Aquafarms may have taken a “monumental step forward” in late September when the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors approved development permits and certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the company’s plans to demolish a dilapidated pulp mill and build a $650 million land-based fish farm on the Samoa Peninsula, but it’s not swimming in clear water just yet.

An informal group of local residents calling themselves Citizens Protecting Humboldt Bay recently filed a lawsuit against the county and the Board of Supervisors alleging that, as lead agency, the county violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Specifically, the suit alleges that the EIR — which was prepared by engineering firm GHD on behalf of the county — “fails to adequately identify, evaluate, and/or require mitigation for all significant direct and cumulative environmental impacts the Project will cause.”

The EIR concludes that, with mitigation measures, the project will result in no significant environmental impacts. The litigants aren’t buying that.

“To the contrary,” their suit says, “substantial evidence shows the Project will have several significant unmitigated environmental effects … . Furthermore, the record shows that the County violated the information disclosure provisions of CEQA in several respects, failed to respond adequately to public and agency comments on the Draft EIR, and otherwise failed to proceed in the manner required by CEQA.”

At Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, the board met in closed session to consider the lawsuit, and when they emerged about an hour later, county counsel reported that the board had unanimously agreed to hire Sacramento-based environmental law firm Remy Moose Manly to defend against the suit.

The petitioners are seeking a writ of mandate ordering the county to set aside the EIR along with its approval of the project. They’re also asking for costs and attorney’s fees “together with any other relief the Court deems necessary and proper.”

Who exactly are the Citizens Protecting Humboldt Bay? The lawsuit identifies them as “an unincorporated association of volunteer homeowners, residents, and business owners living and/or working in Humboldt County.” Elsewhere it says the members include Blue Lake resident Scott Frazer as well as Daniel Chandler, who’s on the steering committee for the environmental group 350 Humboldt. Both men wrote or co-wrote letters critiquing the EIR, and Chandler’s group was among the appellants who officially challenged its approval by the Humboldt County Planning Commission.

Reached by phone, Chandler said Frazer had asked him to add his name to the suit, though he (Chandler) hadn’t paid any money. He also said he doesn’t have high hopes.

“I don’t have any sense that it will be successful,” he said of the suit.

Chandler has higher hopes of success for the five appeals that have been filed to date with the California Coastal Commission, including one from 350 Humboldt. The other appellants are Frazer, Elk Grove resident Alison Willy, the Salmonid Restoration Federation and the Redwood Region Audubon Society. All five appeals challenge the county’s issuance of a Coastal Development Permit. 

According to Noaki Schwartz, the Coastal Commission’s deputy director of communications, environmental justice and tribal affairs, commission staff are currently reviewing the appeals and working to establish a timeline to bring them to the commission.

Meanwhile, staff are reviewing two other Coastal Development Permit applications for the project. One, filed by Nordic Aquafarms, is for use of an existing outfall pipeline on the project site to discharge treated wastewater into the ocean, a mile and a half offshore. 

The other application comes from the Humboldt Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District. It’s for installation and operation of a seawater intake system (or “sea chest”) that would provide water from Humboldt Bay to the proposed salmon farm. 

“We don’t yet have a firm hearing date but are tentatively targeting spring of next year to bring these applications to the Commission,” Schwartz said in an email.

Chandler said the commission doesn’t necessarily have to grant a hearing on the appeals. He noted that the county’s Local Coastal Plan, which dates back to 1982, includes no mention of greenhouse gas emissions, which provide the basis of the appeal. In other words, he said, “What we appealed on is not appealable.” 

But the appeal argues that the county has been remiss in not updating its Local Coastal Plan, and thus 350 Humboldt shouldn’t be held back from challenging the permit. 

“The Coastal Commission is remiss also because they have not told the county they have to produce an acceptable plan,” Chandler said.

Reached by email, Nordic Aquafarms Public Relations Manager Jacki Cassida said the company is confident that the EIR is “a robust, thorough and complete analysis of potential environmental impacts from the project.” 

She went on to say that the company is reviewing both the lawsuit and the five appeals and is working with the county and the harbor district to determine next steps.

“We are certain the outcome will be a positive one for Nordic and Humboldt County,” Cassida said.

###

PREVIOUSLY: 

• Nordic Aquafarms Lays out Next Steps After Planning Commission Gives the Thumbs-Up to Their Samoa Fish Farm Plans
• Fishermen and Conservation Groups Appeal Nordic Aquafarms’ Environmental Report Certification to Humboldt County Supervisors
• Supes Scheduled to Hear Appeal of Nordic Aquafarms Project at Special Meeting Wednesday
• Supervisors Deny Appeal of Nordic Aquafarms Project