About Us

Democracy Wins at Palm Springs City Hall:

Voters to Decide District 2 Council Seat

​

In a passionate defense of the democratic process, as a Palm Springs City Councilmember, I led the charge at Thursday morning’s August 20 Special Meeting to ensure that District 2 voters, not the sitting City Council, will decide who represents them for the next four years.

 

Despite an administrative recommendation to cancel the District 2 election and automatically appoint the sole nominee, Councilmember Jeffrey Bernstein, I firmly rejected the proposal, arguing that taking away voters' right to choose runs counter to the foundational principles of representative democracy and the spirit of the California Voting Rights Act.

 

The Council ultimately voted to deny the appointment resolution and proceed with the General Municipal Election on November 3, 2026.

 

A Contested Issue Before the Meeting Ever Began

 

The background leading up to Thursday's special session underscored a clear difference in perspective on whether the meeting was necessary.

 

On August 10, following the close of the official nomination period, the City Clerk notified Council that Councilmember Bernstein was the only candidate who qualified for the District 2 ballot. Under California Elections Code Section 10229, cities may, but are not required to, cancel an election and appoint a sole candidate to save on administrative costs (estimated by Riverside County at roughly $22,000).

 

However, the City Clerk’s guidance explicitly noted that if a special meeting was not called, the city would automatically proceed with the election, leaving the door open for write-in candidates whose official filing period runs from September 7 through October 20.

 

When polled on August 11 regarding interest in convening a special meeting to consider an appointment, Councilmember deHarte made his stance immediately clear via email and text to city leadership:

​

"With the other D2 individual expressing interest in a write in effort, I don’t see how we can take that opportunity away from him or anyone else. We need to let the voters have a voice... I can’t imagine this council would have consensus to hold a meeting that potentially would take away the right of D2 Voters to choose their Councilmember."

​

Despite expressing immediate opposition to canceling the election, I was informed minutes later that a consensus existed to schedule the August 20 Special Meeting anyway.

 

A Stark Contrast on the Dais

 

During Thursday's meeting, a sharp contrast emerged between the views expressed by Mayor Soto (who supported or favored the administrative appointment process) and Councilmember deHarte’s defense of direct voter input.

 

The Mayor argued in favor of the appointment resolution, highlighting the estimated $22,000 in taxpayer savings and emphasizing that cancellation is a standard protocol utilized across California municipalities and special districts:

​

"When we talk about really kind of respecting our careful budget, this is like one example where the county tries to make it as simple as possible for us to make our elections as affordable as possible... I'd be open to supporting the resolution to appoint Councilmember Bernstein."

​

Councilmember Garner similarly noted the importance of weighing fiscal constraints, while also reflecting on how an election brings crucial community awareness to local governance.

 

Taking the mic, I delivered a robust, principled rebuke of the effort to bypass the ballot box, questioning why a Council that routinely demands extensive public feedback on minor city matters would seek to bypass voters on one of their most fundamental rights:

​

"This is about a basic principle of democracy. This is the most valuable right our citizens have, to go to the ballot box and vote. And we're telling them today that, no, you don't have a choice. We're going to make a choice for you... I cannot even fathom that this council, who stands up so strongly and firmly to collect public input on everything from toys and playgrounds to colors of brands and logos, would not seek their input to allow them to choose their council member."

​

Addressing the financial argument directly, I pointed out that the administrative expenses, staff preparation, legal fees, and operational costs involved in calling and holding the Special Meeting itself eroded much of the theoretical $22,000 in savings, making the cost of protecting democracy negligible by comparison.

 

I further emphasized that calling the election "uncontested" before the official write-in window even opened (September 7 – October 20) short-circuited the electoral process before voters could evaluate all available alternatives:

​

"Calling this an uncontested election is premature. The write-in period has not even opened... An election lets voters affirm Councilmember Bernstein's candidacy, write in someone else, or leave their vote blank, providing at least some measure of electoral support. Appointment today provides none. It may confer the office, but it does not confer the same democratic mandate as an election."

​

The Outcome: Power Remains with the People

 

Councilmember Bernstein abstained from the vote, and a motion was made to proceed with the election as scheduled on November 3, 2026. The motion passed - 3 for, 1 against - ensuring that District 2 residents will have their full say at the ballot box this fall.

 

By insisting that the democratic process be fully honored, the Palm Springs City Council sent a clear message: public participation and the right to vote are not administrative inconveniences to be cut for minor cost savings, but the bedrock of local representation.