President Trump’s push to remove potentially thousands of Vietnamese nationals from the U.S. has shaken many local families.
Sam Liccardo would hold his seat for another two years if the city moves its mayoral races to coincide with presidential elections.
A judge’s order to split Santa Clara into six election districts could undermine Mayor Lisa Gillmor’s majority bloc on the City Council.
A judge is hearing proposals for how to carve Santa Clara into as many as seven election districts to ensure fair representation for minorities.
Activists rallied today to protest plans by the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office to arm jail and patrol deputies with Tasers.
A new lawsuit claims the city of Santa Clara’s at-large elections violate state law by systematically discriminating against Asian-Americans.
Civil rights groups castigated San Jose city leaders for approving a drone purchase without public debate over privacy concerns. They’re now asking the city to reform procedures for acquiring surveillance technology to make the process more transparent.
On March 24, Metro/San Jose Inside reported that Santa Clara Family Health Foundation (SCFHF) executive board member and officer Cindy Chavez participated in a board decision to provide $250,000 in funding to the Yes on A committee, on which she and Kathleen King—CEO of SCFHF—constituted a majority of the three-member committee. The committee subsequently turned over a large portion of the funds to the South Bay Labor Council Issues PAC and Democratic Central Committee’s PAC. Because of Chavez’s obvious conflicts of interest—she headed up the SBLC at the time—and the importance of a countywide sales tax increase, which will be paid by all residents, Metro/San Jose Inside felt this was a matter of public interest.
On Friday, nine nonprofit executives wrote a letter to express their thoughts on recent articles. They worry that investigative reporting could make nonprofits “the target of unfounded accusations and public reproach.” Because we feel this is a useful debate to have, and because we want to give differing points of view the proper attention they deserve, we are running below the letter in full, in addition to its appearance in the comments section where it was submitted. —Editor