Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

red dog 1

(31,762 posts)
Mon Aug 25, 2025, 08:43 PM Monday

Hoo's on first?

As of July 15, 2025, the new President of the League of Women Voters is Gloria Chun Hoo.

"The League of Women Voters (LWV) is a nonpartisan American nonprofit political organization." (Wikipedia)

(From Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
"The meaning of NONPARTISAN is not partisan; especially: free from party affiliation, bias, or designation."

Synonyms for nonpartisan include: independent, neutral, nonaligned, unbiased, and uninvolved.

So, if the League of Women Voters is truly a "nonpartisan" organization, why did LWV President Gloria Chun Hoo's viewpoint:
"Don't upend fairness: Say no to mid-cycle redistricting in California/Opinion" appear in the July 30, 2025 issue of The Sacramento Bee?

She, of course, was referring to Governor Gavin Newsom's "Election Rigging Response Act" which will appear on the November ballot.

"Don't upend fairness"?

"Say no to mid-cycle redistricting in California"?

That doesn't sound "nonpartisan" to me.

In fact, it sounds very partisan. "Say no to redistricting in California" isn't "independent," or "neutral", or "nonaligned", or "unbiased or "uninvolved."
In fact, it isn't any of those things.

Gloria Chun Hoo's Sacramento Bee's "viewpoint" was as far from "nonpartisan" as one could get!

It certainly was not a "neutral" position to take, nor was it "unbiased."
And Ms. Hoo DID get "involved" by having her political viewpoint "Say No to redistricting in California" published in the Sacramento Bee.


I agree with what lostincalifornia posted last Thursday regarding this so-called "nonpartisan" opinion by LWV President Gloria Chun Hoo:
"The League of Women Voters say they are 'nonpartisan', and pride themselves on that.
Well, they can take that nonpartisan bullshit, and put it where the sun don't shine."
https://democraticunderground.com/100220577051
(Ignore 2nd sentence: "and they are sending mailers out & advertisements throughout the state pushing that"]

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

cbabe

(5,471 posts)
1. Referring to the fake letter sent by gop operatives
Mon Aug 25, 2025, 08:48 PM
Monday

The League of Women Voters of California
https://lwvc.org › lwvc-not-affiliated-redistricting-mailer

League of Women Voters of California Not Affiliated with Redistricting ...
4 days agoYou may have received a mailer from "Protect Voters First" about the redistricting ballot initiative this November. The League of Women

ers of California did not authorize this action.


MyLO
https://my.lwv.org › california › diablo-valley › article › lwvc-statement-misleading-ca-redistricting-mailer
LWVC Statement on Misleading CA Redistricting Mailer
The League of Women Voters of California (LWVC) released a statement about the misleading mailer sent about the California Redistricting Ballot Initiative.


abc10.com
https://www.abc10.com › article › news › politics › california-redistricting-mailer-draws-criticism-for-misleading-endorsements › 103-c87a8d60-6d4e-48ef-8387-ef5a07fc0c70
California redistricting mailer sparks controversy | abc10.com
2 days agoA campaign mailer in California urging a "no" vote on redistricting draws criticism for implying League of Women Voters' endorsement, which the group denies.


Democratic Underground
https://upload.democraticunderground.com › 100220578272
League Of Women Voters Opposes Redistricting Mailer is a FAKE ...
3 days agoIMPORTANT NOTICE You may have received a mailer from "Protect Voters First" about the redistricting ballot initiative this November. By naming

red dog 1

(31,762 posts)
2. So what?
Mon Aug 25, 2025, 09:01 PM
Monday

Apples and Oranges.

That phony GOP mailer sent from "Protect Voters First" has absolutely nothing to do with Gloria Chun Hoo's editorial opinion in the Sacramento Bee, which is the topic of this OP.

cbabe

(5,471 posts)
3. The editorial sounds like it's quoting from the fake letter. Did the paper use that
Mon Aug 25, 2025, 09:23 PM
Monday

as their source? Or is there a source with her actually making those statements?

red dog 1

(31,762 posts)
5. Now I understand your question. (I amended the OP)
Mon Aug 25, 2025, 09:39 PM
Monday

lostincalifornia's post was from 4 days ago, right after the phony mailers went out, so he didn't know that the mailers were not from the LWV.

cbabe

(5,471 posts)
6. Good resolution. Cheers. Also wondering if paper corrected
Mon Aug 25, 2025, 09:46 PM
Monday

the story and printed an apology/explanation. Hard to trust it going forward.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Hoo's on first?