Election Code Violations by Matthew Dobler
Matthew Dobler’s Candidacy:
Starting with Misinformation and Violations of the Elections Code
Elections are a cornerstone of democracy, built on the principles of transparency and integrity. Unfortunately, Matthew Dobler’s candidacy for EVMWD District 4 Director is already compromised by multiple violations of California Elections Code Sections 13107 and 10511. These issues highlight why voters need to be aware of the factual concerns surrounding his submission, which undermine his qualifications and credibility. Here, we explore the critical aspects of these violations and why they matter to our community.
Understanding the Elections Code and the Paper Submissions Process
Candidates are required by the California Elections Code to provide accurate and truthful information when submitting their candidacy. This process includes listing a valid home address, professional designations, and employment history. These submissions are scrutinized by the Riverside County Registrar of Voters to ensure compliance with legal standards. Any false or misleading information can not only disqualify a candidacy but also erode public trust in the electoral process.
About Ballot Designations: Legal Requirements
Ballot designations are meant to offer voters a clear understanding of a candidate’s profession, vocation, or occupation. Under California Elections Code Section 13107, these designations must be factual and directly related to the candidate’s recent work experience. The law explicitly prohibits designations that suggest unearned expertise or authority, as misleading the electorate is considered a serious violation.
Key Issues with Matthew Dobler’s Submission
1. False Address Submission
Matthew Dobler listed 801 Canary Ct, Lake Elsinore, as his residence—a claim that is factually incorrect. This false information violates the Elections Code, which requires all candidates to provide truthful and accurate personal details. This inaccuracy raises broader concerns about the legitimacy of his candidacy and his commitment to transparency.
2. Misleading Ballot Designations: "Water Advocate" and "Water Consultant"
Dobler’s self-designations as a "Water Advocate" and "Water Consultant" do not accurately reflect his actual professional background. California Elections Code Section 13107 mandates that ballot designations be honest and reflective of a candidate’s genuine professional experience. Additionally, the term "Water Advocate" implies a level of expertise and evaluation that Dobler has not substantiated. Legal precedent, such as Hargett v. Brown (2016), underscores that ballot designations must not mislead voters by suggesting unearned authority.
3. False Employment Claims
Dobler’s listed employers, Dobler Strategies and Southwest Legislative Council, are also problematic. Dobler Strategies is not a business he owns or works for, nor does he own or work for Southwest Legislative Council. Precedents like Watson v. Garcetti (1995) make it clear that ballot designations must be both factually accurate and directly tied to the candidate’s legitimate work history.
4. Conflict of Interest in Verification
One of the most concerning aspects of Dobler’s submission is the conflict of interest regarding his verification of professional claims. The individual verifying his designation as a "Water Consultant" is his current boss at the Lake Elsinore Chamber of Commerce, an organization that receives substantial funding from EVMWD. Both Matthew and Kim work for the Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce. This relationship not only undermines the credibility of the verification but also points to a deeper conflict of interest. A more detailed examination of this issue will be covered in a subsequent blog, highlighting the critical need for impartiality in candidate verifications.
Starting Off on the Wrong Foot: The Importance of Integrity
Matthew Dobler’s candidacy begins with a series of falsehoods and misleading claims, calling into question his fitness for public office. By submitting incorrect personal information, unverified professional designations, and questionable employment claims, Dobler has set a concerning precedent for how he might conduct himself as a public official. Voters deserve candidates who value honesty, transparency, and a commitment to the community’s best interests.
Conclusion: The Responsibility Now Lies with Voters
Unfortunately, it is now too late for electoral authorities to take action against these violations. The responsibility to address these issues falls to the voters, who must take notice of the factual concerns surrounding Matthew Dobler’s candidacy. It’s crucial to remember that if a candidate feels the need to misrepresent their qualifications to secure votes, it’s a clear indication that they recognize their own lack of suitability for the position. Voters have the power to make an informed choice based on truth, integrity, and a commitment to our community’s future.
Update on the situation: Read "Dobler Digs Deeper"
