The Orange County District Attorney, Tony Rackauckas, responded in writing today to allegations regarding Orange County Supervisor Andrew Do’s residency in the First Supervisorial District. As expected the OCDA found Do to be innocent and closed their investigation.
Here is the conclusion of the OCDA’s letter regarding the Do residence allegations:
Based on a review of all of the evidence provided to and obtained by the OCDA, and pursuant to the applicable legal principles, it is our legal opinion that the evidence does not support your allegations that the Westminster address is not Supervisor Do’s domicile. In fact, we find that the vast majority of the evidence corroborates, rather than contradicts, Supervisor Do’s assertion that the Westminster address is his legal residence. As such, Do was eligible to run for, and is eligible to retain, the First District Seat on the Board of Supervisors. As the evidence does not support a conclusion that Supervisor Do’s assertions are false, Supervisor Do did not commit any violations of criminal law in regards to his claimed residency.
The OCDA did find some funny business while investigating Do:
There are only two facts that could be argued to go against Supervisor Do’s claim of domicile in Westminster; however, neither of these is sufficient to overcome all the other evidence supporting his assertion. First, on March 16, 2015, Do was in a traffic accident while driving a vehicle. Records for that vehicle show that Supervisor Do and his wife first leased it in March 2013 and, at that time, they listed the registered address for that vehicle as the Santa Ana address. At this time, the registered address for that vehicle has not been changed and remains the Santa Ana address. Second, the most recent voter registration form for Supervisor Do’s wife was filed on March 7, 2012, and lists her residence as the Santa Ana address. She has not filed any subsequent voter registration forms and, thus, has not changed her address.
However ultimately the OCDA determined that:
The evidence in this case falls far short of what is required to prove Supervisor Do’s stated intent that the Westminster address be his legal residence is not true. In fact, nearly all the competent evidence supports and corroborates Supervisor Do’s assertion that the Westminster address is his legal residence or domicile for voting and election purposes.