Yesterday, Tammy Kim’s attorney, Brett Murdock, filed her response to a lawsuit alleging she doesn’t live in Irvine’s council District 5, where she is currently on the ballot for the April 15 special election. The Kim/Murdock legal strategy is an interesting one.
The response is 39 pages (here, here and here), but boils down to this: it doesn’t matter if Kim was faking her residency at one District 5 address and besides you can’t prove it; you can’t prove Kim doesn’t live in the room she rented on January 10, 2025; and filling the council vacancy with a by-district instead of at-large special election is illegal so the judge has to let Kim stay on the ballot.
The lawsuit was filed by Irvine resident Ron Scolesdang, who paid for a private investigator to look into Kim’s residency during December 2024 and January 2025. The investigator concluded Kim still lived in her condo in District 3 and was faking residency in District 5.
READ: Is Tammy Kim Faking Her Residency In Special Election for Vacant Council Seat?
In May 2024, Kim registered to vote at 19 Alaris Aisle in District 5. In her court documents, Kim says she moved from her District 3 to 19 Alaris Aisle because she was worried about her safety due to controversy over the Israel-Hamas war – although her 22-year-old remained in the condo.
Kim voted from the 19 Alaris Aisle address in November 2024.
When a special election was called to fill the District 5 vacancy, she used the 19 Alaris Aisle address when she pulled nomination papers, stating, under penalty of perjury, that she lived there. The Park family (husband, wife and two children) live at that address.
READ: Tammy Kim Removed From City Commission, Served With Subpoena, Cancels Campaign Fundraiser
On January 9, a private investigator spoke to Mrs. Park. She said her family has lived at 19 Alaris Aisle for 8 years, they are the only people who have lived there during that time, and that they have never rented out a room nor had a tenant.
Murdock, amazingly, dismisses as “hearsay” Mrs. Park’s statement about who does and doesn’t live in her own home.
Kim learned about that conversation, presumably from the Parks according to Scolesdang’s lawsuit, and the next day, January 10, rented a room in an apartment at 44 Willowrun in District 5.
At no time has Kim explained why she suddenly decided to “move” from the Park’s condo at 19 Alaris Aisle to sharing an apartment with a stranger at 44 Willowrun.
She has only said, “I legally live in District 5.”
Who talks that way about where they live?:
“Oh hi! Nice to meet you. Where do you live?”
“Oh, I legally live in Tustin.”
It’s clear from the court filings that Kim doesn’t want to talk about her claim to have lived at 19 Alaris Aisle. Murdock’s legal strategy is to wave it away as “irrelevant”. In the same sentence, Murdock states Kim lived at 19 Alaris Aisle and that it is “unproven” that she lived there.
Which is it? Irrelevant or unproven? It can’t be both.
Murdock says only thing that matters is Kim claimed to live at 44 Willowrun when she was re-issued nomination papers a few weeks ago. Murdock argues Kim can legally be on the ballot as long as she lived at 44 Willowrun beginning that day – and in any, he says, Scolesdang can’t prove she doesn’t live there.
He omits any mention of the fact that Kim had taken out nomination papers the month before from the 19 Alaris Aisle address.
Murdock’s strangest argument appears to be a “Plan B” defense in case the judge concludes Kim doesn’t live in District 5. Murdock contends it is illegal to fill the council vacancy by having a special election only in District 5.
The vacancy was created by Larry Agran’s election as mayor. But Agran was elected to council in 2022 in the city’s last at-large council elections before going to district elections in 2024. Agran was deemed to represent District 5 because he lives there.
“Because the voters of Irvine elected Agran to a four-year term at large, it is a constitutional error to hold an election for his replacement on a by-district basis,” writes Murdock. He argues Irvine voters’ March 2024 approval of shifting to district elections “cannot control in the face of this constitutional protection of voters rights. It is the will of the voters—and their election to a councilmember to an at-large seat—which controls. By purporting to fill an at-large city council seat with a district-based special election, the city would be depriving 5/6ths of the residents of representation that they had simply because that councilmember chose to resign.”
Does Murdock then ask the judge to stop this massive disenfranchisement of Irvine voters and order that the special election be city-wide? No, he doesn’t. He argues that since it wouldn’t matter which district Kim lived in if the special election was conducted at-large – as he contends the law requires – then it shouldn’t matter where Kim lives as long as it’s somewhere in Irvine.
Assuming they even believe their own argument, what Tammy Kim and Brett Murdock are saying is her desire to be on the ballot outweighs the alleged disenfranchisement of more than 130,000 Irvine voters.
The hearing is scheduled for 2 p.m. The judge will make his decision on whether Kim stays on the ballot, although that won’t necessarily be the end of the matter of Kim’s suspect election maneuvering
