This is the ballot measure as presented to voters:

That's rather uninformative.
Recommend to whom?
Proposal by whom?
Why?

The Voter's Pamphlet (pages 17U1-2) explains it -- but many people discard their paphlet (the Lucerne Post Office temporarily removed their trash bins because they were overflowing with discarded election literature), and very few voters are likely to take the sample with them to the polling booth.

Neither the measure text, nor the Impartial Analysis, includes the reason for the change: that the attrocities committed against the native tribes by the town's namesake, Andy Kelsey (with his brothers Ben and Sam) make the name offensive to the tribes.

So voters are faced with this minimalist question.

Here is an example of how it could have been written:

There has been some concern that if the name is to be changed because Kelseyville is offensive, is there another name that voters prefer?

Note that ANY individual or group can submit a different name to the BGN. Our opponents have gone with "Kelseyville forever" .. and then complain that they had no input.

We (C4H) proposed this at the BoS meeting, in an eComment.

C4H wrote arguments For the ballot, but we deferred that to Chairman McCloud of Big Valley.

Save Kelseyville did not rebut Chairman McCloud's argument For.

Save Kelseyville (SK) wrote the argument Against Measure U. Chairman McCloud wrote a rebuttal, in general terms.

We regard SK's argument as highly problematic. A detailed analysis is at citizensforhealing.org/measure-u-arg-rebut.php
Quick summary: they claim in scary bold text that the BGN and C4H violated procedures. But they completely mis-understand BGN's policy guide. They say C4H did not solicit local input: they attended several of our meetings. (SK held none.). They claim Kelseyville is named for some other Kelsey: bunk. They say every resident has to file a change of address with every company or agency they deal with: no. And they don't even mention the Tribes!

This ballot measure was a flawed concept, with a flawed implementation.

SK changed its filings several times. They claim to have spent about $10,000 on "non-political" campaigning, and about $2,000 on Measure U itself.

The top contributors were Mark Borghasanii at $8,000 and Rachel White at $3,000, with a few donors making up $1,000.

Given the meaningless Measure U and the text of the measure, we estimated that we would get about 30% Yes. I guessed that county-wide would also be 30% No (where District 5 might be 80% No) - leaving 40% unaccounted for.
An electoral consultant said the best way to campaign would be a mailing to every household - which might cost $10,000 to $15,000 and would move the needle only 10%, up to 40% Yes.

The opposition also got an endoresement from the Republican party, which got almost 50% of the presidential vote.

Measure U Election Results Analysis

Alan Fletcher 12/9/24

The Measure-U Election results look very clear : 71% NO 29% YES.

But are these results representative of the County as a whole?

In this table I present an analysis of the votes, casting a wider and wider net.

"Unconsidered" in each case is calculated as "Total - (Yes + No)"

Total ballots 27127 ( Turnout 72% )
Registered Voters 37929 Estimated Eligible Voters 51168

Method	Yes	No	Unconsidered	The total used to calculate the percentages
Row 1	29% 7474	71% 17934	N/A	Those who voted Yes or No 25408
Row 2	28% 7474	66% 17934	6% 1719	Those who voted, but skipped measure U 27127
Row 3	20% 7474	47% 17934	33% 12521	Registered Voters 37929
Row 4	15% 7474	35% 17934	50% 25760	Estimated Eligible Voters 51168
Row 5	14% 7474	33% 17934	53% 28792	Estimated Total Voting-Age Population 54200
Row 6	11% 7474	26% 17934	63% 42755	Total Population 68163

Note that the demographics - in terms of population, registered voters, and the percentage who vote - are heavily skewed to white voters.

Here are the results by district, and by precinct.

District	Registered	Votes	Percent	Yes	No	Yes (%)	No (%)
4th Congressional District	37,929	27,127	71.5	7,474	17,934	29.4	70.6
2nd Senatorial District	37,929	27,127	71.5	7,474	17,934	29.4	70.6
4th Assembly District	37,929	27,127	71.5	7,474	17,934	29.4	70.6
State Board of Equalization Dist 2	37,929	27,127	71.5	7,474	17,934	29.4	70.6
1st Supervisorial District	8,083	5,892	72.9	1,609	3,827	29.6	70.4
2nd Supervisorial District	6,038	3,604	59.7	1,110	2,196	33.6	66.4
3rd Supervisorial District	7,416	5,264	71.0	1,643	3,314	33.1	66.9
4th Supervisorial District	7,812	5,870	75.1	1,453	4,041	26.5	73.5
5th Supervisorial District	8,580	6,497	75.7	1,659	4,556	26.7	73.3
City of Clearlake	7,178	4,273	59.5	1,309	2,611	33.4	66.6
City of Lakeport	3,123	2,380	76.2	636	1,581	28.7	71.3
Unincorporated Area	27,628	20,474	74.1	5,529	13,742	28.7	71.3
Vote by Mail Totals	37,929	23,550	62.1	6,493	15,618	29.4	70.6
Election Day Voting Totals	37,929	3,577	9.4	981	2,316	29.8	70.2
Grand Totals	37,929	27,127	71.5	7,474	17,934	29.4	70.6

District	Registered	Votes	Percent	Yes	No	Yes (%)	No (%)
111 Middletown/CentralPark	1169	916	78.4	260	603	30.1	69.9
113 HVL1/HVL2/HVL3	1754	1340	76.4	413	814	33.7	66.3
116 HVL4/HVL5/HVL6/Ranchos	2207	1663	75.4	425	1086	28.1	71.9
121 SpruceGrove	243	178	73.3	40	125	24.2	75.8
122 Jerusalem	28	17	60.7	9	8	52.9	47.1
123 CoyoteValley	170	116	68.2	16	94	14.5	85.5
126 TwinLakes/LowerLake	1159	848	73.2	212	578	26.8	73.2
128 CLDam	44	27	61.4	12	14	46.2	53.8
130 PeriniHill	18	15	83.3	7	8	46.7	53.3
131 BellPark	140	85	60.7	11	70	13.6	86.4
132 MorganValley	40	33	82.5	13	18	41.9	58.1
141 CL/OldHwy/CLVillage	1111	654	58.9	191	409	31.8	68.2
211 CL/MonitorPt/CLBurmsVly	1749	1045	59.7	315	620	33.7	66.3
213 CL/AustinPk/CLOlympic	1002	694	69.3	237	407	36.8	63.2
215 CL/Hillcrest/CLLakeshore	834	479	57.4	143	297	32.5	67.5
217 CL/Davis	870	489	56.2	134	314	29.9	70.1
218 CL/Molesworth/CLPierce	1568	885	56.4	277	550	33.5	66.5
222 BallyPeak	15	12	80.0	4	8	33.3	66.7
311 UpperLake/Bachelor	1602	1148	71.7	313	777	28.7	71.3
341 Nice/NiceHarbor	1390	971	69.9	312	612	33.8	66.2
343 FortySprings	19	13	68.4	3	10	23.1	76.9
351 Lucerne/TheCastle/KonoTayee	1669	1171	70.2	396	719	35.5	64.5
354 Glenhaven	164	104	63.4	50	48	51.0	49.0
361 Gravelly	58	49	84.5	17	26	39.5	60.5
371 Bartlett	4	4	100.0	1	3	25.0	75.0
381 LongVly/ELake/KeysW/KeysE	2133	1551	72.7	462	981	32.0	68.0
390 LakeshorePark	184	127	69.0	48	67	41.8	58.2
391 SulphurPark	177	120	67.8	40	67	37.4	62.6
392 BaldMtn	16	6	37.5	1	4	20.0	80.0
411 LP/Lange/LPWillowTree	1451	1149	79.2	295	787	27.3	72.7
413 LP/Government	729	564	77.4	165	365	31.1	68.9
414 LP/Fairgrounds	943	667	70.7	176	429	29.1	70.9
421 CowMtn/ScottsValley	936	763	81.5	165	549	23.1	76.9
430 Sutter/RobinHill/Westlake	1965	1457	74.1	365	991	26.9	73.1
441 BigValley	389	283	72.8	47	217	17.8	82.2
442 LandsEnd/Adobe	944	658	69.7	157	473	24.9	75.1
452 LakesidePark	95	79	83.2	9	65	12.2	87.8
455 SodaBay	259	173	66.8	52	113	31.5	68.5
461 DonovanValley	69	54	78.3	17	35	32.7	67.3
471 HighlandSpgs	32	23	71.9	5	17	22.7	77.3
511 Gaddy	96	61	63.5	11	47	19.0	81.0
519 Heights/LittleBorax	1162	954	82.1	256	671	27.6	72.4
520 Kville/ColeCrk/KelseyCrk	2375	1723	72.5	287	1389	17.1	82.9
530 WheelerPt/Hawaina	907	731	80.6	182	514	26.1	73.9
532 Riviera/ElyFlat/Yaquima	1729	1219	70.5	296	865	25.5	74.5
551 ThurstonLake	119	97	81.5	34	58	37.0	63.0
561 LLom/HobergsMtn	1074	829	77.2	300	482	38.4	61.6
571 Glenbrook/WPines	1118	883	79.0	293	530	35.6	64.4
--- VoteByMailTotals	37929	23550	62.1	6493	15618	29.4	70.6
--- ElectionDayVotingTotals	37929	3577	9.4	981	2316	29.8	70.2
--- GrandTotals	37929	27127	71.5	7474	17934	29.4	70.6

Summary

• Highest Yes Percentage: 122 Jerusalem with 52.9%
• Highest No Percentage: 452 LakesidePark with 87.8%

Lake County Demographics Overview

This section provides an overview of the demographics of Lake County, California, relevant to the election analysis.

Total Population

The total population of Lake County is approximately 68,163 residents.

Population of Voting Age (18 or Older)

The voting-age population (18 years or older) is approximately 54,200 individuals.

Ethnic and Racial Composition and Voter Registration

The following table outlines the ethnic and racial composition of the voting-age population in Lake County, along with the estimated percentage and number of registered voters within each group:

Ethnic/Racial Group	Population (Voting Age)	% of Voting-Age Population	Estimated % Registered	Estimated Number Registered	Estimated Percent Registered
White	40650	75%	74%	30090	84%
Hispanic or Latino	10840	20%	46%	4986	14%
Native American	1626	3%	55%	895	2%
Total	53116			35971	100%

Note: the number of registered voters in this table is slightly smaller than the final number, but the percentages will not change.

This combined information highlights both the size of each demographic group within the voting-age population and their estimated voter registration rates. Understanding these figures is crucial for analyzing voter turnout and the potential impact of each group on election outcomes.

Sources

• U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census
• U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 2021 Estimates
• California Secretary of State, Voter Registration Statistics
• Pew Research Center, Voter Registration Rates by Race/Ethnicity
• 1890 Count Part 1
• 1890 Count Part 2

This analysis was performed by me, with the assistance of ChatGPT o4-provisional.
The chat log is at chatgpt.com
Note that half-way down the log that I change the output from converstational, to generating this web page (in a combination of PHP, HTML and CSS.) You can view the entire web page in your browser using its "View Source" option.