A case currently pending in the Supreme Court of California concerning the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) may have wide-ranging impact on any special district that elects its Board of Directors in an at-large election system. In Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica, the Supreme Court will for the first time consider the following question: “What must a plaintiff prove in order to establish vote dilution under the California Voting Rights Act?” On June 15, CSDA joined the League of California Cities (“Cal Cities”) to file an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of Santa Monica, urging the court to consider the practical concerns guiding special districts’ decision to switch to by-district elections, and seeking clarity in how the CVRA is applied to legitimate, non-discriminatory at-large election systems. You can view a copy of the CSDA brief by visiting the CSDA Legal Advocacy webpage.
Special districts throughout the state have begun to face legal challenges to their voting systems in recent years, and many have sought guidance on switching from an “at-large” to “by-district” voting method to comply with the CVRA. The CVRA prohibits any political subdivision from using any at-large method of election that “impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or influence the outcome of an election, as a result of the dilution or the abridgement of the rights of voters who are members of the protected class[.]” Prior to the decision in this case, plaintiffs prevailed on CVRA claims simply by presenting evidence of the existence of racially polarized voting without also showing dilution of the vote.
In this case involving the City of Santa Monica, the City argued evidence at trial demonstrated that it’s at-large election system for City Council members is fair and inclusive and does not dilute the voting power of protected classes. As evidence, the City pointed to the fact that Santa Monica has a history of electing minority people of color to a variety of local positions. Moreover, the evidence at trial showed that under the at-large election system, between 2002 and 2016, candidates preferred by Latino/a voters won at least 70% of the time in Santa Monica city council races.
In February 2019, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered Santa Monica to switch from at-large to by-district voting. The City appealed. In February 2020, CSDA joined the League of California Cities to file an amicus brief in support of Santa Monica, authored by Derek Cole, Partner at CSDA Business Affiliate law firm Cole Huber. Mr. Cole also authored the amicus brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of CSDA and Cal Cities.
Last year, for the first time since the passage of the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) in 2003, a local government with an at-large voting system successfully defended a substantive legal challenge to its election method when Santa Monica prevailed at the appellate court. The ruling from the Second District Court of Appeal held that “the legislature required litigants to prove both dilution and racially polarized voting in order to establish a claim, to have a remedy, and to recover fees.” Unfortunately, the decision was de-published and the matter is now pending before the California Supreme Court.
CSDA will continue to monitor this case and inform our members when an opinion is issued in the matter.
For questions about this case and its impact on your district, contact CSDA Deputy General Counsel Mustafa Hessabi at mustafah@csda.net.
#CVRA#Elections#FeatureNews