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. The ruling last week from the Second District Court of Appeal in Pico Neighborhood Association, et al. v. City of Santa Monica 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.” Although the decision is likely to be appealed to the California Supreme Court, it is nonetheless a positive development for any local government facing the threat of litigation to an at-large voting method.
In recent years, special districts throughout the state have begun to face legal challenges to their voting systems, 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 Santa Monica’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 from CSDA Business Affiliate law firm Cole Huber.
The Court of Appeal reversed, ruling that “it is incorrect to read the [CVRA] to say a mere showing of racially polarized voting necessitates a finding a city has misapplied at-large voting. Under the [CVRA], racially polarized voting is a necessary but not sufficient element. Dilution also is an independent and necessary element.” The court went on to state that a finding of dilution requires “a showing, not of a merely marginal percentage increase in a proposed district, but evidence the change is likely to make a difference in what counts in a democracy: electoral results.” In a separate portion of the opinion addressing the plaintiff’s equal protection claims under the California Constitution, the court held that the City did not act with a racially discriminatory purpose and therefore the plaintiff’s, equal protection claims failed.
For More Information on the Voting Rights Act, redistricting in 2021 and this court decision, click HERE to sign up for the CSDA Webinar: “Voting Rights Act and Redistricting Update,” presented by David A. Soldani from AALRR and Douglas Johnson from National Demographics Corporation.
For questions about this decision and its impact on your district, contact CSDA Deputy General Counsel Mustafa Hessabi at mustafah@csda.net.
#CVRA
#Elections