By Matthew T. Summers, Esq. of Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
Cities and special districts will soon have clear guidance from the California Supreme Court on the California Voting Rights Act’s demand that many of them convert from at-large to district-based elections for Council- and Boardmembers. On June 27, 2023, the state Supreme Court heard argument in Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica, considering: “What must a plaintiff prove in order to establish vote dilution under the California Voting Rights Act?” Based on the tenor of the Justices’ questions, at least some appear inclined to adopt a definitive standard, perhaps even a minimum minority percentage for CVRA vote-dilution claims.
In 2002, California was the first state to adopt its own law modeled on the Federal Voting Rights Act. The CVRA lowers the evidentiary burden for challenges to allegedly discriminatory voting practices, such as at-large voting. Under the CVRA, a plaintiff need only show that “racially polarized” voting exists, e.g., that minority and majority voters vote differently. Unlike the federal law, plaintiffs need not show that a sufficiently numerous and geographically compact minority group exists to form a “majority minority district.” Whether at-large voting systems dilute minority votes is the key question in the Santa Monica case.
Plaintiffs allege Santa Monica’s at-large elections diluting the votes of Latinx residents. The City argues Latinx candidates have succeeded in recent elections and plaintiffs’ victory would force one of three from the Council as two live in the Pico neighborhood (including the husband of a plaintiff in the suit) The City also notes that its voters twice rejected measures proposing district elections.
The Justices grappled at oral argument with what a plaintiff must prove to establish vote dilution. Questions focused on how to fashion a workable standard. Justices asked both parties about the difference between a minority group’s “ability to elect” versus its “ability to influence” an election. Plaintiffs argued the “ability to influence” — a majority minority district need not be possible. Santa Monica argued that sufficiently numerous minorities group can influence at-large elections. Given Plaintiffs’ hesitance to adopt a numerical threshold for what is a sufficient minority population to bring a CVRA claim, several Justices expressed doubt as to whether plaintiffs’ standard would apply the CVRA more widely than the Legislature intended.
The City argued Plaintiffs’ standard would compel race-based classifications, which can ultimately harm minority groups. The City denied that at-large elections inherently negatively affect minority voters. The City argued that while a group’s ability to influence arises from coalitions with others. Plaintiffs conceded it would be difficult to show a CVRA violation if a district cannot be created without at least 20-25% minority electorate. If the Supreme Court adopts that standard, agencies with diffuse minority populations, who switched to districts fearing litigation costs or face demand letters, might be able to return to at-large voting. The Court’s decision, due by September 25, 2023, should answer these questions.
#FeatureNews