California Voting Rights Act

Primarily, the CVRA makes it easier for minority groups to sue governments that use at-large elections on the grounds that they dilute the strength of minority votes.[9] The CVRA also requires the government to pay all legal and court fees for the plaintiff should the plaintiff win; this includes cases in which the government chooses to settle before a verdict is reached.[6] By 2009, three cases had been successfully brought against local governments; all three resulted in the elimination of at-large elections (and the drawing of district lines). A total of $4.3 million has been paid to compensate attorney's fees.[10]

Directional Sign for Voting Location in California

Supporters of the CVRA championed how much easier it made it for minority groups to dismantle at-large elections; minorities no longer had to prove that a specific minority candidate lost due to racially polarized voting, they only had to prove racially polarized voting existed.[11] Luis Artega, Executive Director of the Latino Issues Forum, supported the bill and claimed, "We have long been aware that at-large elections in a racially polarized electorate effectively work to dilute Latino voice and influence".[12] While the law has in practice served the Latino population, it applies to all ethnic minorities.[13] Regardless of whether racially polarized voting exists, some argue that at-large elections allow a majority voice to control the entire populace and therefore prefer elections by district.[14] It is important that when district lines are drawn with purpose using census data to ensure that minority votes are not further fractured and diluted.[4]

Critics of the CVRA argue that the act makes race a predominant factor in elections and that eliminating at-large elections does not make sense if a minority cannot occupy and establish a majority in a specific geographic area.[2] John McDermott, defense attorney for the city of Modesto in their case under the CVRA, claimed that the CVRA is a radical departure from the federal Voting Rights Act; he argued that at-large elections can be threatened under the law even if there is no proof that a minority group either suffered a disadvantage or would benefit from districts.[9] Others say the law is unnecessary, arguing that the number of minorities holding office was on the rise before the act passed and that the law is being used to "shake down" local governments.[10] General supporters of at-large elections say they encourage candidates to encompass many viewpoints and represent diverse groups.[14]

Another criticism arose from the section of the act maintaining that if a government loses or settles they are required to pay the attorney's fees of the plaintiffs.[15] Kevin Shenkman, a Malibu attorney, has been particularly criticized for winning many cases against cities in Southern California,[16] with over 50 cities having to shift to districts and pay legal fees due to his demands.[15]

In May of 2014, the City of Visalia settled a CVRA lawsuit two months after it was filed for $125,000. A ballot measure to move to district elections failed and a settlement was soon thereafter reached with a stipulated judgement. The court ordered single member districts. [21] [22]

Settled in 2013 with the city agreeing to pay $385,000 in legal fees to the plaintiffs. At the time, Latinos made up 49% of the population but in the previous 125 years only two Latinos had been elected to the city council. The districts were to be drawn up by a seven member panel selected by retired San Diego County judges. The city council could not alter the panel's district boundaries, although they could reject the map as drawn. The city said they paid $200,000 to their own attorneys. The City Council's Ballot Measure P to go to districts had been rejected by 53% in November of 2012. [23] [24]

In 2008, Maria Esther Rey, Jesse Lopez, and Carlos Uranga filed a suit against the Madera Unified School District under the CVRA. Plaintiffs contended that the at-large system of elections diluted the Latino vote. Although the district immediately moved to remedy the situation, the plaintiffs also argued that the upcoming 2008 "at-large" elections should be enjoined which was ordered by the trial court. The 5th District Court of Appeals awarded $162,500 in legal fees to the plaintiffs in 2012. [25]

In 2017, the Newport-Mesa Unified School District settled out of court with Eloisa Rangel for $105,937. Ms. Rangel sued the district in Orange County Superior Court to promote greater representation of Latino members. Kevin Shenkman, a Malibu-based attorney represented Rangel. [26] [27]

Suit brought by the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights in 2003. Settled in 2004. Was the first case to use the CVRA. Did not go to court. Plaintiffs were paid $110,000. Although 40% of the district was Latino, no Latino had been elected to the school board in over 20 years. [28] [29] [19] [30]

In 2009, the Ceres Unified School district was reported to have paid $3,000 to settle with plaintiffs who were also permitted to draw the district boundaries. [19] [31]

On March 31, 2012 the Compton Community College District (CCCD) agreed to pay Joaquin Avila $40,000 "in settlement of all fees and costs associated with the" litigation. Mr. Avila was a professor of law at Seattle University. The National Demographics Corporation describes it as a "friendly" lawsuit. [32] [33] [34] [35]

In 2004, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights filed a suit under the CVRA against the City of Modesto on behalf of three Latino residents. The committee claimed that racially polarized voting was keeping Latinos out of office; the city had had only one Latino council member since 1911 even though the Latino population exceeded 25 percent.[9] The County Superior Court Judge, Roger Beauchesne, sided with the city and declared the law unconstitutional.[11] Beauchesne said the law showed preference to minorities without requiring them to demonstrate need and ruled that the requirement for the city to pay attorney's fees was an unconstitutional gift of money.[9] The case was appealed to the 5th District Court of Appeals who struck down the initial ruling, siding with the law.[36] The city appealed the case to the California Supreme Court, claiming that the law allowed reverse racism and constituted unconstitutional affirmative action.[36] The state Supreme Court refused to hear the case and sent it case back to trial court.[37]

The case ended in settlement after the city voted on a ballot measure to use district voting by 2009. Although the city settled, they were still responsible for paying $3 million in fees for the defendants' lawyers.[37]

In July 2003, the school district of Hanford was sued by Latino voters (backed by civil rights organizations) under the CVRA; the suit claimed that racially polarized voting had negatively affected the ability of Latinos to assume office (there had not been a Latino on the district's board of trustees in 20 years, despite a population that was 38 percent Latino).[14] The city chose to settle and agreed to use by district voting for the board of trustees.[38] It was the first case to be settled under the CVRA.[39] Although the case never went to trial, the district had to pay $110,000 in attorney's fees to the plaintiffs as a part of the settlement.[38]

In August 2008 the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights filed suit against the Madera Unified School District on behalf of three Latino residents.[40] The plaintiffs pointed out that while 82 percent of students in Madera were Latino (though only 44 percent of those eligible to vote were Latinos), only one out of seven board members was Latino.[41] The city, instead of going to trial, agreed to draw district lines. The district spokesman, Jake Bragonier, said the decision to avoid trial was a "business decision" (referring to the possibility of having to pay attorney's fees).[41]

The Committee also asked the court to throw out the previous November's elections; Judge James Oakley ruled against the school board and threw out the November election results.[41] This ruling meant that the school district was officially the losing party and was required to pay the $1.2 million in attorney's fees to the plaintiffs,[40] although a Superior Court judge later reduced the amount by 85% to $162,500.

The 2010 election resulted in four Latino board members, where there had been only one before. [42] [43] This was the first case under the CVRA that was decided by a judge, not a settlement.[40]