HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-03-19 - AGENDA REPORTS - CONSIDERATION OF A RESO DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO (2)O
Agenda Item: I
P
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:1
DATE:
March 19, 2020
SUBJECT:
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DECLARING ITS INTENTION
TO TRANSITION FROM AT -LARGE TO DISTRICT -BASED
ELECTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO ELECTIONS
CODE SECTION 10010 AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
34886 EFFECTIVE FOR THE NOVEMBER 2020 GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION
DEPARTMENT:
City Manager's Office
PRESENTER:
Joseph Montes
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council:
1. Adopt resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita declaring its intention to
transition from at -large to district -based elections for City Council pursuant to Elections
Code section 10010 and Government Code section 34886 effective for the November
2020 General Municipal Election; and
2. Direct staff to publish notice of public hearings identified in the Exhibit to the
Resolution.
BACKGROUND
In 2014, the City of Santa Clarita was sued under the California Voting Rights Act. That suit
was settled and ultimately resulted in the City changing the date of its Council elections from
April to November of even numbered years. The City paid over 1 million dollars in attorney's
fees to settle the suit between the payment made to plaintiff's and the City's own attorneys.
Page 1
Packet Pg. 3
O
However, because the City's Council seats continue to be elected at large, additional suits can be
brought under the California Voting Rights Act, which allows for challenges to at -large election
systems.
Since 2014, Elections Code section 10010 was passed (effective January 1, 2017 and amended as
of January 1, 2020), which provides that prior to the filing of a lawsuit challenging an at large
voting system under the California Voting Rights Act, a potential plaintiff must send a demand
letter to the City. The City then has 45 days within which the City cannot be sued under the
CVRA (a so-called "safe harbor"), and during which period the City may declare its intent to
switch to election of its legislative body by districts. If a city council adopts such a resolution,
then the city has a further 90-day safe harbor period during which it is again protected from
litigation, and within which it must conduct multiple public hearings and adopt an ordinance
switching to districts. The party who originally sent the demand letter can seek payment of up to
$30,000as adjusted annually to the Consumer Price Index.
Since the passage of section 10010 numerous cities, school districts and other governmental
agencies have received demand letters. The City of Santa Clarita received such a demand letter
on Friday, February 7, 2020. 45 days from that date would be March 23, 2020. The letter was
sent by Scott Rafferty, a Northern California attorney who has sent many similar letters to other
cities, has refused to identify his clients and who is now legally entitled to thirty thousand dollars
by virtue of sending the letter to Santa Clarita, regardless of what happens from this point.
While the vast majority of cities that have received such demand, letters have opted to switch to
election by districts, some have attempted to litigate. No City has successfully defended such a
suit. Palmdale lost at both the trial court and court of appeal, paying over 4 million dollars to
plaintiffs. In those instances where cities have lost litigation, the court mandates a switch to
elections by district, and the court, not the citizens or the city council, orders a districting plan
into place, as well as the timing of the election and the sequencing of the districts. For example,
in Palmdale, the trial court invalidated the results of a November at -large election where that
city's first African -American councilmember was elected, and ordered a new special election by
districts in all council districts in a plan developed by the plaintiffs and selected by the court over
the plan developed by the defending City.
The cities of Santa Clara and Santa Monica have pending litigation in which they each lost at the
trial court level and are now in front of the court of appeal_ In Santa Clara, the trial court
awarded the plaintiff's attorneys over 3 million dollars. In Santa Monica, the plaintiff's
attorneys are seeking over 22 million dollars.
Unlike a federal voting rights act case, where a plaintiff must establish that switching to districts
will actually remedy the vote dilution of the minority group challenging the existing election
system through the creation of a majority -minority district, the California Voting Rights Act does
not require such proof.
Thus, the City is faced with the choice of litigating a challenge that has not ever been won,
potentially incurring millions of dollars in legal fees, and losing control of how districts are set
up and sequenced in the City, or following the ninety -day statutory "safe harbor" process to
establish districts.
Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
O
The attached resolution, if adopted by the City Council, is within the 45-day safe harbor period
under Elections Code section 10010, and provides the City with an additional 90-day safe -harbor
period within which to conduct 5 or more public hearings to consider potential district
boundaries, as well as an ordinance that would switch the City Council to election by districts
additional legislation adopted in the last few years allows a City Council to approve such a
transition by ordinance.
Prior to consideration of such an ordinance, the City must conduct two public hearings to solicit
input from the public regarding the composition of the districts. The City may undertake
outreach to the public, including to non -English-speaking communities, concerning the
districting process and to encourage public participation.
Subsequent to the two public hearings, proposed district maps are generated by the City and
posted for at least 7 days and two more hearings are held to solicit input on the proposed district
boundaries, as well as the sequencing of districts for staggered terms of office. At the conclusion
of these hearings, the Council can adopt an ordinance switching to districts.
This process is further complicated by the recent novel Covid-19 corona virus pandemic and the
federal and state executive orders limiting public gatherings and requiring social distancing.
However, the language of the California Voting Rights Act does not accommodate pandemics,
Mr. Rafferty has been consistent in his commitment to have Santa Clarita switch to districts in
2020, and hence the City will attempt to comply with the mandates of Elections Code § 10010
and the relevant executive orders, while recognizing those orders may change so as to further
constrain the districting process, or even prohibit it from going forward as scheduled
If the City Council adopts the attached Resolution of Intention, the scheduled public hearings
will be live -streamed and recorded. The City will facilitate social distancing in the hearing
room. Anyone who does not wish to attend the hearings in public should consider submitting
comments in writing. Additionally, the demographer proposed to be hired by the City will
provide both a website and a web tool so that members of the public can submit their proposed
district map ideas to the City for consideration. While this is not an ideal public process, if the
City completes the districting process for 2020, State and Federal law mandate a "re -districting"
occur prior to the 2022 election, based upon Federal census data results in 2021. State law
mandates additional public participation and hearings for that re -districting process, and
hopefully the current limitations on social interactions and gatherings will no longer be in place.
Attached to this staff report are the demand letter received February 7, 2020. The resolution
required by Elections Code section 10010 is also attached, along with a proposed schedule of
meetings and hearings to comply with the pre -requisites to consideration of an ordinance by the
Council that would switch the City Council to election by districts.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Other action as determined by City Council.
Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
O
FISCAL IMPACT
No financial impact.
ATTACHMENTS
Letter from Scott Rafferty Regarding the CVRA
Resolution of Intention
Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
1.a
11TrPf�la\ l`i' A P 7JA«'
191:3 WIIIT1 c1,IF F Cot;IZT (202)-:380-5525
AVALwLT Cl2Ia EH CA 94596 1ZAFF7+.'IZ TY a ONIAIL.COM
February 4, 2020
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Ms. Mary Cusick
Clerk, City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd.
Suite 120
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Re: Petition to Comply with the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA)
Dear Ms. Cusick:
Neighborhood Elections Now, a group including Santa Clarita voters of a variety
of races and ethnicities, has requested that I represent them in this petition, which asks
the City Council to abolish at -large elections and create single -member districts. We
give notice of our belief, supported by evidence, that Latino electors within the City
have different electoral preferences than those who are not Latino, as demonstrated in
the returns for ballot questions and contests for office. Therefore, the use of at -large
voting dilutes the electoral influence of Latinos as a community, which violates the
California Voting Rights Act (CVRA), .Lee o:rj � cr ��
Section
m'14027,' Your receipt of
this notice initiates the period during which the city may notice its intent to come into
compliance with the CVRA by implementing district elections, as specified in Elections
Code, Section 10010(b). 2020 is an opportune time for Santa Clarita to shift to district
elections, because one of the incumbents has announced that he will not run for
reelection.2
The illegal at -large system has entrenched incumbents who were elected twenty
years ago, when Santa Clarita was 80 percent white and only 20 percent Latino.
Annexation and migration has not only increased the Latino population. From 2007 to
2015, the numbers of Asians and African -Americans in Santa Clarita also doubled.'
Although whites are a minority of the city's total population, this group still constitutes
57 percent of the city's eligible voters. Id. Winner -take -all allows bloc voting by whites
to continue the group's control of the entire council. Furthermore, none of the current
incumbents has won a majority of the ballots cast. The result is rule by an entrenched
1 The deprivation of plaintiffs' right to cast undiluted votes and to exercise equal influence in city council
elections also raises issues under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as Santa Clarita's
circumstances resemble those that recently led the Columbus, Ohio city council to eliminate at -large
elections. See S (,I, ulmmmI infra.
c_errnlid ml t �lZZcoiaru, ma a'i- o ice I.I.a sav> he 7r��tmmnia iEi�nsr dA� ?C} 2m.2i��u p, a a��wrv��� ���i�� ✓
s Comparison of ACS data 2005-2009 with 2013-2017.
Packet Pg. 7
1.a
Petition that Santa Clarita City Council Adopt District Elections, page 2
minority.
Compliance with state law requires the Council to adopt district elections, using
a map that increases opportunities to influence elections not only for Latinos, but also
for Asians (now 11% of eligible voters) and African -Americans (now 5% of voters). In
other jurisdictions, the transition to district elections and citizens' redistricting have
both enjoyed widespread support from voters of all races.
Little has changed since 2014, when the City recognized that it was futile to deny
liability under the CVRA, settling Soliz and Sanchez -Fraser v. Santa Clarita. As detailed 2
below, the two subsequent elections have demonstrated continued polarization by race.
The Council is less representative than ever, given the growing diversity of the city. In
a city that has grown to encompass 66 square miles, four council members now live C
within a one -mile radius. Member Bill Miranda did not seek the support of the Latino
community when the Council appointed him in 2017 and did not receive it when he ran
for election in 2018.4 Tellingly, neither his campaign website nor his Voters' Edge
profile did not claim a single endorsement from any Latino organization or individual
leader other than former Santa Clarita resident Dante Alcosta.5
The concentration of current and past council members in the core of the original
city of Santa Clarita stands in vivid contrast to the dispersion of candidates who have
sought public office from across practically every part of the city, including the 37
annexations that have almost doubled its size. In this map, blue dots indicate
candidates since incorporation at the locations where they are currently registered to
vote. Grey dots show those who applied for appointment but have not run for election.
Yellow dots indicate former incumbents, including the late Carl Boyer.
4 His application for appointment required three letters of recommendation, none of which came from
Latino leaders of organizations. htVi:)s //w ww,sziriA. .- laritl coo/1 �,()ro"u, �Si'lowl oc L��,,viegid?id 13") i4, .
;ioS IPte �>�a fll' tra,.t� ll /lbil
agiwald w.
Packet Pg. 8
1.a
Petition that Santa Clarita City Council Adopt District Elections, page 3
011
GO
U�«
10
44 NN
, r�
Wj9r
h �hiVIV� N",uklP� iIL�i4
aJ
Il-
Winner-take-all has entrenched electoral choices taken twenty years ago, by a
very different city. Except for the member who gained incumbency through appoint-
ment, each of the incumbents came to office with a total vote equal to less than four
percent of Santa Clarita's current voter registration.
elected votes
Laurene Weste 1998 5770
Cameron Smyth 2000 5461
Marsha McLean 2000 4201
Bob Kellar 2002 5777
Except for the member appointed in 2017, the incumbents are all white and not Latino.
Although municipal elections are supposed to be non -partisan, the incumbents have
emulated the original effect of at -large elections, which insulated Republican mayors
and city councils in California from demographic change and partisan realignment for
five decades.6 All five incumbents are Republicans, the majority party in 1998, but now
6 Republican Governor Hiram Johnson championed "nonpartisan" at -large elections in 2010. As late as
1955, 68 percent of council members in California's 28 largest cities were registered Republicans, as were
80 percent of large city's mayors, despite the fact that the majority of voters in most of these cities had
Packet Pg. 9
1.a
Petition that Santa Clarita City Council Adopt District Elections, page 4
the preference of less than 34 percent of Santa Clarita's registered voters.'
Since those elections, the Latino population has more than doubled.
�11 l a 1, `r��"}. �s E, l r� i_
.>� F< t'9' �'
;.a � '..�i
✓'— 4 4 +z P
so
t)4J(.R �'t.3.t.P{
r1/1
In just the last 15 years, the Latino share of eligible voters has also doubled, with the
latest available census data showing that it exceeds 21% citywide.
become Democratic. See Adrian, "Soiree General Characteristics of Nonpartisan Elections," 46 A.P.S.R.
766, 776 (1952); Blair and Flournoy, Legislative Bodies in California at 74 (1967); Lee, Politics of
Nonpartisanship at 56-57 (1960).
ttL� llw%,v lziv(,)t. pk tldod rrc,(, � �a !,jou r� ff�a /R � R 7iZ dw�sc� ity S riPuan � ,1 �,)i(as of Jan. 3, 2020).
...... e�... w �,
Packet Pg. 10
1.a
Petition that Santa Clarita City Council Adopt District Elections, page 5
When a vacancy arose after the settlement, public comment unanimously sought
a special election. Among those asking that the Council allow the people to choose Mr.
Alcosta's replacement was Gloria Mercado-Fortine, the only other Latino candidate ever
to have received more than 5 percent of the vote.
Member Keller supported a 70-year old Republican neighbor, Brent Braun. The
other members unanimously supported their 77-year old Republican neighbor, Bill
Miranda, who presented himself as personally responsible for was the dissolution of
Santa Clarita Valley's Latino Chamber of Commerce, which he described to the Council
as a "tough call."'
The most critical evidence of racially polarized voting comes from the 2018
election. However impressive his career accomplishments may be, Mr. Miranda is not C
the Latino candidate of choice. A series of ballot questions from 2016 reinforce the
conclusion that Latinos vote differently than non -Latinos, as is almost universally the
case. Of course, Latinos often vote in coalition with the African -American community
and sometimes with segments of the Asian community. For example, the Latino and
Asian communities supported Alan Ferdman, a Republican candidate whom Dante
Alcosta defeated by just 110 votes.
Today, four out of five council members (1) are septuagenarians, (2) have served
for twenty years, (3) are Republicans in a majority Democratic city, and (4) live within a
one -mile radius of each other. This is not the result of a democratic process. The at -
large method of election has entrenched choices made two decades ago in a much
smaller Santa Clarita. The illegal method of election has protected those choices from
the effects of annexation, demographic change, and political realignment. That is why
the incumbents spent $1.2 million of public monies to settle the Soliz litigation on terms
that allowed at least two of their members (Weste and McLean) to survive, when
district elections would have doomed them.
The prospective plaintiffs do not seek a Latino majority district. They seek only
an opportunity "to influence the outcome of the election' that is equal to that enjoyed
by voters who are white and not Latino.9 The CVRA requires district elections in such
$ )Ott,2.1�SM!, t1, nr f �iulrk� yew _u �tr Z arc r ! G a NI ia��iwli r � �i ,i'rarasiat MiIGroto-
(3:44:43)
9 Santa Clarita is the extreme case, seldom presented, that Justice Brennan had in mind when he wrote
footnote 12 in Thornburg v. Gin les (1986) 478 U.S. 30, 47. The entrenchment of permanent at -large
members, installed prior to annexations and in low -turnout unconsolidated elections, is so patently
discriminatory in effect that it may justify federal judicial intervention, even though it is impossible to
create a remedial district in which the protected group has a majority of eligible voters. Because the
plaintiff do not claim the ability unilaterally to install a council member if elections are conducted by
single -member districts, there is no logical predicate to require any of the three Gingles preconditions.
The "loss of political power through vote dilution is distinct from the inability to win a particular
Packet Pg. 11
1.a
Petition that Santa Clarita City Council Adopt District Elections, page 6
cases whether or not the protected groups show that it is concentrated in a single area
or that it has a history of promoting candidates that have been usually defeated. In
Santa Clarita, at -large elections have so stacked the deck as to make it irrational for
most qualified Latino candidates to seek office. Until 2014, only one Latino candidate,
Michael Cruz, had even won 5% of the vote (in 2006).10 No major political party had
endorsed any Latino for the Council.
THE EMERGENCE OF NON-LATINO BLOC VOTING AND SANTA
CLARITA's PERMANENT COUNCIL MEMBERS.
In 1987, almost all of the inaugural candidates for City Council supported
electing the Council at -large." In this context, it is remarkable that 42% of the electors
still voted for district elections. In 1994, attorney Gonzalo Freixes argued that districts
would enable Latino representation. Council member Boyer responded that with 13%
of the population, Latinos could elect a candidate at-large.12 Nothing could be further
from the truth. No tabulations exist for this period, but the Latino share of adult
citizens, of registered voters, and of those who actually voted in the unconsolidated
municipal elections, were far less than 13 percent.
Initially, there was some mobility within the Council. Three of the inaugural
candidates served three terms, but Buck McKeon and Dennis Koontz served only one
term. Until 1998, their successors (e.g., Jill Klajic, George Pederdon, Clyde Smith) were
elected only to single terms.
AVERAGE TENURE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
by year of election
r 1998
P98-:2006
10 __ 2(;
election." Whitcomb v. Chavis (1971) 403 U.S. 124, 128. Gingles leaves open the standards pertaining to a
claim of impaired influence in an election, even in a federal court — where issues of federalism and
justiciability apply that are not relevant to a CVRA claim.
10 During the 2010 campaign, candidate David Galvan was arrested for impersonating a police officer and
Daniel Henriquez was accused of making false claims about his military and academic record.
li The only exceptions were Linda Calvert and Louis Brathwaite.
12 The Signal, March 20, 1994 (Freixes editorial); Boyer, Santa Clarita: The Formation and Or aniza1ion of
the Lar est Newly Incorporated Citv in the History of Humankind (2d ed. 2015) at 246.
Packet Pg. 12
1.a
Petition that Santa Clarita City Council Adopt District Elections, page 7
The installation of the permanent council began in 1998, as illustrated in the
timeline in Attachment 1. That year, Laurene Weste was elected to the first of five
terms. Two years later, she was followed by Cameron Smyth and Robert Keller, both of
whom are still in office. In 2002, Marsha McLean joined, completing the group of
council members who appointed Mr. Miranda fifteen years later.
White bloc voting insulated these at -large members from competitive elections."
Running Weste and McLean together in the low -turnout gubernatorial year has been
critical to the strategy of making them electorally invulnerable. Their vote is highly
correlated. Between 75 and 90 percent of those who voted for McLean in 2018 also
voted for Weste. But neither has ever won more than 18% of the total vote — a smaller
4-
share than many candidates who have lost during presidential years, such as Diane
Trautman, Bob Spierer, Henry Schultz, and Laurie Ender.
Members Weste and McLean have now run together in five gubernatorial
election cycles. In 2006, when Smyth left the Council, the remaining members
appointed another white Republican, TimBen Boydston, to fill out their ticket. This was
less than a perfect fit. Boydston was defeated for a term by Laurie Ender'a but returned
to office in 2012. Cameron Smyth returned to the Council to defend the presidential
cycle with Bob Keller.
Il. THE FAILURE OF THE SOLIZ SETTLEMENT.
The Soliz settlement recognized, as we do, that there is no Latino majority district
and no guarantee that districting will create a permanent opportunity to elect a Latino
chosen by the community. The interests supporting the permanent membership of the
Council recognized that Weste, McLean, and Smyth could not all survive the creation of
single -member districts (unless two of them relocated). The compromise of cumulative
voting was a well -calculated alternative to winner -take -all. Latino voters, in alliance
with other protected groups and cross -over voters, could focus on electing at least one
candidate in each cycle. Unfortunately, cumulative voting was not implemented.
The settlement extended the incumbents' terms to move the election from the
spring and consolidate it with the general election. Standing alone, this change did not
diminish the advantage enjoyed by 16-year incumbents. The first consolidated election
was the least competitive in Santa Clarita's history. The incumbents' margin of victory
over the nearest runner-up was more than 10 percent.
13 Attachment 2 shows how, once elected, these four members were consistently returned to office.
14 Ms. Ender is white, not Latino, and declines to state a party preference.
Packet Pg. 13
1.a
Petition that Santa Clarita City Council Adopt District Elections, page 8
III. APPOINTMENT OF MR. MIRANDA.
Two years ago, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund threatened to bring suit against
Columbus, Ohio to force district elections. As is still the case for Latinos in Santa
Clarita, only one black had ever won election to the Columbus city council without
having first been installed as an appointee. The NAACP pointed out that the Voting
Rights Act is designed to give protected groups an equal opportunity to elect the
candidate of their choice, and not simply to create a "black seat."15 Because Ohio has no
equivalent to the CVRA, it was necessary for Columbus to hold a special election to
amend its Charter. The voters approved the transition, which also required a citizens'
redistricting commission. The Charter amendment further reformed the appointment
process, requiring public hearings and disfavoring any candidate who intended to seek C
reelection.'
6
At the time that the NAACP LDF brought its claim under the federal Voting
Rights Act, African -Americans constituted a majority of the Columbus city council -
even though they were only 28% of the city's population. By contrast, Latinos are 35%
of Santa Clarita's population. Columbus's decision demonstrates that it could be U
unrealistic to think that Santa Clarita could defend a claim brought under Section 2 of
the 1965 Act, which does not require any showing of discriminatory intent.
Mr. Miranda himself has admitted that the appointment process was
inappropriate." He was a reluctant applicant, recruited to submit his application two
hours before the deadline only because "close associates" declined to apply." It is
surprising that he found the candidate pool so deficient, because he wrote an entire
chapter about the extraordinary merit of one of the first applicants, Gloria Mercado -
is -
atltr Old ��h, ¢rda�u�m�',n rfixu< 1 ufl¢ara:¢tl:
VS;�t..,flV.E.%.ti'tC'+'%a u��.".V"h%VV"'."7G➢,`�f :Ott....d�"v��t�Q,�t a"PfiWn'04."I11�fr.t�' ..qr� �l ().pJ'df
16 See Report of Charter Review Committee, at 6:
.e.................. �... i�.. far, /> t 6 k t i �e r� ��tX�r rBF' 12 ova ¢
tt
P tl,8 kY4k➢ if 11 ,.r_'2r/u P@ix�. ..
"Community feedback to the Committee demonstrates concern over the transparency of the Council
appointment process, as well as the potential'power of incumbency' bestowed on an appointed
Councilmember."
https://www. google. com/search?q=columbus+charter+appointment&oq=columbus+charter+appointment
&a qs=chrome..69i57.9118jOj9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#
17 "If I had been on the Council at the time, I would have voted for a special election," Miranda said.
L ;./L`� di _i t/ 4 // ro ub rrv6.ii7tiYv¢ >k ➢ra P?Irk w�k�, 7i� 1....1.rm<q � .....n.Orat ctv ,'
s t ww._ w_ r22.a1 r whµ ,t wkr lt. c¢rF��/� u�ra al Arno r 1ra av larr�B�Gd¢ w antt�� mj ua9<u ��t� ¢�'o tmr¢ fl6.,rci ¢emu¢ Nroiu.1-.
urirraaadd,,.....:to- vauca_ra -sea t-2,11�
� l .ly / mzaala¢ da�atrr catvcaa u�„a,�T 2 �e lira/C tttrew Qu u�„x? ��<r��6.:: i arl¢ ? ��¢��� t¢rvu ➢&� 184�,�zi c rr7 ut M�¢�
u w�_ __.t_...<.. w_
as;.lL, (3:50)
Packet Pg. 14
Petition that Santa Clarita City Council Adopt District Elections, page 9
Fortine, in his book, Profiles in Latino Courage." Ms. Mercado-Fortine had been elected
to four terms on the Hart USD Board, and is clearly established not only as a Latina, but
as an authentic candidate of choice by the Latino community. According to press
reports, Ms. Mercado-Fortine was unacceptable to Miranda's principal sponsor."
If the Council believed that they were choosing a candidate of choice for the
Latino community, they miscalculated. The prospective plaintiffs have conducted
statistical analyses of each of the incumbents' performance in Latino precincts. While it
is our normal practice to reserve detailed disclosure of these results until any court
proceedings, they show that Latino voters rejected the Council's appointee when he ran
for election in 2018.
IV. EVIDENCE OF RACIALLY POLARIZED VOTING
Both the federal Voting Rights Act and Iuctior)s Cod(Sc(, tjoi 14.02�3(a) require a
showing of racially polarized voting. Racially polarized voting occurs when some
candidates preferred by one race or language group receive a higher level of support
from that group than from the electorate at -large." Racially polarized voting is almost
universal, and not necessarily a bad thing. But for these racial differentials, every
choice of the white majority would win office, and minority voters would never
determine the outcome of an election.
This differential is inferred by comparing the vote share in precincts in which
different percentages of the voters belong to the race or group in question. Proof of
intentional discrimination by voters or elected officials is not required. Efec"6oris(`odc,
Section 14028(d). All that is necessary is to show that member of a race or language
group vote differently than other voters. This can be demonstrated by examining
ballot questions, as well as candidate races. African -American voters support criminal
justice reforms more strongly than others. Latino voters support candidates and
propositions that improve the treatment of immigrants. Latino and Asian voters tend to
support education more strongly than the rest of the electorate. It is almost self-evident
that racial and ethnic groups vote differently, and the CVRA establishes no minimum
threshold. Therefore, almost no jurisdiction contests the existence of racially polarized
voting. Wherever there is racially polarization, the jurisdiction must create single
member districts that attempt to increase the influence of minority voting blocs.
While racially polarized voting may be, to some extent, a universal phenomenon,
11 Miranda described Mercado-Fortine as a "first-class citizen" who "courageously overcame racism,
sexism, and classism" to "stand[] incredibly tall in both her profession and her community." p.117.
20 �nal Jan. 5, 2017,_ywvV 2LI _L L 2 i52�1597;
21 14026(A:,: "a difference ... in the choice of candidates or other electoral choices
that are preferred by voters in a protected class, and in the choice of candidates and electoral choices that
are preferred by voters in the rest of the electorate."
I Packet Pg. 15 1
1.a
Petition that Santa Clarita City Council Adopt District Elections, page 10
it is exceptionally pronounced in Santa Clarita. Consider two recent statewide ballot
questions. In 2016, Senator Ricardo Lara sponsored Proposition 58, to repeal most
elements of Proposition 227 (1998), which effectively banned bilingual education. The
proposition passed overwhelmingly (74% yes) in most parts of the state. Latino support
in Santa Clarita was much higher (95%) than non -Latino voters (62% yes).
RACIALLY POLARIZED VOTING ON PROPOSITION 58
Because Latino citizens passionately care about education for their children and
those of non -citizens in their community, they also supported Proposition 51 in 2016,
which authorized $9 billion in bonds for K-12 education and community colleges. In
this case, the weighted regression model suggests that only 32% of Anglo voters, but
91% of Latino voters supported the measure, which passed with 55% of the statewide
vote. Such a dramatic differential on a bond measure is compelling evidence that
Latino electors are casting well-informed votes reflecting values of their community
that differ from those of the non -Latino electorate.
RACIALLY POLARIZED VOTING ON PROPOSITION 51
A
Packet Pg. 16
1.a
Petition that Santa Clarita City Council Adopt District Elections, page 11
Standing alone, the fact that a protected group has distinctive preferences on
ballot questions is sufficient to establish a violation of the CVRA. Once racial
polarization is established, it is probative, but not necessary, to show that the protected
group's candidates of choice have been disproportionately unsuccessful in the at -large
system. S c 0w,�.�:.i.....14028(e).
.
In the most recent election, one of the candidates that was not preferred by the
Latino community was Mr. Miranda. Using a weighted ecological regression model,
Mr. Miranda received less than 4 percent of Latino voters cast one of their three votes
for Mr. Miranda.
MEMBER MIRANDA IS NOT THE LATINO CANDIDATE OF CHOICE
=0
5
0
10
IN
�E tat''";;_;t..:;�j!'ti"i'+,l4:�: !+=; i;.,.l'.n:;i.;.
V. THE PROCESS OF CREATING DISTRICTS
Since no jurisdiction has successfully defended against a charge of racially
polarized voting, the CVRA creates a very strong presumption in favor of district
elections for all jurisdictions. When a jurisdiction faces federal liability, A.B. 350
provides a kindler, gentler way to come into compliance, although plaintiffs can always
proceed without notice to federal court.
Even in the absence of intentional discrimination, maps that have the effect of
diluting minority influence (by packing them into a single district or cracking them
among multiple districts) violate Section 2." This year, a surprise ruling in Sanchez v.
City of Martinez (Contra Costa Superior Court, 2019), questioned the rule that state
'-- e.g., Luna v. County of Kern (2018) 291 F. Supp. 3d 1088.
Packet Pg. 17
1.a
Petition that Santa Clarita City Council Adopt District Elections, page 12
courts would not review an otherwise constitutional map solely because it favored
incumbents, i.e., a political gerrymander.".
Effective January 1, 2020, A.B. 849, the FAIR MAPS Act, strengthens the
statutory criteria applicable to general law cities. New Section 21601 of the Elections
Code requires compliance with federal law, and then goes on to establish a hierarchy of
criteria for maps: contiguity, respect for the geographic integrity of communities of
interest, the use of recognizable natural and artificial barriers as boundaries, and
compactness. The law establishes two new prohibitions: (1) the purpose of favoring a
political party and (2) the consideration of political parties, incumbents, and candidates
in defining communities of interest. The maps must also avoid diluting African -
American (5%) and Asian (11%) communities, although they are not large enough to
have their own district.
Elections Code, �����,�lion, .00110(a.)_wrequires a jurisdiction to conduct two hearings
(within 30 days) before considering a map to how their constituents view communities
of interest and the application of other statutory criteria. The jurisdiction must then
publish at least one map, wait seven days, and conduct at least two more hearings
(within 45 days) before adopting a map. There can be additional hearings, but no map
can be considered or revised at a hearing unless it has been posted seven days in
advance. Section 10010(f) allows a jurisdiction to limit the reimbursement of
petitioners' expenses to approximately $32,000 if it passes a resolution of intent to
transition within 45 days of the receipt of this letter, and adopts an ordinance
establishing district elections within 90 days thereafter.24 The statute allows the Council
to conduct one of the map hearings as a forum on Saturday morning or another time
convenient to the community.
VI. ADDITIONAL BENEFITS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Although my client shares the Legislature's desire not to defer districting until
23 Castorena v. City of Los Angeles (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 901, 917 ("We can find nothing in the cases
which would authorize a court to invalidate an otherwise constitutional redistricting plan, simply
because another plan might have been enacted had the redistricting body been blind to its impact on
incumbents.")
In 2017, a CVRA action was brought against the City of Martinez, in which all precincts have a similar
percentage of Latino voters. No evidence of racially polarized voting was shown, and no map could
create a district that was particularly favorable to Latino voters. When the city chose to create districts
that split precincts and radiated out from the residences of four incumbents who lived near each other,
the Superior Court reasoned that using "incumbency protection as an extra -statutory criterion'
effectively ignored the statutory criteria. Case#: MSC18-02219, Ruling on Demurrer, May 3, 2019.
24 Bay Area Voting Rights Initiative is sponsoring this petition and may designate additional
organizational and individual members to serve as plaintiffs. Given delays sometimes associated with
certified mail, multiple copies of this notice may be sent to expedite its receipt.
Packet Pg. 18
1.a
Petition that Santa Clarita City Council Adopt District Elections, page 13
after the census results in 2021, the Legislature has also facilitated the creation of local
independent redistricting commissions, which has become increasingly popular among
citizens. These commissions can be judicially approved in a consent order at the
conclusion of a collaborative CVRA process under AB 350 or they cart be established
under the new statutory authority. Attachment 3 is the stipulation establishing a
citizens' commission for West Contra Costa Unified School District. We expect the
commissioners to be appointed by a distinguished retired federal judge.
F
CONCLUSION 2
This is an effort to initiate a collaborative process to comply with the CVRA on a
basis that will likely please the overwhelming majority of voters in Santa Clarita. The
Council should seize this opportunity to resolve a liability that will not go away until
district elections are implemented.
6
U)
Sincerely,
Scott J. Rafferty
Packet Pg. 19
O
7;
u
I Packet Pg. 20 1
ATTACHMENT 2. ELECTION RESULTS (citywide totals) — 1987-2018
Candidate or measure
year
vote
percentag
e
Yes
ancoi-porMioin
19817
14723
69%
agatlst disfricbi
V
i 987
10357
59%
�l �oward R -13m'ick"
Mcf<,eon
19�3'17
9855
12%
j a ti u ce
I loidt
19817
8402
11%
k0sine
I marry
1987
7601
10%
fordistrictsV
1987
7203
41%
No
incorporation
1987
6597
31%
Arl
[ioyer
1987
6585
8%
Deniiis---M.
Koontz
1987
6164
8%
Richard—M.
Vacar
1987
5935
7%
Linda—Hovis
Storli
1987
5550
7%
Louis—E.
Brathwaite
1987
3408
4%
Michael—D.
Lyons
1987
3111
4%
Bill
Hilton
1987
2374
3%
Andy
Martin
1987
2203
3%
Robert
Silverstein
1987
2116
3%
Roger —A.
Meurer
1987
1976
2%
H.G.—"Gil"
Callowhill
1987
1813
2%
Gail
Klein
1987
1756
2%
Donald
Benton
1987
1687
2%
Williarni.
Broyles
1987
1341
2%
Monty
Harrell
1987
1309
2%
Kenneth
Dean
1987
1306
2%
Vernon—H.
Pera
1987
1133
1 %
Jeffrey-D.
Christensen
1987
974
1 %
Edmund—(Ed)—G.
Stevens
1987
936
1 %
Ronaldj
Nolan
1987
848
1 %
Dennis
Conn
1987
788
1 %
Frank —A.
Parkhurst
1987
726
1 %
Maurice—D.
Ungar
1987
2
0%
jm
11)90
4081
15%
Gad
loycr
1990
4042
15%
JoAme
)a rcy
1990
3548
13%
Kenneth
Dean
1990
3015
11%
Vera
Johnson
1990
2804
10%
Herb
Wolfe
1990
2699
10%
Dennis—M.
Koontz
1990
2155
8%
Linda
Calvert
1990
1772
7%
Andy
Martin
1990
1643
6%
Wayne
Carter
1990
983
4%
jaf�ice
[Cidt
1 1192
6748
20%
I Packet Pg. 21 1
1.a
Attachment 2, page 2
}oBSc i .
Pederson
➢f:i
5693
17%
Michael.-, D.
Lyons
1992
3571
10%
Linda Hovis
Storli
1992
3325
10%
Gary
Johnson
1992
3227
9%
Vera
Johnson
1992
2675
8%
Lee
Schramling
1992
2642
8%
Kenneth
Dean
1992
1318
4%
William H.
French
1992
1243
4%
Linda
Calvert
1992
1175
3%
Andy
Martin
1992
751
2%
Bruce K.
Bell
1992
435
1%
Wayne
Carter
1992
434
1%
Edmund-(Ed)-G.
Stevens
1992
394
1%
Randall K.
Pfiester
1992
388
1%
Gregory-M.
Goyette
1992
223
1%
I Anui�-
Da Icy
19'44
5460
19%
.arl
Boyer
[994
4216
14%
Clyde
Sin^ th
1994
3804
13%
Jill
K:fajic
1994
3788
13%
Fred
Heiser
1994
2985
10%
Dennis
Farnham
1994
2784
10%
Linda Hovis
Storli
1994
2406
8%
Tim-M.
Jorgensen
1994
1295
4%
Rosalind
Wayman
1994
822
3%
Larry-L.
Bird
1994
559
2%
Craig
Wanek
1994
481
2%
Kenneth
Dean
1994
332
1%
Theodore
DeVries
1994
274
1%
ji.11ll
<i,Iji.c
1906
3584
17%
Nafiice
Neadt
1996
3422
16%
I^raffl<:
pacrry
11996)
3208
15%
Laurene
WeAe
1996
3104
15%
Gary
Johnson
1996
3049
15%
Louis-E.
Brathwaite
1996
1011
5%
Paulj.
Bond
1996
887
4%
Andy
Martin
1996
669
3%
Rein.
Schuerger
1996
627
3%
Larry-L.
Bird
1996
555
3%
Kevin-M.
Keyes
1996
325
2%
TirnBen
Boydston
1996
282
1%
James
Rose
1996
34
0%
l oA. m e
I y
19,98
7129
19%
;rank
i:g'OU�Y
19981
6583
17%
Packet Pg. 22
1.a
Attachment 2, page 3
ruurene
VV ste
1998
5770
15%
Cameron
Smyth.
1998
4826
13%
Marsha
McLean
1998
4531
12%
Wendell C.
Simms
1998
2079
5%
Kent
Carlson
1998
1426
4%
David L.
Ends
1998
1240
3%
Jeffrey
O'Keefe
1998
1068
3%
Michael
Egan
1998
918
2%
Ryan —Lawrence
Krell
1998
722
2%
Edmund—(Ed)—G.
Stevens
1998
508
1%
Dennis
Conn
1998
412
1%
Bob
Nolan
1998
389
1%
Chuck
Simons
1998
343
1%
a `a°ar ief, as
�"�����faa y ffi
2000
5461
23%
Bob
I( H ar
2000
4844
20%
fil����a.x9u,
mcl dw r n
200()
4201
18%
Diane
71'rautma:n
2000
3556
15%
Eileen
Connolly
2000
1904
8%
Bob
Jonsen
2000
1412
6%
Rein.
Schuerger
2000
921
4%
Bob
Heinisch
2000
756
3%
Joe
Nocella
2000
423
2%
John_B.
Steffen
2000
324
1%
T.—Michael
Shanklin
2000
177
1%
Frank
Ferry
20)2
6684
19%
Marsha
CVid°II can
2002
6117
17%
Laaaamene
Weste
2002
5516
15%
Janice
Heidt
2002
5111
14%
John
Grannis
2002
4101
11%
Duane—R.
Harte
2002
3767
10%
Michael—L.
Hainline
2002
1663
5%
David
Albee
2002
1096
3%
Dennis
Conn
2002
665
2%
Lee—W.
Rich
2002
519
1%
John—B.
Steffen
2002
447
1%
Jan
Bilson
2002
439
1%
("1111cro n
S111yU)
2004
7164
40%
11c4a
VIcHar
2004
5777
32%
Henry
Schultz
2004
4976
28%
1�/Iarsfi a
McLean
200O
5564
17%
Fraao]4<
V�"CITY
2006
5500
17%
V.,aaaaaene
Weste
2006
5241
16%
Mark
Hershey
2006
4312
13%
Packet Pg. 23
1.a
Attachment 2, page 4
Henry
Schultz
2006
3562
11%
Lynne
Plambeck
2006
3097
9%
Dwight
McDonald
2006
1838
6%
Michael
Cruz
2006
1743
5%
JoAnn_Smith
Curtis
2006
731
2%
Kenneth
Dean
2006
714
2%
Jack
Murphy
2006
634
2%
, r i dp
:aAld °
2008
6180
25%
N,.+
Kellar
2008
6135
24%
Bob
Spierer
2008
5089
20%
Diane
Trautman
2008
4959
20%
Maria
Gutzeit
2008
2800
11%
Marsha
l cLeaiii,
2010
6831
17%
1..aure ne
lry"esb2
2010
6698
17%
Frank
Ferry
201.0
6510
16%
David
Gauny
201.0
6478
16%
TimBen
Boydston
2010
5863
15%
Harrison
Katz
2010
2045
5%
Henry
Schultz
2010
1952
5%
David
Galvan
2010
1024
3%
Daniel—B.
Henriquez
2010
951
2%
Kenneth—W.
Mann
2010
800
2%
Johnny
Pride
2010
357
1%
Bob
Kellar
2012
7519
27%
1'¢mi3err
ioyrlston
2011
6145
22%
Laurie
Ender
2012
5408
20%
Ed
Colley
2012
4438
16%
Jon
Hatami
2012
3915
14%
l.�-nnnr°ene
V\!eMe
2014
6210
15%
l,rln,i n,4-ran
Vl d ,ear i
2011
5677
14%
l)ante
Acosta
2014
4937
12%
Alan
Ferdman
2014
4833
12%
Gloria
Mercado-
2014
4633
11%
Fortine
Duane—R.
Harte
2014
4506
11%
Maria
Gutzeit
2014
4472
11%
Sandra
Bull
2014
1316
3%
Moazzem
Chowdhury
2014
1260
3%
Stephen_P
Daniels
2014
1141
3%
Paulj
Wieczorek
2014
1098
3%
Berte
Gonzales-
2014
928
2%
Harper
Dennis
Conn
2014
447
1%
Packet Pg. 24
1.a
Attachment 2, page 5
Bob
;r e^ I a 1
2016
32216
25%
CaITIIII(N Oil
ST11Y01
2016
30109
24%
`fain Ben
Boydston.
2016
17108
13%
Alan
Ferdman
2016
12106
9%
Kenneth
Dean
2016
10101
8%
Sandra L
Nichols
2016
5730
4%
Matthew_)
Hargett
2016
5486
4%
Mark
White
2016
3976
3%
Brett
Haddock
2016
3955
3%
David
Ruelas
2016
3918
3%
Paulj
Wieczorek
2016
2806
2%
west(',�
2018
25603
14%
VI c ➢,d"in
2013
25273
14%
3ffl
IVIk-anda
2018
18885
11%
Diane
'1'rautvnan
2018
16479
9%
Kenneth
Dean
2018
14951
8%
Logan
Smith
2018
12871
7%
TimBen
Boydston
2018
12857
7%
Brett
Haddock
2018
11427
6%
Jason
Gibbs
2018
10008
6%
Matthew]
Hargett
2018
7093
4%
Cherry
Ortega
2018
6499
4%
Sean
Weber
2018
5072
3%
Sandra_L
Nichols
2018
5049
3%
Paul]
Wieczorek
2018
4903
3%
Sankalp
Varma
2018
2595
1%
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment 3. Excerpt from settlement, Ruiz-Lozito v. WCCUSD
I
1. WCCUSD ("District") shall establish an independent redistricting commission
("Commission") to prepare trustee areas for 2022. To ensure that the Commission will be free of
political influence and representative of the District's diversity, its seven (7) members shall be
appointed by a retired judge to be selected by counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant ("Selection
Judge").
2. The Superintendent shall solicit and accept written nominations for appointment to the
Commission in accordance with this provision no later than January 1, 2021 to March 1. 2021.
Individuals or organizations desiring to nominate persons for appointment to the Commission
shall do so in writing to the Superintendent. The Superintendent shall remove from the pool any
individual who does not comply with the conditions set forth in Elections Code section 23003,
subdivisions (c) and (d). The Superintendent shall transmit the names and relevant information
regarding all remaining nominees, along with the names of the individuals and organizations that
made such nominations to the Selection Judge. The Selection Judge shall appoint seven (7)
individuals to serve as members of the Commission no later than May 1, 2021. The Selection
Judge shall use his/her best efforts to appoint people who will give the Commission racial,
geographic, social, and ethnic diversity, and who, in its judgment, have a high degree of
competency to carry out the responsibilities of the Commission and a demonstrated capacity to
serve with impartiality. The Selection Judge will select one member from each current trustee
area and two members from within Contra Costa County excluding the boundaries of the
District. If one member from each current trustee area cannot be selected, and/or two members
from within Contra Costa County excluding the boundaries of the District, the Selection Judge
can select a member from within the District boundaries. The Commission shall not be
I Packet Pg. 26 1
comprised entirely of members who registered to vote with the same political party preference,
pursuant to Elections Code section 23003, subdivision (f). Persons who accept appointment to
the Commission shall, at the time of their appointment, file a written declaration with the Clerk
of the Board stating that they will not seek election as District trustee prior to 2028. Any
vacancy in the Commission after the Commission is constituted shall promptly be filled by the
Selection Judge, following the same procedure and using the same criteria established herein.
Commission shall adopt a budget and submit it to the Board. The Board shall appropriate to the
Commission and to the Superintendent the funds necessary for the Commission to accomplish its
task, including paying for an expert demographic consultant.
4. The Commission shall conduct an open and transparent process that ensures full and
meaningful public participation. The Commission shall adopt procedures sufficient to ensure
that any communication it receives directly or indirectly from incumbent trustees is reduced to
writing and posted on the internet. The Commission shall provide public notice of and hold five
public hearings, one in each current trustee area, at which all residents will have equal
opportunity to comment on the drawing of district lines. The Commission shall make every
reasonable effort to afford maximum public access to its proceedings, setting times and locations
that assure accessibility to members of protected classes. Notice of and translation services at
each public hearing shall be provided in Spanish.
,mt -t �f�I Code 23003 9 mh,6��
WTIM 11111 11, - I I
I Packet Pg. 27 1
6. After the public hearings, and no later than October 1, 2021, the Commission shall, in
consultation with its demographic consultant, prepare a preliminary map and accompanying
report ("Preliminary Plan") dividing the District into five trustee areas. Those trustee areas shall
be used for all future elections of Trustees, including their recall, and for filling any vacancy in
the office of member of the Board until such time as new trustee areas are established for the
I I I I I Ill I I I I I iii I I! ii I I' I I I Ill I I I I Ii I I I I I i I IN I
sno immewswra e
a. Compliance with the United States Constitution, including reasonable equality of
population within each trustee area.
b. Compliance with the Federal Voting Rights Act, first by establishing or
maintaining trustee areas containing a majority of members of a protected class to the
extent legally permissible, and then by considering any extent to which trustee areas
containing a near majority of a protected class, or a majority of protected classes that act
in coalition, would provide those protected classes with the opportunity to elect their
candidates of choice and to influence elections on a basis more equal to the opportunity
C. The additional requirement of state law that population be as nearly equal as
possible, using the 2020 census and any population figures validated pursuant to
Education Code 1002, subdivision (b), and 5019.5, subdivision .(a).
d. Trustee areas will be drawn using the factors authorized in Education Code 1002,
subdivision (a): (1) Topography: (2) Geography; (3) Cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity,
I . . . - I I. rol'thu- rrtpari 11
I Packet Pg. 28 1
and any community of interest, (including those of racial, ethnic, and language
minorities) to the extent possible without violating any of the preceding provisions.
V11ll11 111111111121"U'l ii I'' I, illiFill I
I'I'll! Til IIIII I � I I 111 11111111 111111111 1 1 I
or discriminating against an incumbent, candidate, or political party pursuant to Elections Code
23003, subsection (k).
E
4-
0
8. The Commission shall file the Preliminary Plan with the Superintendent, who shall make
it publicly available. The Preliminary Plan shall contain a map with a depiction of the trustee
0
U)
areas and a report that outlines the bases on which the Commission made its decisions regarding <
trustee area boundaries, including its compliance with the criteria stated above. The
Commission shall comply with Elections Code 23003, subdivision 0), regarding public hearings
and map publication, except as otherwise set forth herein. After having heard comments from
the public on the Preliminary Plan, the Commission may make any revisions. The Commission
shall then approve a Recommended Plan by majority vote of all members. The Commission
must file the Recommended Plan with the Superintendent by January 1, 2022.
9. The Board shall hold at least one (1) public hearing on the Recommended Plan before its
adoption by the Committee. After having heard comments from the public on the Recommended
Plan, the Commission may make any revisions. The Commission, possessing the power to adopt
the trustee areas of the District, will then adopt a Final Districting Plan of its choosing by
majority vote at a public hearing. If legally required for implementation of the Final District
Map, the Board shall then promptly approve the Final Districting Map.
10. No change in the boundary or location of any district by redistricting as herein provided
shall operate to abolish or terminate the term of office of any member of the Board prior to the
0
expiration of the term of office for which such member was elected. Until trustees elected in
November 2022 take office, the map identified in Exhibit C shall be used in the application of
any provision of law related to the recall of a trustee or the filling of a vacancy.
11. Pursuant to Election Code Section 23003, subdivision (1), trustee areas adopted by the
Commission shall not be altered by the Board or the Commission until after the next federal
decennial census occurs, unless those trustee areas have been invalidated by a final judgment or
order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
12. If the Selection Judge encounters an issue related to the interpretation or implementation of
the Independent Redistricting Commission agreement, the Selection Judge will seek input and
agreement from the parties, the Superintendent of WCCUSD or his designee, and the Plaintiff or
her designee.
1.b
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO TRANSITION FROM AT -LARGE TO
DISTRICT -BASED ELECTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO
ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 10010 AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34886
EFFECTIVE FOR THE NOVEMBER 2020 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita, California ("City") is a general law city, duly
organized under the Constitution and laws of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the five members of the Santa Clarita City Council are currently elected in
at -large elections, in which each City Council member is elected by all registered voters of the
entire City; and E
WHEREAS, the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (Elections Code §§14025-
14032) ("CVRA") provides that its purpose is "to implement the guarantees of Section 7 of 4-
Article I and of Section 2 of Article 11 of the California Constitution"; and C
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita believes that its current electoral system is 0
consistent with Section 7 of Article I and Section 2 of Article II of the California Constitution,
and that a district -based electoral system is also consistent with these provisions; and
WHEREAS, the CVRA applies to jurisdictions that use an at -large method of
election; and
WHEREAS, numerous California cities, including in Los Angeles County, have been
sued under the CVRA to force those cities to abandon their at -large electoral systems, and
implement a by -district electoral system; and
WHEREAS, the defense of litigation under the CVRA is extremely expensive and those
cities that have lost in court have also lost substantial control over the districting process within
their cities. Further, even if the city were to prevail in defense of an action, a successful defense
would not prevent a different plaintiff from suing the city under the CVRA in the future; and
WHEREAS, the CVRA mandates that prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to recover their
attorneys' fees and expenses, including expert witness fees, from a defendant city, and even
defendant cities that have settled CVRA lawsuits in the early stages of litigation are mandated to
pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses, which typically have been substantial, and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2020, the City received a letter from Scott Rafferty,
demanding that the City switch to election by districts for the 2020 election pursuant to Elections
Code 10010; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 34886 authorizes the legislative
body of a city to adopt an ordinance, without voter approval, to change its method of election
Packet Pg. 31
1.b
from "at -large" to "district -based" in which each council member is elected only by the
voters residing in the district in which the candidate resides; and
WHEREAS, Section 34886 authorizes such a change "in furtherance of the purposes
of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 14025)
of Division 14 of the Elections Code)"; and
WHEREAS, numerous cities and special districts throughout the state and in Los Angeles
County have moved from an at -large electoral system to a by -district electoral system for
members of their governing bodies; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to make this transition from an at -large system to a by -
district system in accordance with the procedural rules outlined in Government Code Section
34886 and Elections Code section 10010.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California, hereby
resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. Intention to Switch to Election by Districts.
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
B. The City Council shall consider an ordinance to change to a district -based election
system for use in the City's General Municipal Election for City Council
Members beginning in November 2020, in accordance with Elections Code
section 10010 and Government Code section 34886, and other applicable law.
C. The City Council directs staff to work with a qualified demographer, and other
appropriate consultants as needed, to provide a detailed analysis of the City's
current demographics and any other information or data necessary to prepare a
draft map that divides the City into voting districts in a manner consistent with the
intent and purpose of the Federal Voting Rights Act.
D. The City Council approves the tentative timeline set forth in Exhibit A, attached
to and made a part of this resolution, for conducting a public process to solicit
public input on proposed district -based electoral maps before adopting any such
map.
E. The City Council directs staff to instruct the demographic consultant to prepare
for City Council review at the appropriate time proposals for districting plans with
2
Packet Pg. 32
1.b
five districts pursuant to Government Code §§ 35871(b) and 34886.
F. The City Council directs staff to undertake public outreach and to inform the
residents of Santa Clarita of this resolution and the districting process, and to
facilitate and encourage public participation, to the extent permitted by the current
Covid-19 corona virus pandemic, as well as publish notice of the public hearings
identified in the attached Exhibit A.
G. The timeline contained in Exhibit A may be adjusted as deemed necessary,
provided that such adjustments shall not prevent the City from complying with the
time frames specified by Election Code Section 10010, to the extent permitted by
the current Covid-19 corona virus pandemic.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of March, 2020
ATTEST:
MARY CUSICK, CITY CLERK
DATE
3
CAMERON SMYTH, MAYOR
Packet Pg. 33
1.b
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the Resolution No.
was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a special meeting thereof, held
on the I91h day of March, 2020 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
0
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 34
1.b
Exhibit A
Timeline: Consideration and Implementation of By -District Elections
(All meetings in Council Chambers at City Hall)
Date
Event
Comment
March 19, 2020
City Council adopts
Period of time for publicity of
Special City Council
Resolution declaring its
districting process before first
Meeting
intention to transition from at-
Public Hearing
large to by -district elections
March 23, 2020
45 Day EC 10010(e) deadline
March 20 — April 20,
COVID-19 Hiatus
2020
April 21, 2020
First Public Hearing
Before maps are drafted by
Special Meeting
demographer
April 22, 2020
Mapping tools available to
public
April 28, 2020
Second Public Hearing
Before maps are drafted by
Regular Meeting
demographer
April 30, 2020
Deadline for submission of
public maps
May 5, 2020
Council input to demographer
Optional meeting. Can be used
Special Meeting
on districting criteria based
for a public hearing if COVID-19
upon first two hearings
Hiatus needs to be extended
May 12, 2020
Post draft maps and potential
At least 7 days before hearing
sequence of elections
May 19, 2020
Third Public Hearing
Regarding content of draft
Special Meeting
maps and sequence of
elections
May 26, 2020
Post any new or amended
At least 7 days before hearing
maps and potential sequence
of elections
Packet Pg. 35
1.b
June 2, 2020
Fourth Public Hearing: Select
Regarding content of draft
Special Meeting
Map. Council introduces
maps and sequence of
ordinance establishing district
elections.
elections, including district
Selected map may not be
boundaries and election
amended as there is not time
sequence
for publication and another
public hearing before expiration
for the 90-day safe harbor
period
June 9, 2020
5ch Public hearing: 2nd reading
Ordinance adopted
Regular Meeting
of Ordinance
June 18, 2020
90 day EC 10010(e) deadline
to complete process within
safe harbor
November 3, 2020
First election using district -
based seats
March 2021
2020 Census data released
Spring/Summer 2021
Begin redistricting to be
completed after August 1,
2021 based upon 2020
Census data
November 2022
Second election using district
based seats redrawn
according to the 2020 Census
information, if needed
Packet Pg. 36