19 - Laserfiche WebLink

BACKGROUND The City of Pleasanton currently has an at-large election system. Each of the City's four Councilmembers and the Mayor are elected by voters throughout the city. Councilmembers are elected for a four-year term, while the Mayor is elected for a two- year term. On August 5, 2021, the City received a letter from the Shenkman & Hughes law firm on behalf of Southwest Voter Registration Education Project alleging "racially polarized voting" in Pleasanton and threatening litigation if the City declines to voluntarily convert to district-based elections. "Racially polarized voting" means voting in which there is a difference in the choice of candidates or other electoral choices that are preferred by voters of a protected class, than in the choice of candidates and electoral choices that are preferred by voters in the rest of the electorate. Specifically, the letter asserts that the City's at-large electoral system dilutes the ability of Latinos and Asians, both protected classes, to elect candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of Pleasanton's council elections, and that, as a result, Pleasanton's at-large election system violates the CVRA. DISCUSSION California Voting Rights Act The CVRA was signed into law in 2002. The CVRA prohibits an at-large method of election that impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election. The law's intent is to expand protections against vote dilution over those provided by the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 ("FVRA"). The law was also motivated, in part, by the lack of success by plaintiffs in California in lawsuits challenging at-large electoral systems brought under the FVRA. The passage of the CVRA made it easier for plaintiffs to prevail in lawsuits against public entities that elected their members to its governing body through "at-large" elections. A plaintiff may need to only prove the existence of"racially polarized voting" to establish liability under the CVRA. Other factors are also relevant in determining liability. Proof of intent on the part of voters or elected officials to discriminate against a protected class is not required. As a result, cities throughout the state have increasingly been facing legal challenges to their "at-large" systems of electing city councilmembers. Almost all cities that have received a legal challenge have settled claims out of court by agreeing to voluntarily shift to district-based elections. Those that have opposed CVRA challenges in courts have ultimately either voluntarily adopted, or have been forced to adopt, district-based elections. The CVRA grants a prevailing plaintiff the right to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and expert witness fees. This has resulted in payment of very large amounts of money in attorneys' fees by cities that have chosen to litigate the CVRA challenge. For example, some of the notable CVRA attorneys' fee settlement amounts that have been reported include: a $4.5 million settlement in the City of Palmdale; a $3 million settlement in the City of Modesto; and a $1 .1 million settlement in the City of Anaheim. Page 2 of 4