POLITICAL &
GOVERNMENT
LAW
ADVOCACY
LITIGATION
The California Voting Rights Act
A Presentation by:
Marguerite Leoni
Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni, LLP
for
The City of Burbank
January 24, 2023
1 The California Voting Rights Act (CVRA)
• The CVRA prohibits “at-large” electoral systems
that impair the right of a protected class to elect
chosen candidates or to influence the outcome of
elections.
• The CVRA applies to Charter cities.
• The CVRA considers the possibility of creating a
majority-minority electoral district only after
liability is determined when the Court is
considering remedies.
2 Some Basic Info About Burbank
• Burbank has an at-large electoral system.
• Based on 2020 U.S. Census, Burbank has a significant Latino population:
Total population (SWDB adjusted): 107,614
Hispanic or Latino percent: 24.24%
Asian percent: 13.45%
Citizen Voting Aged Population: 74,814
Latino Citizen Voting Aged Population: 21.69%
Asian Citizen Voting Aged Population: 11.00%
• Since 2003, one or two members of the City Council have been of Latino background
• Currently, two members of the City Council are persons “of color”
3 What Must Plaintiffs Prove:
Plaintiffs need to show at least :
1. They demanded change before litigation commenced: August 20, 2022 Letter from Law Firm of Radcliff Mayes --
2. Defendant has an at-large election system --
3. Racially polarized voting – POTENTIAL PLAINTIFF ASSERTS THERE IS
RACIALLY POLARIZED VOTING IN BURBANK
4. Impairment of the ability of voters in the protected class to elect the candidate of their choice or influence electoral outcomes as a result of vote dilution -- POTENTIAL PLAINTIFF ASSERTS IMPAIRMENT The frequency with which minority-preferred minority candidates win elections is also relevant. – BURBANK HAS A POSITIVE HISTORY Winning a CVRA case does not protect
a city from a new case in the future.
4 Costs of CVRA Litigation
Reasonable attorneys’ fee awards to prevailing plaintiffs are mandatory; prevailing defendants are not entitled to fees or costs.
• The City of Modesto is reported to have paid $1.7 million to its attorneys and $3.0 million to plaintiffs’ attorneys. The case never even went to trial, though it did get litigated through the appeals courts.
• City of Tulare reportedly paid $250,000 in an early case that settled. • Tulare Healthcare District paid $500,000 in a case that settled on the first day of trial.
• City of Escondido: reportedly $585,000
• City of Palmdale: reportedly $4.5 million through briefing on appeal; case then settled
• City of Anaheim: $1.2 million in settlement long before trial • City of Whittier: ~ $1 million, although City defeated motion for preliminary injunction, and case eventually dismissed as moot
• City of Santa Monica: Demand $22 million
5 Process for Changing Electoral System
(Elections Code § 10010)
6 Activity Timing (EC § 10010)
Receive CVRA Notice by Certified Mail 45-day safe harbor period commences:
the City cannot be sued
Pass Resolution of Intent to Change to Single-member
Districts; Adopt Tentative Calendar
Passage of resolution commences 90-day
safe harbor period, which can be
extended within parameters: the City
cannot be sued
Hold 2 Public Hearings Before Maps Are Drawn No more than 30 days apart Publish Draft Maps and Election Sequence 7 days prior to 1st public hearing on maps Hold First of 2 Additional Public Hearings on Draft Maps No more than 45 days apart Publish any Additional Maps With Election Sequence 7 days prior to 2nd public hearing Hold 2nd Public Hearing on Draft Maps Within 45 days of 1st public hearing Hold Final (5th) Public Hearing to Adopt Districting Plan and Sequence of Election
At least 7 days after any changes to map
proposed for adoption
Voter Approval Needed?
• Cal. Govt. Code § 34886: “Notwithstanding Section
34871 or any other law, the legislative body of a city
may adopt an ordinance that requires the members of
the legislative body to be elected by district or by
district with an elective mayor, as described in
subdivisions (a) and (c) of Section 34871, without
being required to submit the ordinance to the voters
for approval …
• Future Charter Amendment to make Charter language
consistent with City action under Section 34886.
7 POLITICAL &
GOVERNMENT
LAW
ADVOCACY
LITIGATION
Questions?
8 Significance of Santa Monica Case
• Establish that plaintiffs need to prove vote dilution in addition to proving racially polarized voting
• Establish elements of proof of dilution in cases in which minority group cannot form a majority in a single-
member district
• Establish elements of proof of dilution of electoral
“influence”
• California Supreme Court granted review in October
2020. Oral argument has not yet been scheduled.
9