Establishing District
Elections in the
City of Burbank
in compliance with the
California Voting
Rights Act
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-1
Contents
! ! Introduction ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3
! ! 1. Benefits of District Elections ! ! ! 5
!!
! ! 2. United States Voting Rights Act! ! 8
! ! 3. California Voting Rights Act ! ! ! 9
! ! 4. Abridgment of Voting Rights in the
! ! City of Burbank!! ! ! ! ! 12
! ! 5. Methods of Instituting District Elections
! ! in the City of Burbank! ! ! ! 19
! ! 6. Advantages of a
! ! Settlement Agreement! ! ! ! 21
!!C o n c l u s i o n ! !!!!!! 2 4
! ! Endnotes ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 26
!!
2 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-2
Establishing District Elections in the
City of Burbank in Compliance with the
California Voting Rights Act
Introduction
! There is a strong case for establishing district elections in the City of Burbank. Hundreds of California cities, school districts, and special districts have instituted district elections in recent years in compliance with the California Voting Rights Act. District elections bring government closer to the people and increase representation, result in higher turn-out in local elections, and lead more candidates to run for local office.
! Notwithstanding that 43% of the population in the City of Burbank is comprised of members of protected classes, there has been little representation of members of protected classes on the Burbank City Council, and on the Burbank School Board as well.
! There are many examples of racially polarized voting in the City of Burbank in elections to the City Council and on ballot measures. There are also significant differences between members of different groups in socioeconomic characteristics pertaining to education, employment, and health and in performance in local schools.
! Abridgment of voting rights of members of protected classes is proscribed by the California Voting Rights Act. The United States Voting Rights Act and, especially, the California Voting Rights Act provide strong and explicit protections to members of protected classes and measures to challenge at-large forms of election to government bodies and to replace them with district elections.
Violations of the California Voting Rights Act do not require any form of intentional or purposeful discriminatory activity, and none is alleged here. ! To date, no government jurisdiction in California has prevailed in a challenge to its electoral system on the basis of the California Voting Rights Act. 3 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-3
The current, at-large method of election to the Burbank City Council impairs the ability of members of protected classes to elect candidates of their choice and their ability to influence the outcomes of elections. Therefore, district elections must be established in the City of Burbank.
4 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-4
1. Benefits of District Elections
! There are many benefits of district elections which have been experienced in jurisdictions throughout California. These include greater voter turn-out and participation, and more candidates running for office. In some places, turn-out in some voting precincts has increased by as much as one-quarter after district elections were implemented, and the number of candidates seeking election has more than doubled.
! District elections bring government closer to the people. They result in representatives who are more knowledgable of neighborhood problems and concerns. Candidates learn about their electoral district when running for office.
Voters have a member of the City Council to whom they can turn on issues, and City Council members become more knowledgeable about area-specific concerns. There is a wider spectrum of views on the City Council and more representation from all neighborhoods and the entire community. District elections empower neighborhoods. District elections have been accompanied by greater diversity of all sorts on elective boards and councils. ! District elections result in less expensive political campaigns. It is easier for younger and lower socioeconomic candidates to run for office if they do not have to raise as much money. This results in less influence by special interests. By walking door to door and other inexpensive means, candidates can be elected who would not be elected in at-large elections.
! The City of Burbank will be an even better city with district elections--more representative of the people and in compliance with state law. District elections will make elections to the City Council fairer and more inclusive, and will increase representation and participation. The universal experience with district elections in California is that cities and other government jurisdictions that have implemented them have found them to be a superior form of representation. ! Benefits of district elections are described in “The Politics of Latino Education: The Biases of At-Large Elections,” by David Leal, Valerie Martinez- Ebers, and Kenneth Meier, published in the Journal of Politics, a publication of 5 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-5
the Southern Political Science Association. Although focused on school districts, this article contains much valuable information:
Representation is an integral part of the political system. ! Boards are involved in all aspects of school policy. They hire and fire superintendents, set the curricula, decide spending priorities, and adopt reform plans. Although many decisions are in practice left to superintendents and other administrators, school boards are tasked to oversee these experts. Boards, therefore, shoulder much responsibility for the quality of public education in America.
! The question of Latino representation in school policymaking might be less urgent if Latino educational achievement were high, but this is far from the case. While education may be the best way to escape poverty and realize the American dream, many Latinos find their hopes prematurely dashed through low educational achievement.
! Latino representation on school boards was associated with better educational conditions. In school districts with more Latino representation, Latino students experienced greater access to equal education ... There also appeared to be a ripple effect, whereby more Latino school board members led to more Latino school administrators, which in turn led to more Latino teachers. ! Multiple studies suggest greater minority representation in the educational policy process translates into more positive outcomes for minority students.
! Our study supports the findings of earlier research showing minority population translating into minority school board seats at a substantially higher rate with district elections than with at-large elections. Our findings show that at-large election systems usually 6 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-6
disadvantage Latinos; the obvious recommendation is that at-large systems should be replaced by single-member systems.1
! As members of protected classes are elected to governing boards, there tends also to be more members of protected classes who become employed by government agencies. In addition, because candidates for higher elective office are overwhelmingly elected first to local office, district elections lead in time to greater representation at all levels of elective office. 7 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-7
2. United States Voting Rights Act
! The United States Voting Rights Act is landmark federal legislation that prohibits discrimination in voting. Passed in 1965 in the wake of the suppression of civil and voting rights, the United States Voting Rights Act is intended to enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution, in particular the provisions of the 15th Amendment:
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race ... [or] color”. ! According to the federal Voting Rights Act: “No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color ... A violation ... is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens ... in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the ... political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered” (52 U.S. Code Sec. 10301). ! The United States Supreme Court has “long recognized that multi-member districts and at-large voting schemes may operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength” of protected classes ( Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 47 (1986)). Although legal actions against government jurisdictions in California to require district elections have been brought since 2002 pursuant to the California Voting Rights Act (rather than the U.S. Voting Rights Act), the federal Voting Rights Act also provides explicit and strong protections for the voting rights of members of protected classes.
8 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-8
3. California Voting Rights Act
! Building upon the United States Voting Rights Act, the California Voting Rights Act was passed by the California legislature in 2001 and signed into law in 2002 to allow legal challenges to government jurisdictions in California with at- large methods of election to require them to institute district elections. According to the Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College (the state leader in gathering information on the transition from at-large to district elections): “The California Voting Rights Act was written to promote the use of by-district elections to encourage the election of candidates preferred by previously ʻunderrepresentedʼ voters such as Latinos.”2 ! The core provision of the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) is:
14027. An at-large method of election may not be imposed or applied in a manner that impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election, as a result of the dilution or abridgment of the rights of voters who are members of a protected class.
! The CVRA is clear: at-large methods of election are against the law in California when they impair the ability of protected classes to elect candidates of their choice or to influence the outcomes of elections a s a result of dilution of the vote or abridgment of the rights of voters who are members of a protected class. On showing vote dilution or abridgment of the rights of voters of protected classes, at-large methods of election must be discontinued in favor of district elections.
! According to Section 14028 of the CVRA: “A violation of Section 14027 is established if it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs in elections for members of the governing body of the political subdivision or in elections incorporating other electoral choices by the voters of the political subdivision.” In addition: “Other factors such as ... the extent to which members of a protected class bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the 9 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-9
political process, ... are probative ... factors to establish a violation” of the CVRA (Sec. 14028(e)).
! The CVRA is also clear with respect to what the remedy for illegal, at-large elections is: “Upon a finding of a violation ..., the court shall implement appropriate remedies, including the imposition of district-based elections, that are tailored to remedy the violation” (Sec. 14029, emphasis added). Though a remedy for a violation of the CVRA other than district elections might be here contemplated, in fact no remedy has been ordered by a California court for violation of the California Voting Rights Act other than district elections. ! When, as in the City of Burbank, a government jurisdiction utilizes an illegal, at-large method of election, district elections must be implemented. ! To date, dozens of legal actions have been brought against cities, school districts, special districts, and other government agencies in California for violation of the California Voting Rights Act. Every action has been successful.
The replacement of at-large elections by district elections is sweeping the state as a result of the CVRA. The Rose Institute also states: “Another significant effect of the California Voting Rights Act is the financial cost it has imposed ...--many challenges so far have resulted in settlements or legal awards over one million dollars.”3
! The California Voting Rights Act was ruled constitutional by a California Court of Appeal in 2007. The decision held: “The CVRA is race neutral. It does not favor any race over others or allocate burdens or benefits to any groups on the basis of race. It simply gives a cause of action to members of any racial or ethnic group that can establish that its members' votes are diluted.” 4 The court
further held: “Curing vote dilution is a legitimate government interest”; and: “To prove a violation, plaintiffs ... do not need to show that members of a protected class live in a geographically compact area.”
5 ! The CVRA also states: “Proof of an intent on the part of the voters or elected officials to discriminate against a protected class is not required” (Sec. 14028(d)) to establish a violation of the California Voting Rights Act. There is not any intention here to assert that either the City Council or staff of the City of 10 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-10
Burbank has engaged in any form of intentional or purposeful discriminatory activity. The issue is strictly with respect to the Cityʼs current, at-large form of election to its City Council, which is illegal because it violates the California Voting Rights Act.
11 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-11
4. Abridgment of Voting Rights in the
City of Burbank
! The City of Burbank is very diverse. Pursuant to the 2020 United States Census, the City of Burbank is merely 56.8% white. It is 21.3% Latino and 14.7% Asian, with the balance of individuals from other ethnicities or two or more ethnicities. Moreover, the City of Burbank has a significant population who live in poverty--9.9%, according to the 2020 Census.
! Many California cities, school districts, and special districts, have been required through legal actions to institute district elections with percentages of non-white populations significantly lower than in the City of Burbank. ! The diversity in the City of Burbank is also represented by student enrollment in the Burbank Unified School District. The first table presents student enrollment by ethnicity in the Burbank Unified School District in the 2021-22 school year (source: California Department of Education):6 A. Burbank Unified School District,
2021-22 Enrollment by Ethnicity
! ! ! Group! ! Percent!
! ! ! African Am! ! ! 2.4
! ! ! Asian! ! ! 8.9
!!! L a t i n o ! !! 3 2 . 9
!!! W h i t e ! !! 4 7 . 4
! ! ! Multi/Other! ! 8.4
!!! T o t a l : ! !! 1 0 0 . 0
12 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-12
Racially Polarized Voting in City of Burbank City Council Elections ! As noted in the previous chapter, a violation of the California Voting Rights “is established if it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs in elections for members of the governing body of the political subdivision” (Section 14028). ! Accordingly, district elections must be established in the City of Burbank .
At least three candidates for the City Council in the City of Burbank since 2001 would have been nominated for or elected to the City Council who were members of protected classes and received enough votes to have been nominated or elected from neighborhoods with disproportionate numbers of members of protected classes, but who were not nominated or elected from the city at-large.
! These candidates are:
B. Burbank City Council Candidates,
Evidence of Racially Polarized Voting
!!!!Year !! ! Candidate
! ! ! ! 2001! ! ! John Dominguez
! ! ! ! 2015! ! ! Juan Guillen
! ! ! ! 2020! ! ! Tamala Takahashi
!!!!
! In addition, the diversity of the City of Burbank has not been represented on its City Council or in other city elections. Since 2001, apparently only 3 members of protected classes have been elected to the City Council and apparently only 1 member of a protected class has been elected to the Burbank School Board.
13 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-13
Racially Polarized Voting in City of Burbank on State Ballot Measures ! As also noted in the previous chapter, a violation of the California Voting Rights Act “is established if it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs in ... elections incorporating other electoral choices [than for members of the governing body] by the voters of the political subdivision” (Section 14028). ! Again, for this reason, district elections must be established in the City of Burbank. There is evidence of at least nine state ballot measures with racially polarized voting between 2008 and 2020 in which neighborhoods with disproportionate numbers of members of protected classes voted differently than the city at-large.
! These ballot measures are:
C. State Ballot Measures, Evidence of
Racially Polarized Voting in City of Burbank
!!! Year!! ! State Ballot Measure
! ! ! 2008! ! 9 -- Crime Victim Rights
! ! ! 2010! ! 19 -- Legalization of Recreational Marijuana ! ! ! ! ! ! 26 -- Legislative Tax Vote Requirements
! ! ! 2012! ! 34 -- Abolishes Death Penalty
! ! ! 2016! ! 61 -- Prescription Drug Prices
! ! ! ! ! ! 66 -- Death Penalty Procedures
! ! ! 2020! ! 16 -- Affirmative Action
! ! ! ! ! ! 18 -- 17-Year-Olds Vote
! ! ! ! ! ! 21 -- Rent Control
! Pursuant to the California Voting Rights Act, it is not necessary that abridgment of voting rights be demonstrated only in elections to the political subdivisionʼs governing board. Rather, voting issues with respect to which the CVRA becomes applicable “means voting in which there is a difference ... in the 14 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-14
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” (Sec. 14026(e))--irrespective of whether the difference in voting occurs for the governing board of the government jurisdiction in which district elections is sought or in other electoral choices.
! This is made clear by legal specialists in districting, electoral issues, and voting rights Marguerite Leoni and Christopher Skinnell. They write in “The California Voting Rights Act,” published by the Public Law Journal (vol. 32, Spring 2009), an official publication of the State Bar of California Public Law Section:
No Minority Candidates.
The fact that no members of the minority group have ever run for membership on the legislative body will not insulate a jurisdiction from CVRA challenge. The CVRA expressly provides that a violation can be shown if racially-polarized voting occurs in elections incorporating other electoral choices that affect the rights and privileges of members of a protected class, such as ballot measures. (Elec. Code Sec.s 14028(a) & (b).) Some particularly obvious examples ... might include Proposition 187 (denying services to undocumented immigrants), [and] Proposition 209 (preventing state agencies from adopting affirmative action programs) ... But other local measures may also serve the same purpose.
7 ! This article also states that the California Voting Rights Act “makes fundamental changes to minority voting rights law in California”; the CVRA “alters established paradigms of proof and defenses ..., thus making it easier for plaintiffs in California to challenge allegedly discriminatory voting practices”; the CVRA “prescribe[s] an extremely light burden ... to establish a violation”; the CVRA “eliminate[s] the first precondition that plaintiffs must prove at the liability stage in federal litigation, that is, that the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to form a majority in a single member district”; the CVRA “eliminates the requirement that plaintiffs prove discrimination”; the CVRA “mandates the award of costs, attorneys fees, and expert expenses to prevailing 15 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-15
plaintiffs”; the CVRA “denies not only attorneys fees but also the costs of litigation to prevailing defendants”; the “sole fact that the voters of a city or special district have enacted an at-large electoral system by ballot measure, or rejected a by- district electoral system by ballot measure, will not protect a jurisdiction”; and “Demands by minority group representatives for a change to by-district elections must be taken seriously, even if the minority group is not numerous enough to form a majority in a new single member district. Changing voluntarily permits the elected representatives ... to control the districting process and the considerations that will guide the districting. Once the single member districts are in place, the [government jurisdiction] is in the CVRA safe harbor.”8 ! The analysis here presents examples of polarization only since 2001 for candidates for the City Council and since 2008 for state ballot measures. If this analysis were continued to the year 1997, incorporating state and local ballot measures and state and local candidates for office, it would be possible to demonstrate as many as 30 or more instances of racially polarized voting in the City of Burbank since this time.
! Pursuant to the CVRA, as previously cited: “A violation of Section 14027 is established if it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs in elections for members of the governing body of the political subdivision or in elections incorporating other electoral choices by the voters of the political subdivision” (Sec. 14028(a)). A violation of the California Voting Rights in the City of Burbank is established both on the basis of elections for members of the governing body and other electoral choices by voters of the City. Pursuant to the California Voting Rights Act, district elections must be instituted in the City of Burbank.
16 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-16
Other Factors Influencing District Elections in the City of Burbank ! The California Voting Rights Act also states: “Other factors such as ... denial of access to those processes determining which groups of candidates will receive financial or other support in a given election, the extent to which members of a protected class bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process, ... are probative, but not necessary factors to establish a violation” (Sec. 14028(e)). As well as the examples of abridgment of voting rights and polarized voting previously outlined, there is significant evidence of the extent to which members of protected classes in the City of Burbank bear the effects of past conditions in areas such as education, employment, and health.
! The next table presents comparisons between the white and Latino populations in the City of Burbank on various socioeconomic characteristics pertaining to education, employment, and health in the 2020 United States Census:
D. Comparison Between White and Latino Populations in
City of Burbank on Socioeconomic Characteristics, 2020
!!!!!!!White Population ! Latino Population
! Education
! Adults with high school degree! 94.2%! ! 85.2% ! Adults with bachelorʼs degree! ! 41.9%! ! 33.3% ! Employment
! Average per capita income! ! ! $58,392! $36,812 ! Poverty in past 12 months! ! ! 7.6%! ! 15.6% ! Health
! Individuals without health insurance! 1.5%! ! 7.9% 17 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-17
! Furthermore, the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) is the main state assessment system for students in California schools. The CAASPP provides educational performance measures in a variety of areas. The following tables present achievement for students tested in the Burbank Unified School District in 2020-21 in English Language Arts/ Literacy and Mathematics, disaggregated by white and Latino students:
E. Burbank Unified School District 2020-21 CAASPP
English Language Arts/Literacy Achievement by Ethnicity !!Achievement Level !!! White! Latino
! ! 4 -- Exceeds Standard! ! ! 30.99% 18.39%
! ! 3 -- Meets Standard! ! ! 31.49% 31.61%
! ! 2 -- Nearly Meets Standard! ! 18.95% 22.49%
! ! 1 -- Standard Not Met! ! ! 18.57% 27.51%
F. Burbank Unified School District 2020-21 CAASPP
Mathematics Achievement by Ethnicity
!!Achievement Level !!! White! Latino
! ! 4 -- Exceeds Standard! ! ! 20.83% 9.41%
! ! 3 -- Meets Standard! ! ! 27.27% 19.75%
! ! 2 -- Nearly Meets Standard! ! 29.55% 32.41%
! ! 1 -- Standard Not Met! ! ! 22.35% 38.43%
! Clear and compelling evidence exists that the City of Burbankʼs current, at- large method of election to its City Council does not meet the requirements of the California Voting Rights Act. It is very likely that the City of Burbank would be ordered by a court to implement district elections. In the event that the City of Burbank would not institute district elections voluntarily, attached hereto and incorporated herein is a draft complaint against the City of Burbank to require its implementation of district elections pursuant to the California Voting Rights Act. 18 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-18
5. Methods of Instituting District Elections
In the City of Burbank
! There are two basic methods by which district elections may be instituted in the City of Burbank: a) a pre-litigation settlement agreement by the City Council outlining the Cityʼs intention to transition from at-large to district elections, specifying specific steps it will take to facilitate this transition, and estimating the time-frame for this transition; or b) litigation.
! If the City Council chooses a pre-litigation settlement, then, pursuant to Section 10010 of the California Elections Code, the process the City of Burbank will follow when district elections are implemented, as determined by the settlement agreement, is:
! 1) Within 45 days of receipt of the certified letter notifying the City of Burbank that its method of conducting elections violates the CVRA, the City Council will adopt a resolution outlining the Cityʼs intention to transition from at- large to district elections, specifying specific steps it will take to facilitate this transition, and estimating the time-frame for this transition. ! 2) If the City Council passes a resolution to this effect, a legal action may not be commenced for another 90 days after the resolutionʼs passage, or as modified by the settlement agreement.
! 3) Before district lines are drawn, the City Council holds two public hearings at which the public is invited to provide input concerning the composition of districts. The timing of these hearings, too, may be as determined in a settlement agreement. In advance of these hearings, the City of Burbank should conduct outreach to the public, including to non-English speaking communities, explaining the districting process and encouraging participation. ! 4) Following these two hearings, the City of Burbank publishes and makes available for release at least one draft map and the proposed sequence of elections to new districts. The City Council then holds two more public hearings 19 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-19
at which the public is invited to provide input on the draft map or maps and proposed sequence of elections.
! 5) In determining the sequence of elections, the City of Burbank is required to give special consideration to the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act.
For this reason, it is likely that among the first districts in which district elections will be held will be districts including significant proportions of members from protected classes.
! 6) After adopting the resolution of intention to transition from at-large to district elections and holding the hearings, the City Council adopts a map of districts and a sequence of elections.
! If the City of Burbank establishes district elections according to the above process as modified by a settlement agreement, no litigation is required. 20 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-20
6. Advantages of a Settlement Agreement
! A pre-litigation settlement agreement is the best way to ensure the most expeditious, least expensive, and most cooperative process to establish district elections in the City of Burbank. There are many advantages of a pre-litigation settlement agreement rather than litigation to institute district elections. Most importantly, the City Council retains a greater role in and more control over the transition process to district elections and legal costs are capped. ! A greater role by the City Council and more control over the transition to district elections could manifest itself in a number of ways through a settlement agreement, including:
! 1) The City of Burbank would retain the ability to draw the lines of voting districts both now and in the future. As a result of litigation, the court could draw the lines for voting districts through a court-determined process. ! 2) Participation in determining date of the first district elections and timing of hearings. As a result of a settlement agreement, there would be no chance of a special election. The timing of hearings to draw district boundaries could be postponed and the first district elections to the City Council could be held in November 2024.
! 3) Saving of plaintiffsʼ attorney fees and costs, and its own legal expenses, by the City of Burbank, potentially saving hundreds of thousands or even more dollars. Pursuant to the CVRA: “In any action to enforce [the California Voting Rights Act] the court shall allow the prevailing plaintiff party ... a reasonable attorneyʼs fee ... and litigation expenses including, but not limited to, expert witness fees and expenses as part of the costs” (Sec. 14030). In addition: “Prevailing defendant parties shall not recover any costs” (id.).
! In recent years, many jurisdictions have had to pay hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars in attorneysʼ fees to prevailing plaintiff parties.
Moreover, jurisdictions are responsible for their own legal costs, which can also 21 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-21
be hundreds of thousands of dollars. The following table presents some settlements in California Voting Rights Act cases:
G. Settlements in CVRA Litigation (partial list)
!!!Jurisdiction !! ! ! Settlement
! ! ! City of Palmdale! ! ! $4,500,000
! ! ! City of Modesto! ! ! $3,000,000
! ! ! City of Anaheim! ! ! $1,200,000
! ! ! City of Whittier! ! ! $1,000,000
! ! ! Santa Clarita
! ! ! Community College Dist.! $850,000
! ! ! San Mateo County! ! ! $650,000
! ! ! Tulare Healthcare District! $500,000
! ! ! City of Escondido! ! ! $385,000
! ! ! City of Garden Grove! ! $290,000
! ! ! City of Bellflower! ! ! $250,000
! As a result of the potentially significant costs of litigation, it is strongly recommended that government jurisdictions reach settlement in the 45-day statutory pre-litigation phase. In this case, pursuant to Assembly Bill 350 signed into legislation in 2016, costs to government jurisdictions are capped at $30,000 plus annual CPI adjustment (now, $34,514) 9 for demographic and legal services.
! It should be emphasized that Assembly Bill 350 applies only to the pre- litigation phase of cases brought pursuant to the CVRA. If a CVRA action becomes the subject of litigation through a complaint being filed, there is no limit on attorneysʼ fees and costs other than as stated in the CVRA. ! In addition, because Assembly Bill 350 would “impose additional duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school 22 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-22
districts for certain costs mandated by the state ... This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for these costs shall be made pursuant to ... statutory provisions” (Legislative Counselʼs Digest of Assembly Bill 350).
Accordingly, it may be possible for the City of Burbank to receive reimbursement from the state for a pre-litigation settlement.
! The preceding are only some of the advantages of a pre-litigation settlement agreement.
! It should be noted that, pursuant to Assembly Bill 2220, passed into legislation in 2016, cities of any size may adopt a resolution to implement district elections, with or without an elective mayor. Also as a result of a court action, the Burbank City Council would lose the authority to determine the number of districts in the city (four or five) and whether or not there would be an elective mayor.
23 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-23
Conclusion
! The City of Burbank will be an even better city with district elections.
District elections will increase participation and representation and bring Burbank into compliance with the California Voting Rights Act. More candidates will seek election to office and the community will become even more involved in the City of Burbank and its programs.
! The following table contains a partial list of California cities that have instituted district elections since 2016. As can be seen, many cities in California have implemented district elections in recent years.
! Abridgment of voting rights has no place in the City of Burbank or anywhere else. District elections will--to the benefit of the City of Burbank--assist Burbank to meet its goals in addition to fulfilling the requirements of the California Voting Rights Act. District elections will result in more participation and involvement by the community in the city and bring Burbank into compliance with the law.
! Clear and compelling evidence of abridgment of voting rights would sustain a legal action brought pursuant to the California Voting Rights Act to institute district elections in the City of Burbank. A pre-litigation settlement agreement by the Burbank City Council provides the best opportunity to implement district elections in a manner that retains participation by the City Council in the transition process to district elections and is cost-effective. 24 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-24
H. California Cities to Institute District Elections
Since 2016 (partial list)
! ! ! Anaheim! ! ! Lompoc
! ! ! Arroyo Grande! ! Merced
! ! ! Bellflower! ! ! Novato
! ! ! Brentwood! ! ! Oceanside
! ! ! Buellton! ! ! Oxnard
! ! ! Buena Park! ! ! Palmdale
! ! ! Camarillo! ! ! Palm Springs
! ! ! Carlsbad! ! ! Paso Robles
! ! ! Carpinteria! ! ! Patterson
! ! ! Cathedral City! ! Rancho Cucamonga
!!!C h i n o ! !!!R e d w o o d C i t y
! ! ! Citrus Heights! ! Riverbank
! ! ! Claremont! ! ! San Clemente
! ! ! Corona! ! ! San Juan Capistrano
! ! ! Costa Mesa! ! ! San Rafael
! ! ! Chino! ! ! ! Santa Clara
! ! ! Dixon!! ! ! Santa Maria
! ! ! Duarte! ! ! Santee
! ! ! Eastvale! ! ! Stanton
! ! ! El Cajon! ! ! Sunnyvale
! ! ! Fremont! ! ! Upland
! ! ! Fullerton! ! ! Vallejo
! ! ! Garden Grove! ! Visalia
! ! ! Goleta! ! ! Vista
! ! ! Grover Beach! ! West Covina
! ! ! Hesperia! ! ! Wildomar
!!!H i g h l a n d ! !!W o o d l a n d
! ! ! King City! ! ! Yucaipa
25 ATTACHMENT 3
A3-25
Endnotes
26 1 David L. Leal, Valerie Martinez-Ebers, and Kenneth J. Meier, “The Politics of Latino Education: The Biases of At-Large Elections,” Journal of Politics (Vol. 66, No. 4, November 2004).
2 Justin Levitt et al., “Quiet Revolution in California Local Government Gains Momentum” (Claremont McKenna College: Rose Institute of State and Local Government, November 3, 2016), p. 1. The Rose Institute remarks on the switch from at-large to district elections in California: “This quiet tectonic shift in local government is accelerating” (id.).
3 Id., p. 2.
4 Sanchez v. City of Modesto, Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California, No.
F048277 (December 6, 2006).
5 Id.
6 Asian enrollment includes Pacific Islanders and Filipinos. 7 Marguerite Mary Leoni and Christopher E. Skinnell, “The California Voting Rights Act,” Public Law Journal (Vol. 32, No. 2, Spring 2009; Official Publication of the State Bar of California Public Law Section).
8 Id.
9 Pursuant to Assembly Bill 350: “The amount of reimbursement required by this section is capped at $30,000, as adjusted annually to the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, U.S. city average, as published by the United States Department of Labor” (Section 1. 10010(f)(3); included here as Exhibit C). The increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers in 2017 was
2.1%, in 2018 the increase was 1.9%, in 2019 the increase was 2.3%, in 2020 the increase was 1.4%, and in 2021 the increase was 6.6%, meaning the cap for reimbursement is now $34,514.
ATTACHMENT 3
A3-26