Correspondences — Burbank City Council, April 11, 2023

Meredith, Alyssa
From: eric
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2023 3:42 PM
To: Schultz, Nick
Subject: State Guidelines for RCV
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Mr. Vice-Mayor,
I wanted to share with you that former Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, in 2014, issued guidelines for charter counties and charter cities that would like to move transition to using RCV. These guidelines only apply to single-member districts and not multimember districts, however. The other caveat is that it applies only where voting systems are able to process RCV ballots. Again, it comes back to LA County. However, the county cannot say that the state has not issued any guidelines to make this happen. The state did, in 2014.

Here are those guidelines: https://votingsystems.cdn.sos.ca.gov/oversight/directives/irv-guidelines.pdf I hope this helps as we try to get the country registrar to update their voting equipment so that it is an option for Burbank.

Thank you,
Eric Carter
Meredith, Alyssa
From: David Holtzman
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2023 3:09 PM
To: Takahashi, Tamala
Cc: Paula Lee
Subject: LWVC Position on Electoral Processes May Be Used to Support PRCV [was: Fwd:

Burbank Councilmember wants PRCV - and your Help!]
Attachments: LWVC Electoral Process Delegate Packet FINAL.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Councilmember Takahashi,
Shortly before today's building electrification group zoom, my friend Paula Lee from the League of Women Voters (who is now president of the Sacramento chapter) called me to offer support for your upcoming initiative to have Burbank consider using Proportional Ranked Choice Voting for City Council elections.

Paula sent me the LWV of California's position on Electoral Processes (see attached), which LWVC adopted in 2019, and which allows local leagues to evaluate, propose, or support electoral methods including PRCV.

Paula led the campaign to have LWVC adopt the position. If you're interested, she can explain the league rules that explain why the language in the position may seem a bit vague (I'm cc'ing her here).

The position is on page 2 of the attached PDF, which is the "kit" provided in 2019 to LWVC convention delegates when they were considering whether to adopt the position. The position is proceeded by a cover page, and followed by a one-page background sheet (with some highlighting by me) and then a four-page glossary.

I hope this is helpful!
-dh
----- Forwarded Message -------
Subject:Re: Burbank Councilmember wants PRCV - and your Help! Date:Fri, 7 Apr 2023 10:58:39 -0700
From:Paula Lee -
To:D. A. Holtzman
Attached is the packet prepared for the vote at 2019 convention in Pasadena. It has background etc. if you are interested
however the position appears on the 2nd page. This position which supports RCV and PR (and other systems that meet the criteria)
was passed unanimously without a single no vote (history making) Note this section:

The LWVC believes in representative government. The League supports electoral systems that elect policymaking bodies-legislatures, councils, commissions, and boards-that proportionally reflect the people they represent. We support systems that inhibit political manipulation (e.g. gerrymandering). 2 Delegate Packet
Electoral Process Position via Concurrence
LWVC Recommended Program
2019 Convention
Dear LWVC Convention Delegate,
The LWVC State Board has recommended replacing the current LWVC Election Systems position with a new position on the Electoral Process via concurrence.

In advance of Convention, we are providing the position statement and background information for your information.

Attached you will find:
• Position
•. Background
•. Our process
•. How Leagues can use the position
•. Electoral Terminology - Very Helpful!
Language in this position comes from LWVUS Principles and multiple State Leagues' positions.

Visit our table in the "Convention Marketplace"
You are invited to the
Q & A Caucus:

FRIDAY 9 PM - ALTADENA ROOM
Hosted by LWV Sacramento and LWV San Luis Obispo - Facilitated by Paula Lee, LWV Sacramento and Michael Latner, LWV San Luis Obispo and Political Science Prof.at Cal Poly.

We welcome questions and comments by email or phone in advance of Convention as well.

Contact [email protected] or 916 704-0195 or Prof. Michael Latner at [email protected] LWV Sacramento County
Electoral Process Position
Recommended by LWVC for Adoption via Concurrence
LWVC Convention, Pasadena 2019
Position in Brief:

Support electoral systems at each level of government that encourage participation, are verifiable and auditable and enhance representation for all voters.

Position in Full:

LWVC promotes an open governmental system that is representative, accountable and responsive. (LWVUS)* We encourage electoral methods that provide the broadest voter representation possible.

Whether for single or multiple winner contests, the League supports electoral methods that:
• Encourage voter participation and voter engagement
• Encourage those with minority opinions to participate, including under-represented communities • Are verifiable and auditable
• Promote access to voting
• Maximize effective votes/minimize "wasted" votes
• Promote sincere voting over strategic voting
• Require the winner to receive a majority of the votes for executive and single seat offices • Are compatible with acceptable ballot-casting methods, including vote-by-mail (LWVUS, ME, OR, CA, MN, MA, FL, NC, OK, SC, VT, WA, Santa Monica) * The LW VC believes in representative government. The League supports electoral systems that elect policy- making bodies—-legislatures, councils, commissions, and boards — that proportionally reflect the people they represent. We support systems that inhibit political manipulation (e.g. gerrymandering).

The LWVC supports enabling legislation to allow local jurisdictions to explore alternative electoral methods, as well as supporting state election laws allowing for more options at both the state and local levels. With the adoption of any electoral system, the League believes that education of the voting public is important and funding for startup and voter education should be available. We encourage a concerted voter education process.
(LWVUS, AZ, CA, OR, SC, WA) *
End of Statement
* All language from LWVUS Principles and multiple State positions Background
We take pride in our name, The League of Women Voters, and our work as a multi-issue organization over the last century. The LWV has positions on a multitude of public policy issues decided by our elected representatives, however, we do not have a position on how we elect the representatives that make those public policy decisions.

Our "plurality" system originating in the late 1800's, known as "first past the post," "came over the pond" with the British and it has limits when it comes to Making Democracy Work." Just one example: a voter's choice can help elect their least favorite candidate due to vote splitting. Potential good candidates often choose not to run because they don't want to be a "spoiler candidate." Unsatisfied with the limits of the plurality system and its impact on representation, 14 state Leagues as well as many local leagues have undertaken studies and developed positions supporting alternatives to the plurality system.

Here in California and cities around the country, advanced systems have saved taxpayers and candidates money, reduced negative campaigning, achieved majority winners while preventing vote splitting among similar candidates, minimized "wasted" votes and provided more voters a meaningful voice. Additionally, they have helped elect women and candidates more representative of their communities.

Leagues that did studies and consensus discovered no electoral method is perfect. However, some are better than others at representing voters and creating more opportunities for women and under-represented voters.

These Leagues recommended election methods as a result of their studies as well as criterion for evaluating a method and best practices. We chose to focus on the criterion, principles and best practices.

This position does not support any particular election method but rather supports the LWV goals for an open, governmental system that is representative, accountable and responsive." It allows for Leagues to use the position to evaluate or propose electoral options. In many jurisdictions, options are needed as remedies to voting rights lawsuits that seek minority representation.

Why Adopt the Position?
This position provides us a clear, but flexible, base of principles to explore election method reforms and take action when appropriate for voters. Across the nation, cities in various states have adopted new election methods, including Minnesota, California, Washington, Texas, North Dakota, Illinois, New York and many others, including new methods used for statewide office and Congressional contests in Maine. Most major newspapers have editorialized in support of electoral options to improve representation and reduce voter apathy, recognizing that democracy depends on it.

Our Process
This position is a compilation of positions adopted by AZ, CA, FL, MA, ME, MN, NC, OK, OR, PA, SC, VT, WA, and established LW VUS principles on representation.

While this is not an exhaustive list of state & local leagues that have conducted related studies, these states were instrumental in the formulation of the concurrence position.

How can the League use this Position in the Future?
• Local Leagues can use it to propose or evaluate an electoral system proposed in their community. • Local Leagues can propose or support a suitable election method as a remedy to voting rights lawsuits filed when a protected group is under-represented by the current system. • The State League can use it to support or oppose state legislation. • Meets language requirements for future LWVUS concurrence.

Submitted by: LWV of Sacramento County. For more information or questions, contact:

Action Chair Paula Lee
LWVC Convention 2019
Electoral Process Concurrence Position
Why? The League of Women Voters currently does not have a position on how we elect our representatives
Terminology
Our Mission, our Principles ("We believe in Representative Government") and our trademark "Making Democracy Work" all speak to empowering voters through representation. • When voters are denied representation because of where they live, the way district lines are drawn, or because they are an ethnic or political minority, apathy shouldn't be a surprise. • The purpose of having this position is to provide a clear, but flexible base of principles, for evaluating electoral systems that empower voters. (language is from 14 State LWV positions) •. The electoral systems we use can enhance or deny representation of voters. just as how, and who draws district lines, can do the same.
•. The position does not support a particular electoral system as no system is perfect.

However, some are better than others at enhancing representation for voters. •. This position does not require local League action. Like many of our positions, it is there when we need it. Many CA communities are looking at options to plurality voting.

Terminology (in alpha order)
Electoral systems are tied to representation of voters, so we are providing some basic information on electoral terminology.

A type of electoral jurisdiction where representatives are elected from the whole political region. Voters are not divided into districts. Common in cities and counties. Plurality/Winner-Take-All at-large systems allow
51% of voters to control 100 percent of seats.

Auditable
Transparent procedures to verify (either by hand count or technology) the accuracy of an election outcome.

Delayed Runoff
- see Two-round Runoff
Effective Vote
Opposite of "wasted votes" (see elsewhere). Effective votes are those that were useful in successfully electing (or in determining) a winner.

Electoral System
Rules and procedures governing the election of public officials by specifying ballot structure, district magnitude and the way that votes are translated into seats.

First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) Same as Plurality Voting
In a horse race, the first horse to pass the finish line (the post) wins. The same is true for a FPTP electoral, a system that came with the British, which we still use and call Plurality voting.

In an election, candidate with the most votes wins. However, the candidate may not have received a majority if more than 2 candidates in the race, due to vote-splitting.

Vote splitting can result in electing the candidate least preferred by voters.

Gerrymandering
Different from "apportionment" which is the allotment of representatives based on an area's population.

Gerrymandering is a political manipulation.

Specifically, "gerrymandering" is the manipulation of boundary lines in a district with the intent to advantage or disadvantage a candidate or political party in order to gain more seats than its proportion of the vote.

Gerrymandering can be used to disenfranchise a group of voters by racial gerrymandering or disenfranchise members of the opposite party by partisan gerrymandering. [Redistricting is the term used for fair 'line drawing,' the goal of an Independent Redistricting Commission.] Multi-Member District
An area (electoral jurisdiction) from which more than one candidate is elected.

Plurality
The most common electoral system in the US, in which the candidate with the most votes wins, without necessarily receiving a majority of votes. At times, it is coupled with a second, runoff election if a jurisdiction has required that the final winner receives a majority vote. (See above "First Past the Post"). In a multi - winner election i.e. City Council (not_divided into districts) the plurality winners are the candidates that receive the most votes. (See "winner-take-all" below.)
Proportional Result
40% of the vote gets 40% of the seats (representation) in a legislative body...not Zero. 60% of the vote gets 60% of the seats (representation) in a legislative body....not 100% Majority Rule with representation for the minority (40%) (i.e. Cambridge, MA. City Council and School Board proportionally reflect the voters in the community). (Compare this to Winner-Take-All last page)
[While this proposed concurrence does not oppose or support any one system, Ranked Choice Voting is being explained for its more common usel
Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) aka Instant Runoff and Preference Voting Voters are able to rank candidates by preference indicating a "back-up" candidate if their first choice does not have enough support to get elected. They don't have to go back for a second election to accomplish the same. RCV can be used to achieve a majority single winner without a second election (known as "Instant Runoff" and used in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro in CA).

RCV can also be used to elect multi-winners to achieve a proportional result (i.e.40% of the voters gets 40% of the seats) in a legislative body. (Cambridge, MA City Council and School Board).

Sincere Voting
A term used when a voter chooses to cast her ballot for her most preferred candidate despite the candidate's chances to win. [This is the opposite of "strategic" voting described elsewhere.] In electoral systems that encourage sincere voting, the voter can vote for a preferred candidate and not worry about "wasting" their vote.

Single Member District
An area (electoral jurisdiction) from which only one candidate is elected.

Spoiler Effect or "Spoiler Candidate"
Generally derogatory terms used to describe the phenomenon in which candidates split the vote. The terms can also apply to same-party candidates in relationship to weaker and stronger support. The most well- known examples of a candidate being labeled a 'spoiler' was during the 1992 election when Ross Perot split the vote with George Bush Sr. and helped elect Bill Clinton with 43% of the vote, and in 2000 when Ralph Nader split the vote with Al Gore helping to elect George W. Bush. Those votes for Ross Perot and Ralph Nader are considered "wasted votes" (see wasted votes).

Strategic Voting (aka Tactical Voting)
A voter chooses to vote for a candidate other than her 'sincere' choice. This is done in hopes of preventing a less-than-desirable outcome. This is most common when, despite the fact that the voter may prefer an independent, 3rd party or weaker candidate, she believes she would be 'throwing her vote away' and instead votes for a candidate presumed to have a greater chance of victory.

Because the spoiler effect (see elsewhere), still sways decisions under California's Top Two in the Primary round, there is encouragement for voters to vote tactically (instead of sincerely). They need to choose the candidate they believe is most likely to advance to, or win, the general election, as opposed to voting for their most preferred candidate. They may also decide to vote for the opposite party candidate they would most like to see run against their preferred candidate.

Two Round Runoff
This is an election type used in a winner-take-all (WTA) system, in which a 'delayed or second election is held if no candidate achieves a majority of votes in the first election (or first round). Common in CA, this is sometimes referred to simply as "runoff elections". • Runoff elections ask voters to go back to the polls to ensure a majority (if required) in the second election. A second election costs candidates and taxpayers more money, encourages negative campaigning, and in many cases, fewer voters participate.

Vote Splitting
When more than 2 candidates are on the ballot, voters can split their votes among like-minded candidates and it can help elect a least favored candidate. This can also cause good, like-minded candidates NOT to run for office for fear of splitting the vote. This reduces voter's choices, especially when parties encourage people not to run. Some alternatives to plurality voting address this problem. (See "Strategic Voting "and "Spoiler Effect" above)
Verifiable
A system (such as a paper ballot) that provides a secondary confirmation that equipment has correctly counted a voter's ballot.

Wasted Vote
An official political science term that refers to votes that were NOT useful in the election of the winner. More often this means all ballots cast for a losing candidate (or candidates), but can also mean any extra (not needed) votes cast in support of a much-liked winner. If a voter does not vote for a 'viable' candidate in most plurality elections, then their vote is "wasted". It doesn't count toward electing a winner. Some alternative electoral systems address this problem.

WTA (Winner-Take All)
"Winner-take-all" is a term used to describe "single member district" and "at large" electoral systems (listed above) that award seats to the highest vote getters without ensuring fair representation for minority groups.

Single winner districts, under winner-take-all rules, allows a slim majority of voters, 55%, to have 100% of the representation, leaving everyone else effectively without representation. Result is under-representation of women, communities of color, third parties, young people, and voters stuck in areas where their voice/representation is diminished.

Opposite of "Proportional Result" which provides for majority rule with minority representation. See "proportional result" above.

Since many geographical areas are dominated by a single political viewpoint, in partisan elections, winner- take-all voting systems will often result in no-choice elections, in which one party has a permanent monopoly on power, and the winner is effectively predetermined. (over 90% of Congressional districts in the House of Representatives)
Submitted by: LWV of Sacramento County. For more information or questions, contact:

Action Chair Paula Lee
Meredith, Alyssa
From: David Gordon
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 2:53 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Fw: RE: 4-11-23 Public Hearing / 2 Letters to City Council / Proposed District-Based Voting
Attachments: Public.Hearing defect.District.Based. Voting.4-9-23.docx; Public.Hearing. District.Based. Voting.DWG.comments.4-9-23.doc CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please confirm this message has been received and will be presented to the Council.

Thank you........
-- Forwarded Message
From: David W Gordon
To: Kimberley Clark <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 at 02:23:56 PM PDT
Subject: RE: 4-11-23 Public Hearing / 2 Letters to City Council / Proposed District-Based Voting Good afternoon Kimberley:

Please find attached two letters I wish to submit to the City Council for its consideration during the upcoming 4/11/23 Public Hearing concerning the proposed change to District-Based voting.

1. First Communication: Concerns about a potential defective public hearing.

2. Second Communication: Contains questions and concerns I have about proposed changes to District-Based voting.

I understand that the City Attorney is in the process of replying to my letter of April 7 to the Council. I have not yet received his reply.

Question: Will my April 7 letter and the City Attorney's reply be made part of the public record for the upcoming Public Hearing?
If not by default, I would specifically request that my April 7 letter be made part of the public record for the upcoming Public Hearing.

Can you please clarify what I must do in order to remotely view Tuesday night's Council meeting? Thank you very much,
David Gordon
1 Comments from David Gordon
To be entered into the Public Record for
Item H. Special Public Hearing on District-Based Elections To be held by Burbank's City Council on Tuesday April 11, 2023 April 10, 2023
Honorable Council Members:

I will be separately submitting a number of questions and concerns I have regarding the proposed transition of Burbank's long established, successful At-Large electoral process to that of a District-Based voting system.

However, before submitting my comments, I wish to point out what appears to be an inaccurate and highly misleading statement contained within the "BACKGROUND" section of the staff report which may render this Public Hearing legally defective with respect to the requirement for the process to be fair and unbiased.

Specifically, the following statement is included in the second sentence of the BACKGROUND section in this April 11, 2023 Public Hearing's staff report (bold/italics/underlined for emphasis):

On January 24, 2023, Council adopted a
Resolution of Intent to Initiate a Transition to District Elections.....

Per Oxford Dictionary: "initiate"
:To cause (a process or action) to begin
The actual wording of Resolution No. 23-29,395 adopted by the Council on January 24, 2023 reads as follows (bold/italics/underlined for emphasis):

The City Council hereby resolves to consider adoption of an ordinance, as authorized by Government Code Section 34886 and consistent with Elections Code Section 10010, to transition to a district-based election system Per Oxford Dictionary: "consider"
To think carefully about (something), typically before making a decision Words and their meaning make a difference. I assert that this wording, intentional or not, is fundamentally misleading to the public, and the Council, which can easily be interpreted to mean the Council has already resolved "...to initiate a Transition to District Elections..." rather than its actual action resolving "... to consider adoption of an ordinance...to transition to a district-based election system..." I have included excerpts (bold/italics added) from the subject staff reports and Resolution for reference.

January 24, 2023
RESOLUTION NO. 23-29,395
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Burbank declares, directs and orders as follows:

1. The City Council hereby resolves to consider adoption of an ordinance, as authorized by Government Code Section 34886 and consistent with Elections Code Section 10010, to transition to a district-based election system for use in the City's General Municipal Election for City Council members beginning in November 2024.

DATE: April 11, 2023
Item H. Special Public Hearing
TO: Justin Hess, City Manager
FROM: Joseph H. McDougall, City Attorney
BY: Jill Vander Borght, Senior Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: Second Public Hearing Regarding the Composition of Districts for the City's Transition to District-Based City Council Elections

RECOMMENDATION
Note and file.

BACKGROUND
On August 23, 2022, the City received a notice of a potential violation of the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) on behalf of a Latino voter in the City of Burbank, Mr. Nick Gutierrez. (Elec. Code §§14027-14032.) On January 24, 2023, Council adopted a Resolution of Intent to Initiate a Transition to District Elections, which triggered a 90-day safe harbor period from litigation. The Council also authorized staff in paragraph 3 of the Resolution to retain National Demographics Corporation (NDC), proven expert demographers serving local governments in California in successful districting, Should the Council decide this Public Hearing is defective and will need to be re-noticed, I would request that my subsequent comments be included for the rescheduled Public Hearing.

Comments from David Gordon
To be entered into the Public Record for
Item H. Special Public Hearing on District-Based Elections To be held by Burbank's City Council on Tuesday April 11, 2023 I attended the Informational Meeting on this item held on Saturday, April 8. A total of about ten to fifteen members of the public were in attendance along with the City Attorney, supporting staff and retained consultants. Neither the information provided by staff and consultants during this required meeting nor the public's questions or concerns were recorded. When I inquired as to why no recording was being made, I was told it was due to budgetary restraints. There was a total of five-six public speakers. Staff announced at the outset speakers would each be allowed one minute speaking time.

QUESTIONS

1. Prior to taking action on this item on January 24, 2023, or since, has the Council been provided with unequivocal historical, demographic and/or legal evidence that Burbank "...has precluded a protected class from exercising the power it would otherwise have to meaningfully influence the outcome of elections if the at- large system had not been adopted?"

2. Prior to taking action on this item on January 24, 2023, or since, has the Council been provided with unequivocal historical, demographic and/or legal evidence that Burbank's At-Large electoral system ever resulted in favor to one party or class?

3. Has the Council obtained any indication by polling or other manner of public input that the electors of this City have been generally informed about this historic change to be imposed upon them by this action and support it?

4. Has the Council received information about this behind closed doors, and from whom, that has not been disclosed to the public?

5. Why is the City taking the draconian step to change our fair and long successful voting system when no credible evidence whatsoever has been presented indicating that Burbank's At-Large voting practices have not violated the CVRA or any other provision of law?
CONCERNS:

1. The public has been generally unaware of these dramatic historical changes being proposed for Burbank's At-Large voting system. There has been insufficient public outreach enabling Burbank voters to voice their support or opposition for taking such unprecedented action. City publicity put out has been more akin to an enthusiastic welcoming of the "transition" rather than providing objective information and seeking public input.

2. RESOLUTION NO. 23-29,395 adopted by the Council on January 24, 2023, included the following caveat (bold/italics added for emphasis):

WHEREAS, the City has a long history of electing persons of Latino background to its City Council and therefore the City does not believe that its election system violates the CVRA or any other provision of law and asserts that Burbank's election system is legal in all respects;
For the past 112 years, since Burbank's founding, no information appears to have surfaced contradicting the City Attorney's belief.

3. At the April 8, Informational Meeting the City Attorney indicated that in the event there were no candidates seeking election in a designated district the other Council Members would "appoint" a Council Member to fill that vacant position.

Those responsible for such an appointment to a City Council seat would be taking action affecting all Burbank voters not living within their respective districts without any accountability to those district voters whatsoever.

4. Should a District-Based voting system be adopted rather than enhance governmental representation for any "protected class," it would potentially disenfranchise ALL of Burbank's voters from the five Council member representation they have enjoyed since the founding of this City. Should three or more District elected Council members adopt a policy adverse to a particular District not represented by the Council majority a situation would exist of non- representative government which would be anathema to American values and democracy, if not unconstitutional. The concept that governmental control without representation amounts to tyranny and was among the triggers leading to the American Revolution.

5. Council has been advised that the City risked incurring significant costs to fight against the threatened litigation. However, this would not be the first time Burbank's Council has authorized substantial amounts of money for legal defense. One of the most dramatic instances being a threatened "Consent Decree" over allegations of excessive use of force and misconduct within Burbank's Police Department. The cost of legal defense is an important consideration, but it should not be the overriding driver to forfeit generations of the current At-Large, successful, fair and legal electoral process for all groups.

6. The nature of Politics under the District-Based model could well result in a simple Council majority controlling all governmental decisions without having accountability to residents living outside of their respective districts. This is more akin to government by Junta rather than democracy and should be fought.

7. The City's public outreach efforts to invite residents to submit their ideas on how new districts should be adopted, heavily emphasizing the use of computer technology to do so, seems to overlook the fact that many of Burbank's voters are senior citizens who may not be adept at using computer programs and graphics. This already potentially precludes input from this large, if not "protected," class of Burbank voters.

OPINION:

1. The allegation that Burbank's At-Large electoral system is in violation of the CVRA appears to be without credible legal merit and should be fought.

2. The Council's reaction to obtain a temporary "safe harbor" from litigation by considering an unwarranted and harmful transition to a District-Based electoral system amounts to appeasement of a single individual having questionable motives. Had the British government pursued such a strategy at the outset of World War Il, they would be speaking German in London today.

3. The irony of the proposed transition to District-Based voting will be that a so called "protected class's" established neighborhoods/communities are more likely to be divided and fractured by this district proposal diminishing their electoral strength instead of increasing their ability to obtain the intended enhanced representation.

4. Transitioning from Burbank's current, long successful At-Large voting system to District- Based voting is fraught with potential conflicts and voter disenfranchisement.

5. There is no evidence of broad based public awareness of support of the proposed change to District-Based voting.

6. What is needed of the City Council as they cope with this threatened litigation is political courage, steadfast determination and a willingness to fight for what is right and in the best interests of the people they represent, not capitulation.

Respectfully submitted,
David Gordon
Former Councilmember and Mayor
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Rita Zwern
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 5:36 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Public Hearing - Districts
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

As a resident of Burbank and a member of the League of Women Voters of Greater Los Angeles, I would like to lend support to the proposal that the City of Burbank explore Proportional Ranked Choice Voting as a means of strengthening the influence of minorities in our community. I believe that this would be an acceptable alternative to the division of Burbank into separate districts for the same purpose.

Rita Zwern
Burbank, CA 91501
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Jared Cavagnuolo
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 1:04 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Second Public Hearing Regarding the Composition of Districts for the City's Transition to District-Based City Council Elections
Attachments: Communities of interest data.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable Members of Council,
My name is Jared Cavagnuolo. I'm a Burbank resident and a master's student in social work. And it's because of that profession's commitment to social justice that I'm commenting on the issue of switching from at-large to district elections.

At the March 14th public hearing, in describing how the demographic data on the cover sheet of the attached packet can be used to define communities of interest, the city's districting consultant stated, "each map that you get will have all of this data for each of the districts."
From what I can tell from a substantial amount of time spent with the city's DRA mapping tool and its accompanying instructional materials, that statement was clearly not intended for residents who want to use the tool to draw district maps. Aside from political affiliation, which we are instructed to ignore, the only demographic information that DRA provides is population by race.

This is a problem because we are also instructed that race cannot be the predominant factor in drawing district maps, despite the fact that the entire point of the California Voting Rights Act is to increase racial minority representation in local government, making race the predominant factor in the current lawsuit calling upon the city to create districts. If this were not the case, why would the city have explicitly identified the race of the plaintiff in its outreach materials distributed at the community forums about this issue?
In creating district maps, residents are therefore not only essentially being asked to promote racial equity without focusing on racial demographics but also not provided with data showing how race intersects with a variety of other factors to define communities of interest more precisely. I created the maps in the attached packet by cross-referencing DRA, Census, and EPA data to show some of these intersections among racial, socioeconomic, and environmental indicators that affect several vulnerable populations: People of Color, low-income households, communities affected by environmental injustice, renters, and people who do not speak English at home.

Given that communities of interest are often united by the shared impact of city policy, it seems important for residents to see how current and historical housing and environmental policies have resulted in all parts of the city in which People of Color constitute at least 70% of the population being both majority renter and among the city's most heavily pollution-burdened areas. Or that 71% of these most pollution-burdened areas also have higher than average populations of people who do not speak English at home. Or that renters, who despite constituting nearly 60% of the city population are proportionally underrepresented on council and severely underrepresented on the landlord-tenant commission, make up the majority of residents in areas in which at least 40% of households are low-income and the median household income is below $50,000. As the maps indicate, many Burbank residents are members of more than one community of interest, which are not necessarily geographically concentrated.

If the city truly seeks residents' input in developing potential district maps, it must provide them with one tool that presents a complete picture of all underrepresented populations in Burbank and the intersections among them.

Furthermore, the city must be transparent about the effect of its targeted outreach to these historically underrepresented communities by publicly sharing how many members of such communities attend outreach events and how many draft maps are created as a result of them. Only by taking such steps can the city ensure that the districting process serves its intended purpose of promoting equity for all communities of interest.

I was able to create the attached maps in my free time. It is therefore reasonable that paid city staffers or consultants could provide even more comprehensive data to help residents make informed decisions when drawing district maps.

Otherwise, this attempt at soliciting public involvement in the districting process becomes little more than an elegant and expensive paint-by-numbers exercise, and we risk letting lines on a map determine the identity of our communities, rather than giving their residents that power.

Sincerely,
Jared Cavagnuolo
2 Burbank Demographic Summary
Category Field Total Category Field Total
2020 Census Total Population 107,550 age0-19 21%
Hispanic/Latino 24% Age age20-60 58%
NH White 56% age60plus 22%
Total Pop. NH Black 3% immigrants 29%
- Immigration
NH Asian/Pac.Isl. 15% naturalized 70%
NH Native Amer. 1% english 60%
Total 74,965 Language spoken at spanish 14%
Hisp 21% home asian-lang 8%
NH White 62% other lang 19%
Citizen Voting Age Speaks Eng.

Pop NH Black 4% Language Fluency "Less than Very 14%
Well"
Asian/Pac.Isl. 12% hs-grad 49%
Native Amer. 1% Education (among
bachelor 30%
those age 25+)
Total 72,669 graduatedegree 14%
Latino est. 21% Child in Household child-under18 25%
Spanish-Surnamed 19% Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 67%
Voter Registration
Asian-Sumnamed 4% income 0-25k 18%
(Nov 2020)
Filipino-Surnamed 2% income 25-50k 14%
NH White est. 70% Household Income income 50-75k 14%
NH Black 4% income 75-200k 40%
Total 57,953 income 200k-plus 14%
Latino est. 20% single family 50%
Spanish-Surnamed 19% multi-family 50%
Voter Turnout Housing Stats
Asian-Sumamed 4% rented 57%
(Nov 2020)
Filipino-Surnamed 2% owned 43%
NH White est. 70%
NH Black 3% Total population data from California's adjusted Total 39,623 2020 Census data. Citizen Voting Age
Population, Age, Immigration, and other
Latino est. 19% demographics from the 2017-2021 American Spanish-Surnamed 18% Community Survey and 2016-2020 Special Voter Turnout
Asian-Surnamed 4% Tabulation 5-year data. Turnout and
(Nov 2018)
Filipino-Sumamed 2% Registration data from California Statewide NH White est. 72% Database. "Latino" figures calculated by NDC using Census Bureau's Latino undercount by
NH Black est. 3% surname estimate
Renter-Occupied Housing & Race/Ethnicity
Precincts with Majority Renter-
Occupied Housing Units* Percentage People of Color*
Blue = 25-40% Yellow = 55-70%
Purple = 40-55% Red = 70% or above
* = Majority renter-occupied
*Data from U.S. EPA EJScreen *Data from U.S. EPA EJScreen 100% of precincts that are at least 70% People of Color are majority renter. 59% of precincts that are at least 55% People of Color are majority renter. 50% of precincts that are at least 40% People of Color are majority renter.

In 79% of majority renter precincts, People of Color make up at least 25% of the population.

In 55% of majority renter precincts, People of Color make up at least 40% of the population.

Percentage Latino CAP**
Blue = 15-19%
Green = 19-23%
Red = 23% or above Latino CVAP is proportional to the citywide average (19-23%) in only 10 precincts (shown in
green), which are scattered throughout the city.
50% of these precincts are majority renter.

Latino CVAP is greater than the citywide
average in 23 precincts (shown in red) - nearly
one-third of the city). These precincts are mostly
concentrated near the airport and along I-5,
with some outliers. 57% of these precincts are
majority renter.

Latino voters are over-represented in 34% of
majority renter precincts.
* = Majority renter-occupied
**Citywide average Latino CVAP = 21.4%
Renter-Occupied Housing, Income, & Race/Ethnicity
Percentage of Low-Income
Households*
Purple = 20-30%
Yellow = 30-40%
Red = 40% or above 100% of precincts with at least 40% low- income households are majority renter.
95% of precincts with at least 30% low-
income households are majority renter.

In 79% of majority renter precincts, at least
20% of households are low-income.
* In 55% of majority renter precincts, at least
30% of households are low-income.
* = Majority renter-occupied Precincts with Household
*Data from U.S. EPA EJScreen Income Below City Median
Yellow = Below $82,246**
Red - Below $50,000
84% of precincts with household income
below the city median are majority renter.
100% of precincts with median household
* *
income below $50,000 are majority renter. *
* **
In 68% of majority renter precincts,
*
household income is below the city median.

Percentage People of Color * = Majority renter-occupied **Median household income according to 2021 U.S. Census data Blue = 25-40% Yellow = 55-70%
Purple = 40-55% Red = 70% or above
In 80% of the precincts with the highest
percentage of People of Color, at least
30% of households are low-income. These
precincts are all majority renter.
83% of the precincts with median
household income below $50,000 are at
least 40% People of Color. These precincts
are all majority renter.
63% of the precincts with household
income below the citv median are at least
40% People of Color. 74% of these
precincts are majority renter.
* = Majority renter-occupied
Renter-Occupied Housing & Environmental Justice
Precincts with Majority Renter-
Occupied Housing Units
71% of the most pollution-
urdened precincts (at least 6 E
ndexes within 80-100%ile) al
majority renter.
62% of precincts within 80-100%ile
A for at least 3 EJ indexes are
majority renter.
45% of majority renter precincts
are are among the most pollution-
burdened precincts in the city.
61% of majority renter precincts
are within 80-100%ile for at least 1
EJ index.

A = 80-100%ile on at least 1 EJ index*
A = 80-100%ile on at least 3 EJ indexes
A = 80-100%ile on at least 6 EJ indexes
*There are 12 EJ indexes in EJScreen reflecting 12 environmental indicators, combined with socioeconomic information. The environmental indicators are:
• Particulate Matter 2.5
• Diesel Particulate Matter
• Air Toxics Cancer Risk
• Air Toxics Respiratory Hazard Index
• Traffic Proximity
• Risk Management Plan Facility Proximity
• Hazardous Waste Proximity
• Superfund Proximity
• Underground Storage Tanks
• Wastewater Discharge
The Ed index highlights block groups with the highest intersection of low-income populations, people of olor, and a given environmental indicator. To calculate a single EJ index for one block group. EJScreer multiplies the environmental indicator by socioeconomic information. This socioeconomic information includes percent low-income and percent people of color (as the demographic index). Higher percentile scores on an index indicates a higher pollution burden.

Source: US EPA EJScreen: Environmental Justice Screening & Mapping Tool (https://www.epa.gov/ ejscreen/ej-and-supplemental-indexes-ejscreen)
Race/Ethnicity, Income, & Environmental Justice
Percentage People of Color
Blue = 25-40%
Purple = 40-55%
Yellow = 55-70% All precincts that are at least 70%
Red = 70% or above
People of Color are among the
most pollution-burdened
precincts in the city.

A
A 82% of precincts that are at least
55% People of Color are among
the most pollution-burdened
precincts in the city.
58% of the most pollution-
burdened precincts are majority
People of Color.

All precincts within 80-100%ile for
at least 3 EJ indexes are at least
40% People of Color.

All precincts within 80-100%ile for
at least 1 EJ index are at least
= 80-100%ile on at least 1 EJ index 25% People of Color.

Д = 80-100%ile on at least 3 EJ indexes
= 80-100%ile on at least 6 EJ indexes
Percentage of Low-Income Households
Purple = 20-30%
Yellow = 30-40%
Red = 40% or above
60% of precincts with the highest
percentage of low-income
households are among the most
pollution-burdened precincts in
the city.
73% of precincts with at least 30%
A low-income households ar
among the most pollution-
burdened precincts in the city.
67% of the most pollution-
A burdened precincts have at least
30% low-income households.
83% of the most pollution-
burdened precincts have at least
20% low-income households.

A = 80-100%ile on at least 1 EJ index
Д = 80-100%ile on at least 3 EJ indexes
A = 80-100%ile on at least 6 EJ indexes
Non-English Spoken at Home, Income, & Environmental Justice Percentage People of Color Percentage Latino CAP
Purple = 20-30% Blue = 15-19%
Yellow = 30-40% Green = 19-23%
Red = 40% or above Red = 23% or above
• - High % non-English at home* • = High % non-English at home* *Above citywide average of 40% *Above citywide average of 40% 60% of precincts with the highest percentage of low-income households have a high percentage of people who do not speak English at home.
61% of precincts in which a high percentage of people do not speak English at home have at least 20% low-income households.
74% of precincts in which Latino CVAP is greater than the citywide average have a high percentage of people who do not speak English at home.

Precincts with High Percentage of People Who Do Not Speak English at Home *
* *
*
*
**
= 80-100%ile on at least 1 EJ index* *
A = 80-100%ile on at least 3 EJ indexes
A = 80-100%ile on at least 6 EJ indexes * = Majority renter-occupied 71% of the most pollution-burdened precincts have a high percentage of people who do not speak English at home.
67% of precincts in which a high percentage of people do not speak English at home are within 80-100%ile for at least 1 EJ index.
47% of precincts in which a high percentage of people do not speak English at home are majority renter.

Meredith, Alyssa
From: eric
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 8:10 PM
To: Schultz, Nick; Anthony, Konstantine
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Voting System Reform - Burbank
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Councilmembers,
My name is Eric Carter. I think you both know me.

Mr. Anthony, I was speaking with Mr. Schultz today about voting system reform for Burbank. I believe you and I have discussed this before. I remember you were on board, depending on what system we are talking about. As I mentioned to Mr. Schultz, I believe our new city council will be by far more receptive to reform. Sometime in 2017 and 2018 | had an exchange with ZMullins about reforming our voting system. Sadly, the response I got from her is that the county can't do it. I contacted the county and they said they could do it, provided that there was a change in the municipal code that instructed them that Burbank wanted something different. What I was looking at was for Burbank for local elections (city council, school board, city treasurer, city clerk), to use an IRV/RCV/STV voting system, to where voters can rank their candidates.

This November, several more municipalities have passed measures to bring in that type of voting system. Close by was the City of Ojai, with Measure M. It is passing at the moment with about 56% of the vote. Here is the text of the ballot question:

Shall the voters authorize, at the discretion of the City Council, the use of ranked choice voting, also known as instant runoff voting and allowing voters to rank candidates for elected office in order of preference, to elect City offices at-large, thereby amending the Ojai Municipal Code to no longer elect City Council members by district, if the City Council implements it starting with the November 2024 general election? I would love for us to work together to bring about this kind of change for a ballot measure for 2024 to put into place for 2026.

I will search for those emails from 2018 with Ms. Mullins, FairVote, and the county registrar that I had. The FairVote had even spoke to the LA County Registrar back in 2018 at a state conference and he said that if Burbank wanted to do it, he would have to make it happen.

I will be forwarding various other emails that I find. I will begin my search. I will also reach out in a separate email to Ms. Perez and Ms. Takahashi, along with Ms. Clark about this.

I should add that a friend of mine made a presentation many years ago to the Burbank city council when they were rewriting their charter. In the end, the council at that time voted or decided against a new voting system for Burbank. So, this is not something new to be presented to Burbank. 1 Thank you for your time and sorry if this email is a bit long and disjointed. I just wanted to get this out to you sooner than later so that we can begin the conversation and get moving on this. O Cheers!
Eric Carter
2 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Eric Carter
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 8:38 PM
To: [email protected]; Anthony, Konstantine
Cc:

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fw: Rob or Grace -- is anyone from FairVote CA working on Burbank? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

BOOM!! Here it is. The message from Dean Logan himself at a conference. So, we can do it, as long as there is language. Folks.....we can do this.

I have also written to the Ojai City Clerk for the full text of the law of Measure M. When I receive that, I will forward it on.

P.S., when replying, please use my personal email address: [email protected] Cheers!
Eric
From: Jennifer Pae
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 2:42 PM
To: Eric Carter
Cc: Rob Richie Lynne Serpe ; Grace Ramsey
Chris Hughes
Subject: Re: Rob or Grace -- is anyone from FairVote CA working on Burbank? Hi folks,
Just an update, I'm at the Future of California Elections conference and got a chance to chat with Dean Logan. He said he's not opposed to having ranked choice voting enabled in the new voting equipment, he just needs regulatory language. So what he's basically saying is if a city requires it, then that's the carrot/stick for them to get the machines ready. Since SF and Alameda county has already done this and gotten approval from the Secretary of State's office, then there's already precedent. He just needs it in law (i.e. Ballot measure passage) to then give him the legal cover to move forward. It was a positive conversation and the door is definitely open.

Speaking of which, is there interest in Burbank? We have sample statute language and ballot measure language available.

Thanks!
Jenn
1 Jennifer S. Pae
On Mar 5, 2018, at 3:00 PM, Jennifer Pae > wrote:

Thanks for the introduction and all of your hard work! We've been in conversations with Redondo Beach to figure out options, just like you outlined with the challenges with the primary elections being moved and folks wanting to move to ranked choice voting to eliminate the primary elections all together.

Attached are the options we provided to the folks in Redondo Beach, ideally, we would like to be able to move Dean and his staff to upgrade their new voting systems to be able to run RCV elections. We'll need to continue to put political pressure on them, if they see a need, they'll have to make the upgrades.

Furthermore, the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center has the technology open sourced, their RCV universal tabulator should be able to be seamlessly integrated into their new voting equipment. More info is attached.

From what we gathered, we need to continue to have conversations with the 6 charter cities in LA that have two rounds of elections that can go to this system (Burbank, Compton, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Pasadena, and Redondo Beach). If all, or enough cities, contact Dean Logan, then we should have some more traction.

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Eric Carter < wrote:

Hello all,
I have spoken to the county and they state that they are unable to do this. I have attached a letter that they sent to the City of Redondo Beach that was looking to do IRV or some other type of ranked voting. I did mention that San Francisco is using a similar system and I was told that they had received special permission from the Secretary of State.

Just to make sure people know, in no way do I represent the school district in this matter. I am just researching information to bring to the school board to see if we can make this happen. I have not been asked by the school board to do this. I am just an individual and not an official representative. That being said, l am on good terms with the superintendent and the board and if I have something to bring to them, they will listen.

Thank you,
Eric Carter C
From: Rob Richie [mailto
Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 1:17 PM
To: Lynne Serpe
Cc: Eric Carter Grace Ramsey - Jennifer Pae
Subject: Re: Rob or Grace -- is anyone from FairVote CA working on Burbank? Good to hear from you, and good to connect with Eric!
I've added Jenn Pae with FairVote California to the thread. I know this is on her radio screen to some degree.
best,
Rob
2 On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Lynne Serpe wrote:

Hi Rob, Grace (and Eric)
My friend Eric works for the Burbank school district, which is at-large. Burbank is going to be moving their elections to be concurrent with state elections and he was thinking it might be a good time to convince them to move to STV.

Is there someone you can connect him with in CA?
I haven't really met your CA folks or else I would email them.

THANKS
Lynne

NNNNNNNNNN
Rob Richie
Executive Director, FairVote
Takoma Park, MD 20912
Thank you for considering a donation. Enjoy our video on ranked choice voting! (Note: Our Combined Federal Campaign number is 10132.)
Jennifer S. Pae
Director, FairVote California
<Redondo Beach Option 3 Costs 3-2-2018. pdf>
<Redondo Beach Options 2-6-2018.docx>
<Bay Area Runoff Costs FINAL.pdf>
3 Meredith, Alyssa
From: eric ericisonline.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2022 12:12 PM
To: Schultz, Nick; Anthony, Konstantine
Subject: Fw: Measure M
Attachments: Resolution No. 22-45 Ranked Choice Voting Ballot Measure.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello gentlemen,
Attached, you will find the resolution that City of Ojai placed on the ballot for Nov. 2022. The measure passed. Perhaps Burbank can use this for language for their measure except that we will be districts and not at large. I hope this helps the process.

Cheers!
e.

From: Weston Montgomery
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 9:55 AM
To: eric ericisonline.com <
Subject: RE: Measure M
Eric,
Thank you for requesting a record regarding Measure M. This is a readily available public record and I have attached it to this email in pdf form. You may also find this record, Resolution No. 22-45, on our City Council Resolutions webpage at:
https://ojai.ca.gov/resolutions/#gsc.tab=0 If you need any assistance in accessing this, please let me know.

Sincerely,
Weston B Montgomery
Interim Deputy City Clerk & Records Manager
City of Ojai | Ojai, Ca 93023
From: eric ericisonline.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 8:19 PM
To: Weston Montgomery
Subject: Measure M
Hello,
I am wondering if you can send me a pdf of the full text of Measure M. We are considering doing this exact same thing for the City of Burbank. We would like to see the language of the new law that was passed and see how that would work with our Burbank Municipal Code.

Thank you,
Eric Carter
2 City of Ojai
City Council Resolution No. 22-45

CITY OF OJAI
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 22-45

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF OJAI, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE SUBMISSION

TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF A

MEASURE RELATING TO WHETHER TO ALLOW A

TRANSITION TO ELECTING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

CITYWIDE BY RANKED CHOICE VOTING RATHER

THAN BY DISTRICT BEGINNING WITH THE NOVEMBER
2024 ELECTION AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8,
2022, AS CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 22-31
WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 8, 2022 has been called for the City of Ojai by Resolution No. 22-31, adopted on June 14, 2022, and WHEREAS, the City Council also desires to submit to the voters at the election one question relating to how City Council members are elected;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OJAI, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Recitals. All of the foregoing recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2. General Municipal Election. Under Elections Code sections 324 and 10201, the City Council of the City of Ojai hereby calls and notices a General Municipal Election to be held on November 8, 2022, to submit the following measure to the voters:

Shall the voters authorize, at the discretion of the City Council, the use of ranked choice voting, also known as instant runoff voting and allowing voters to rank candidates YES for elected office in order of preference, to elect City offices at-large, thereby amending the Ojai Municipal
Code to no longer elect City Council members by district, if the City Council implements it starting with the
November 2024 general election? NO
City Council Resolution No. 22-45

Page 1 of 4 ends

City of Ojai
City Council Resolution No. 22-45
SECTION 3. That the vote requirement for the measure to pass is a majority (50%+1) of the votes cast. If this measure is adopted and a measure repealing Measure A and returning to an appointed Mayor is adopted by the City's voters, then the ranked choice voting process shall apply, if implemented by the City Council, to all five City Council Members [four-year-term], the City Clerk, and the City Treasurer, each elected at-large via a ranked choice voting system. If this measure is adopted and a measure repealing Measure A and returning to an appointed Mayor is not adopted by the City's voters, then the ranked choice voting process shall apply, if implemented by the City Council, to the elected Mayor [two-year-term] and the four City Council Members [four-year-term], the City Clerk, and the City Treasurer, each to be elected at-large via a ranked choice voting system. If the voters decide, by majority vote, to adopt this measure, then the transition to a ranked choice voting procedure may take effect with the November 2024 general election, if implemented by the City Council, and the City Council may adopt a resolution implementing a ranked choice voting process, consistent with applicable law.

SECTION 4. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.

SECTION 5. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law.

SECTION 6. Implementation. The City Clerk is directed to file with the Ventura County Board of Supervisors certified copies of this Resolution, with a copy to the Ventura Count legistrar of Voters, pursuant to Elections Code section 10403. The City Clerk is further authorize and directed to perform all other acts necessary or required by law to implement this Resolution and related to the election.

SECTION 7. Impartial Analysis. The City Clerk shall transmit a copy of the Measure to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the Measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the Measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure, and transmit such impartial analysis to the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the adoption of this Resolution.

SECTION 8. Ballot Arguments. Any and all members of the City Council are hereby authorized to prepare a written argument in favor of the measure on behalf of the City Council, not to exceed 300 words, as specified in section 9282 of the California Elections Code. Arguments against the Measure may not exceed 300 words and must be submitted to the City Clerk in compliance with sections 9282 and 9283 of the California Elections Code by the deadline established by the City Clerk.

City Council Resolution No. 22-45

Page 2 of 4 ends

City of Ojai
City Council Resolution No. 22-45
SECTION 9. Rebuttal Arguments. Under Elections Code Section 9285, when the elections official has selected the arguments for and against the measure, not exceeding 300 words each, which will be printed and distributed to the voters, the elections official shall send a copy of an argument in favor of the proposition to the authors of the selected argument against the measure and a copy of an argument against the measure to the authors of the selected argument in favor of the measure immediately upon receiving the arguments.

The author or a majority of the authors of an argument relating to a City measure may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument not exceeding 250 words or may authorize in writing any other person or persons to prepare, submit, or sign the rebuttal argument. A rebuttal argument may not be signed by more than five authors. The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the City Clerk, signed, with the printed name(s) and signatures(s) of the authors) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers, not more than 10 days. after the final date for filing direct arguments. The rebuttal arguments shall be accompanied by the Form of Statement To Be Filed By Authors) of Argument, available upon request from the City Clerk. Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct arguments. Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument which it seeks to rebut.

SECTION 10. Environmental Determination. The City Council determines this Resolution is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Pursuant to section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The calling and noticing of a General Municipal Election is not a project within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 15378, subsection (b)(3).

SECTION 11. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.

City Council Resolution No. 22-45

Page 3 of 4 ends

City of Ojai
City Council Resolution No. 22-45
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of July, 2022 by the following vote:

Blatz, Francina, Weirick
NOES: Haney, Stix
ABSTAIN:

ABSENT: None

CITY OF OJAI, CALIFORNIA
By:

Betsy Stix, Mayor/
728/22
Date signed
ATTEST:

Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Matthew T. Summers
City Attorney
City Council Resolution No. 22-45

Page 4 of 4 ends

Meredith, Alyssa
From: Kevin Muldoon
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 3:51 PM
To:

Cc: Anthony, Konstantine; Schultz, Nick; Takahashi, Tamala; Perez, Nikki; Mullins, Zizette; Clark, Kimberley
Subject: Re: RCV - Ranked Choice Voting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Eric
Trying to get time to write a longer response. But quickly we on the Charter Review Committee discussed rank voting.

Quick answer our elections are run by the county. They are not prepared or planning on changing. As far as district voting Burbank does not fit the model l'Il elaborate later.

Kevin Muldoon
Sent from the field forgive typos
On Jan 18, 2023, at 3:43 PM, eric ericisonline.com • wrote:

Hello everyone,
I just wanted to follow up with some additional information that may be helpful as well as a small correction.

Correction: FairVote California has turned over the RCV work to the California Ranked Choice Voting Coalition (CaRCV): https://www.calrcv.org/
I also wanted to provide you with a list of California jurisdictions that are currently using RCV as well as those that are working on RCV for their communities:

In Use:
• Albany (proportional RCV)
Berkeley
Oakland
Palm Desert
San Francisco
San Leandro
• Upcoming Use (2024)
Eureka
• Possible use in future elections:

Davis
1 Ojai
• Active Campaigns:

Redondo Beach
• Santa Clara County
Nationally, two states have switched to RCV, Alaska and Maine. Here is a map that shows other places around the country that have moved to RCV: https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked- choice-voting-information/#where-is-ranked-choice-voting-used CalRCV is available to come to a board meeting to make a presentation. However, I am not certain how something like that gets agendized
I have been speaking to members of the Burbank Board of Education and they are also very interested in transitioning to RCV.

Thank you and please do not hesitate to reach out should you wish to have further information or perhaps participate in a "Zoom" meeting with a representative from CaRCV to informally get more information.

Eric Carter
From: eric
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 5:09 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Schultz, Nick <[email protected]>; [email protected]<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected]<[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>;
Subject: RCV - Ranked Choice Voting
Hello Burbank City Council Members, City Clerk, and Mr. Muldoon, I understand the city is having to transition from our at-large, citywide district to the creation of single-member districts. As I casually discussed with a couple of city council members, | ask that the city also consider transitioning to Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), vs. that standard winner take all, plurality voting system.

As jurisdictions throughout the US, including many in California, have been transitioning to RCV, it has proven time and time again to be a more democratic voting system. Many countries around the world have been using voting systems like RCV for decades, such as Australia, Ireland, and Scotland. They just use different names such as preference voting or instant run- off voting.

I began this discussion in the spring of 2018 with the previous city clerk. Now that the city is having to make some changes, it appears that this is the right time to include this with the changes that are ahead. Dean Logan, the LA County Registrar of Voters, stated at the 2018 Future of California Elections conference, that he can make it happen, as long as the jurisdiction provides him the language for it.
2 FairVote is the main organization that has been leading the charge across the country. They already have the language that is needed for the county for the change. They can provide it for you. I should also mention that most of the BUSD School Board that I have spoken to are very interested in making this change too.

I have included a simple video here from FairVote so that you can see how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z2fRPRkWvY
If you would like someone from FairVote to come make a presentation to the city council, I will be happy to assist in facilitating that. You may also review them on their website: https://fairvote.org/
Using RCV will also make it to be unnecessary to have a costly primary election. Plus, when you have RCV, the need or desire to have term limits is also eliminated because incumbents must still win with 50% of the vote, as they are no longer able to win with a simple plurality.

Lastly, I have attached the new law that was passed by voters in Ojai this past November. They just voted in to have RCV. They are the first jurisdiction in Ventura County to do so. However, their language eliminates districts and moves them to one at-large district. Regardless, it is a reference that may be of use to Burbank.

Feel free to contact me should you have any questions.

Thank you,
Eric Carter
Meredith, Alyssa
From: eric
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 3:44 PM
To: Anthony, Konstantine; Schultz, Nick; Takahashi, Tamala; Perez, Nikki; Mullins, Zizette Cc: Clark, Kimberley; I
Subject: Re: RCV - Ranked Choice Voting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello everyone,
I just wanted to follow up with some additional information that may be helpful as well as a small correction.

Correction: FairVote California has turned over the RCV work to the California Ranked Choice Voting Coalition (CaIRCV): https://www.calrcv.org/
I also wanted to provide you with a list of California jurisdictions that are currently using RCV as well as those that are working on RCV for their communities:
• In Use:

Albany (proportional RCV)
• Berkeley
Oakland
Palm Desert
• San Francisco
• San Leandro
• Upcoming Use (2024)
o Eureka
• Possible use in future elections:
o Davis
• Ojai
• Active Campaigns:
• Redondo Beach
Santa Clara County
Nationally, two states have switched to RCV, Alaska and Maine. Here is a map that shows other places around the country that have moved to RV: https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting= information/#where-is-ranked-choice-voting-used
CaIRCV is available to come to a board meeting to make a presentation. However, I am not certain how something like that gets agendized.

I have been speaking to members of the Burbank Board of Education and they are also very interested in transitioning to RCV.

Eric Carter
From: eric
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 5:09 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Schultz, Nick <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected]<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>;
Subject: RCV - Ranked Choice Voting
Hello Burbank City Council Members, City Clerk, and Mr. Muldoon, I understand the city is having to transition from our at-large, citywide district to the creation of single- member districts. As I casually discussed with a couple of city council members, I ask that the city also consider transitioning to Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), vs. that standard winner take all, plurality voting system.

FairVote is the main organization that has been leading the charge across the country. They already have the language that is needed for the county for the change. They can provide it for you. I should also mention that most of the BUSD School Board that I have spoken to are very interested in making this change too.

I have included a simple video here from FairVote so that you can see how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z2fRPRkWvY
If you would like someone from FairVote to come make a presentation to the city council, I will be happy to assist in facilitating that. You may also review them on their website: https://fairvote.org/ Using RCV will also make it to be unnecessary to have a costly primary election. Plus, when you have RCV, the need or desire to have term limits is also eliminated because incumbents must still win with 50% of the vote, as they are no longer able to win with a simple plurality.

Feel free to contact me should you have any questions.

Thank you,
Eric Carter
2 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Dekermenji, Melissa
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 12:22 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Clark, Kimberley; Hess, Justin; Wilke, Judie; McDougall, Joseph H.; Vander Borght, Jill; Thuyen, Kane; Meredith, Alyssa
Subject: Ranked Choice Voting
Good Afternoon,
In response to Vice-Mayor Schultz' request on February 14, 2023 for Additional Agenda Items on Ranked Choice Voting, we reached out to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk with the questions below and we received the responses below from their Executive Office.

1. What would be the opportunities and obstacles to potentially implement Ranked Choice Voting in the City of Burbank?
• There is currently no legal framework in the state of California to support Ranked Choice Voting • The County's VSAP voting solution is not designed to support Ranked Choice Voting

2. If the City were to implement Ranked Choice Voting, would we lose the option of consolidating with the County and need to have a stand-alone election?
• The County does not have the legal framework or the technology to support this method of voting, therefore, the County cannot administer a Ranked-Choice Voting election either consolidated on a County ballot or as a special stand-alone election.

3. Does the County foresee Ranked Choice Voting happening in the near future? • The legal and technology issues would have to be addressed before this method of voting can be implemented in LA County.

Kimberley and I participated in a Zoom meeting with Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk and one of their staff said the VSAP system was able to accommodate Ranked Choice Voting. However, once we sought clarification, the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk said they do not have the legal framework or technology to support Ranked-Choice Voting.

Thanks,
• RURBANK MELISSA DEKERMENJI, CMC, MPA
Records Manager
(818) 238-5851
275 E. Olive Avenue
Burbank, CA 91502
CITY CLERK'S [email protected]
OFFICE BurbankCA.gov
Meredith, Alyssa
From:

Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 10:13 AM
To: Schultz, Nick
Subject: Re: Who is the bully?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Thanks for the reply. You said "bully" and were looking in my direction. The small claims thing is important and really does help everyone. This should be a teather in your cap to bring it back and something you can point to tor your list of accomplishments on your resume. get nothing out of it
The power structure is out of whack as it is now. It is who you know and who likes you if a citizen wants to get anything done. This is why we need districts and why I support it. Nick, you cant fool me - you are and will be against it. Say what you want diplomatically, but your mind is made up. You want to fight in court to the detriment of the city's budget, go for it! Literally a no win situation for the taxpayers.

My observation is Burbank is in the toilet because of people like you. You have forgotten that the people with long term interests are the backbone of Burbank. The business owners, the property owners, the landlords, these are the people who provide the jobs, housing, and pay the taxes. The people that should come first. Renters come and go, The shitbirds that are homeless, begging, sleeping on the sidewalk should not be the priority. (tough love is the proper course of action here) They do not even vote - think on that.

What is going on in Burbank and California is not sustainable. The rampant overtime, the fee's and expense that YOU add on to everyone at EVERY meeting, please. Just think about the phrase 'the straw that broke the camels back'. . We are all camels and we all can only carry so much.

I understand your way of thinking is the council majority and you will have your way. Do you think I am wrong on EVERYTHING I say? I have not seen the leadership from you Nick and I am disappointed. ----Original Message---
From: Schultz, Nick <[email protected]>
To:

Sent: Wed, Mar 15, 2023 8:29 am
Subject: Re: Who is the bully?
Good morning Mr. Schlossman,
As you know, last night I stated that "we'll make the right decision and not succumb to bullies." When I made the reference to a bully, I was referring to the person(s) or organization(s) behind the CVRA lawsuit.

The point I am making is that the City Council must do what is in the best interest of the city. I don't believe that good decisions are ever made when governing from a place of fear. As such, I will approach this topic with an open mind and see what the data reveals and what our options are in the months ahead.

When I mentioned that I would make a comment at the end of the meeting, I was referring to your request that we look into a small claims court in Burbank. 1 Have a nice day.

Nick
Get Outlook for iOS
From:

Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 7:02:11 AM
To: Schultz, Nick <[email protected]>
Subject: Who is the bully?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nick,
You said you would comment at the end of the meeting, I waited. No comment. What were you talking about? What, if anything did I miss?
We were having a public hearing on the city moving to districts. I was only privy to public comment. I did not hear any bullying.

Please clarify.

Meredith, Alyssa
From: Emilia Platas
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 8:24 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Transition to district-based council elections CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Anthony, Vice-Mayor Schultz, and Council Members Perez, Takhashi, and Mullins:

After watching the 3/14 public hearing on the transition to district-based elections I am concerned that the council may be accepting transitioning as the only option. I fervently believe that while district-based elections may be appropriate for larger municipalities, they are not what is best for Burbank. I am one of five voters in my Latino household. 1am concerned that the proposed change will actually dilute our votes by limiting our influence and representation, not expand it. I vocally and actively supported the election of of several of the current council members. I did this by engaging with multiple groups and by attending events and being a part of the local organizations where I got to know many of you. I would have been very disappointed if I had the choice to support only one of you. While different neighborhoods may have certain unique concerns, our city is not so large or heterogeneous that we need to create separate CC voting districts. Santa Monica is similar in this regard and this is why they chose to fight. I understand lawsuits are expensive, but I hope that council will not accept districts as our only response.

Sincerely,
Emilia Platas
1 Meredith, Alyssa
From: David Holtzman <
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 1:55 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: RE: Districting (And More), *The State* Is Bullying Burbank Attachments: 2023-03-20-iXX-DHoltzmanCommentsReBullying.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please see the attached letter, dated March 20, 2023, the text of which may be found below.

Thank You,
- David Holtzman, Burbank Resident
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council:

RE: Districting (And More), *The State* Is Bullying Burbank At last Tuesday's City Council meeting, some of you expressed concern about bullying. Like most Burbank residents, I can understand not wanting Burbank to be bullied into taking official actions. Please remember now that the biggest bully pushing California cities around these days is the state Legislature.

The state's bounty-for-forcing districting law is part of a larger effort to weaken local governance (or "home rule") by stripping cities, schools, and agencies of local control. Surely the main source of any bullying you have been feeling lately is the state.

Haven't you felt at least a bit of resentment recently about Burbank, our city, being pushed around by the state?
We have the state telling us we have to let business interests run roughshod over our neighborhoods and zoning to bring in more people to live here, even if that causes environmental damage, besieging people living in pleasant residential neighborhoods with exponentially more construction- related noise, crime, and air pollution than they previously had reason to expect. And the state's offensive to override local zoning does nothing to reduce overpopulation, which itself causes environmental damage. (I hear people are leaving the state in droves, and wonder if it's right to force cities to suffer damage to help stop the exodus when people can get housing more cheaply in other states.)
Then there's the recently enacted bill that pushed you to move the city's election days. The bill basically punished Burbank for low voter turnout in the past, which is something that was not supposed to be, and indeed was not, under the City's control. (Nor was the accuracy of the voter registration rolls that provided the denominators of voter turnout rates.) If people don't want to vote in a municipal election, that's up to them! It may just mean that they are happy enough with life in Burbank that they don't see a need to focus on city politics.
(I wonder if we might soon see a law requiring Burbank schools to provide ROTC or California National Guard training if the military enlistment rate of Burbank's high school graduates isn't high enough for some state politicians. Like voter turnout, that rate isn't supposed to be under city control.)
And now the state is basically forcing cities to pay bounties to lawyers who accuse cities of racism. I've told you several times that Burbank has an easy, ironclad defense to the shakedown here. I'm surprised and disheartened that you're not using it to fight back.
(With all of its being pushed around by the state, I hope Burbank is at least pursuing reimbursement of the city's costs from the state fund that covers unfunded local mandates. The County of Los Angeles indicated it would seek reimbursement for being forced to set up and pay for the Citizens Redistricting Commission I'm on.)
Through my comments I have tried to offer you and the city options and legal skills to use in fighting bullying of the city by the state. I have tried repeatedly to help without threatening to sue. So please don't call me a bully.

If you use the tools I have offered to fight the legal threat letter you received last summer (and I hope you do), you could quite possibly avoid having our city actually be sued at all over how we elect those in your position.

The California Constitution makes that election method something Burbank's voters may decide. And they have put "at large" in the city's 2 charter. If the city's voters actually want to contemplate changing the City Council election method at some time in the future, they should have the time and information needed to consider a menu of options. And the menu should include keeping at large elections while providing citywide proportional representation through ranked choice voting. For an example of that sort of consideration, including community involvement, please see the attached article, "What Santa Monica can learn about elections from Lowell, Mass," by former Santa Monica mayor Mike Feinstein.

Sincerely,
/s/
David Holtzman
Attachment: "What Santa Monica can learn about elections from Lowell, Mass" **No Council Districts**
DAVID A. HOLTZMAN, M.P.H., I.D.

BURBANK, CA 91502
March 20, 2023
City Council
City of Burbank, Califormia
via [email protected]
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council:

The state's bounty-for-forcing-districting law is part of a larger effort to weaken local governance (or "home rule") by stripping cities, schools, and agencies of local control. Surely the main source of any bullying you have been feeling lately is the state.

Page 2 ends

Then there's the recently enacted bill that pushed you to move the city's election days. The bill basically punished Burbank for low voter turnout in the past, which is something that was not supposed to be, and indeed was not, under the City's control. (Nor was the accuracy of the voter registration rolls that provided the denominators of voter turnout rates.) If people don't want to vote in a municipal election, that's up to them! It may just mean that they are happy enough with life in Burbank that they don't see a need to focus on city politics.
(I wonder if we might soon see a law requiring Burbank
schools to provide ROTC or California National Guard training if the military enlistment rate of Burbank's high school graduates isn't high enough for some state politicians. Like voter turnout, that rate isn't supposed to be under city control.)
And now the state is basically forcing cities to pay bounties to lawyers who accuse cities of racism. I've told you several times that Burbank has an easy, ironclad defense to the shakedown here. I'm surprised and disheartened that you're not using it to fight back. (With all of its being pushed around by the state, I hope Burbank is at least pursuing reimbursement of the city's costs from the state fund that covers unfunded local mandates. The County of Los Angeles indicated it would seek reimbursement for being forced to set up and pay for the Citizens Redistricting Commission I'm on.) Through my comments I have tried to offer you and the city options and legal skills to use in fighting bullying of the city by the state. I have tried repeatedly to help without threatening to sue. So please don't call me a bully.

The California Constitution makes that election method
something Burbank's voters may decide. And they have put "at

Page 3 ends

large" in the city's charter. If the city's voters actually want to contemplate changing the City Council election method at some time in the future, they should have the time and information needed to consider a menu of options. And the menu should include keeping at large elections while providing citywide proportional representation through ranked choice voting. For an example of that sort of consideration, including community involvement, please see the attached article, "What Santa Monica can learn about elections from Lowell, Mass," by former Santa Monica mayor Mike Feinstein.

Sincerely,
David Holtzman
Attachment: "What Santa Monica can learn about elections from Lowell, Mass"
What Santa Monica can learn about elections from Lowell, Mass https://smdp.com/2019/08/24/what-santa-monica-can-learn-about-elections-from-lowell-mass/ by Mike Feinstein August 24, 2019
By Michael Feinstein, Inside/Outside. August 24, 2019
We like to think we are at the forefront of a lot of public policy in Santa Monica - and we often are. But sometimes we are not. In the case of electoral reform, part of it is our fault, but part of it is state law.

The City of Santa Monica is currently the subject of a California Voting Rights Act (CRVA) lawsuit. It alleges that the City's seven member at-large multi-seat plurality voting system diminishes the voting power of a protected group of local voters, in this case Latinos in Santa Monica.

Santa Monica is disputing that claim, and I address that below. But under the CVRA, once dilution of the vote of a protected class is demonstrated, a move to remedies is automatic. At the same time, even though several remedies are legally permissible, only one is legally protected (provided legal 'safe harbor') under the CVRA from immediate legal challenge. That remedy is to implement single-seat, winner-take-all electoral districts.

The classic case for such districts is when a minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact, that one (or more) 'majority-minority' districts can be drawn to give the minority group a strong chance to select their own representation. But what if the minority community is not geographically compact, as in the case of Santa Monica? That's where things can get murky. The plaintiffs in the CVRA case want the courts to impose seven single-seat districts upon Santa Monica, one of them where Latinos would make up about 30% of the voters. In electoral law parlance, that is called a 'minority influence' district - where minorities don't make up a majority of the district, but arguably still make up enough to have influence over the final result.

But such influence is questionable given how traditional divisions in the local Latino community would divide that already minority 30%. At the same time, about 2/3 of all Santa Monica Latinos would live outside of this district proposed to empower them. Huh? Why can't Santa Monica consider an electoral reform that empowers Santa Monica Latinos citywide? Because the CVRA only gives safe harbor to single-seat, winner-take-all-districts.

Learning from Lowell
Lowell, Massachusetts faces a similar voting rights challenge to Santa Monica, but has more options. The lawsuit against Lowell alleges that the city's nine member at-large, multi-seat plurality voting system diminishes the voting power of both local Latinos and Asian-Americans.

But unlike Santa Monica, Lowell has been empowered by Consent Decree to conduct a public process to evaluate among six options, all of which are legally protected from challenge, so the preferred alternative can be implemented and tried out.

Among the six options being considered in Lowell are a purely single-seat, winner-take-all district-based system, three "hybrid" options that combine single-seat district and at-large seats - and two at-large options utilizing ranked-choice voting (RCV), where voters get to rank as many candidates as they link in the order in their preference.

RCV leads to proportional representation results in multi-seat elections, providing for strong minority representation. Under proportional representation elections, a majority group can not outvote a minority group for all seats. Instead each bloc of voters would win seats in proportion to their numbers, which makes it ideal to empower minority communities. That's why Eastpoint, Michigan - which has a large African-American community but little historical African- American representation on its city council - has recently chosen RCV in settling with the U.S.

Department of Justice over their own history of voting rights violations.

It is ironic that Santa Monica is not given the same opportunity to consider alternatives. But the City argues that its electoral system is not in violation of the CVRA in the first place: that most of candidates supported by Santa Monica Latinos have been elected by the population at large, that Santa Monica has historically elected members of minority groups to local municipal office (29 Latino candidates and 14 African-American candidates since 1990), and that Santa Monica's minority group population is spread across the city instead of concentrated in one place.

The City also points to the lessened voter choice Santa Monica voters would experience under single-seat district elections - Latinos included - where residents would lose their vote on six of seven council seats, and council members would no longer need votes from outside of their district to be elected (thereby decreasing accountability of local elected officials and Balkanizing local politics.)
Risking Representation
But ultimately the case hinges on how much 'vote dilution' is too much and how much is not under the CVRA, which states that if a protected group votes one way and the rest of the voters vote another, that difference is a voting rights act violation and one must automatically move to the remedy phase. But the CVRA doesn't specify how different the votes have to be from the protected class to the rest of the population to be a violation. And there is a good reason for that - the concern that drawing a hard line says a certain level of injustice is OK and a certain level is not.

But at the same time, there has to be some practical bottom to how much a difference in voting patterns mandates a radical change in electoral systems. That ultimately is what the CVRA case against Santa Monica is testing - and is a really risky (and arguably disproportionally self- interested) move by the plaintiffs.

Many long time voting rights advocates do not believe the CVRA was designed for situations like Santa Monica; many fear that if the case against Santa Monica fails, it could weaken or gut the CVRA by weakening vote dilution as a criteria and influence districts as a tool. But every principle strains when stretched towards its limit. Is it really worth testing the limits of the CVRA over Santa Monica?
The CVRA does needs to be strengthened through amendment to provide more legally protected remedies including ranked choice voting; and where districts are enacted, to ensure the lines are drawn fairly and can be challenged when they are not. Somehow, the legislature also needs to look at how much vote dilution merits what kind of changes — as hard of a question as that is. I would rather have that decided by a public process involving grassroots communities and voting rights groups than by the courts.

Until then, it's not good for representative elections in California for the Santa Monica CVRA case to be decided, until the state legislature learns from it and improves the law.

Multi-part series on Santa Monica and the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) Podcast: Democracy in Santa Monica. How We elect our City Council. August 11, 2020 What Santa Monica can learn about elections from Lowell, Mass, August 24, 2019 Santa Monica case reveals flawed California Voting Rights Act, Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Supporting Santa Monica's voting rights ruling appeal, February 25, 2019 Appeal for Reason, December 3, 2018
Michael Feinstein is a former Santa Monica Mayor (2000-2002) and City Councilmember (1996-2004) and was a 2018 Green candidate for California Secretary of State. He can be reached via Twitter @mikefeinstein
'Inside/Outside' is a periodic column about civic affairs Feinstein writes for the Daily Press, that takes advantage of his experience inside and outside of government.

Meredith, Alyssa
From: David Holtzman
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:13 PM
To: Takahashi, Tamala
Subject: Re: Districting (And More), *The State* Is Bullying Burbank CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

P.S. Redondo Beach is still holding its regular municipal elections without consolidating them with statewide elections. After the state legislature passed the "California Voter Participation Rights Act" [SB 415(2015)], the charter city successfully sued to prevent its being forced under that law to change its election dates, with a judge ruling that "It]he California Voter Participation Rights Act (Elec. Code §814050 - 14057) is unconstitutional as applied to charter cities." [County of Los Angeles Superior Court case BS172218,

JUDGMENT ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, Oct. 25, 2018.]
P.P.S. Redondo Beach voters just amended the city's charter so its city officials will be elected in instant runoff elections using ranked choice voting. Election day was March 7th.

The City Attorney's impartial analysis of the ballot measure (Measure CA5) began, "Background. The California Constitution gives charter cities such as Redondo Beach 'plenary authority' to provide for 'the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several municipal officers... shall be elected or appointed."" On 3/22/2023 5:38 PM, David Holtzman wrote:

Hi Tamala,
The main tools for defeating or preventing a lawsuit demanding that Burbank split itself into city council districts are just a few statements. If you convey those statements to the people threatening to sue, they should see that they would quickly lose in court and not be entitled to any monetary bounty, reimbursement of costs, or attorney fees.

The statements are:

One: Section 5(b)(4) of Article XI (11) of the California Constitution grants charter cities "plenary authority ... to provide therein [in their city charters] or by amendment thereto [amendment to their city charters], the manner in which, the 1 method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several municipal officers ... shall be elected or appointed..." Two: Since the California Constitution is above legislative statutes in the hierarchy of laws, no statute passed by the California Legislature can force a charter city that has its city council election method specified in its city charter to change that election method.

Three: Burbank is a charter city with "at large" specified in its city charter (in Section 300 and in Section 305) as the election method for its city council members.

Four: No plaintiff can use the statute at issue to force Burbank to change its city council election method.

NOTE: "Plenary" means "full; complete; entire; absolute; unqualified." (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/plenary)
If a plaintiff does sue to try and force districting, making those statements in response should get the court to dismiss the suit. A good way to do that would be to use those statements as the heart of a demurrer.

Hi David,
Thank you for staying engaged in this process.

In regards to the specific tools you mentioned in your email about how not to be sued at all, can you please forward those to me again?
Kindly,
Tamala Takahashi
Burbank City Councilmember
818-238-5750 (phone)
818-252-9014 (text)
2 http://burbankcouncil.substack.com
From: David Holtzman g
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 1:54 PM
To: City Council DL ≤[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Districting (And More), *The State* Is Bullying Burbank CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please see the attached letter, dated March 20, 2023, the text of which may be found below.

Thank You,
- David Holtzman, Burbank Resident
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council:

RE: Districting (And More), *The State* Is Bullying Burbank At last Tuesday's City Council meeting, some of you expressed concern about bullying. Like most Burbank residents, 1 can understand not wanting Burbank to be bullied into taking official actions. Please remember now that the biggest bully pushing California cities around these days is the state Legislature.

The state's bounty for-forcing-districting law is part of a larger effort to weaken local governance (or "home rule") by stripping cities, schools, and agencies of local control. Surely the main source of any bullying you have been feeling lately is the state.

Haven't you felt at least a bit of resentment recently about Burbank, our city, being pushed around by the state?
We have the state telling us we have to let business interests run roughshod over our neighborhoods and zoning to bring in more people to live here, even if that causes environmental damage, besieging people living in pleasant residential neighborhoods with exponentially more construction-related noise, crime, and air pollution than they previously had reason to expect. And the state's offensive to override local zoning does nothing to reduce overpopulation, which itself causes environmental damage.
(I hear people are leaving the state in droves, and wonder if it's right to force cities to suffer damage to help stop the exodus when people can get housing more cheaply in other states.)
Then there's the recently enacted bill that pushed you to move the city's election days. The bill basically punished Burbank for low voter turnout in the past, which is something that was not supposed to be, and indeed was not, under the City's control. (Nor was the accuracy of the voter registration rolls that provided the denominators of voter turnout rates.) If people don't want to vote in a municipal election, that's up to them! It may just mean that they are happy enough with life in Burbank that they don't see a need to focus on city politics. 3 (I wonder if we might soon see a law requiring Burbank schools to provide ROTC or California National Guard training if the military enlistment rate of Burbank's high school graduates isn't high enough for some state politicians. Like voter turnout, that rate isn't supposed to be under city control.)
And now the state is basically forcing cities to pay bounties to lawyers who accuse cities of racism. I've told you several times that Burbank has an easy, ironclad defense to the shakedown here. I'm surprised and disheartened that you re not using it to fight back.
(With all of its being pushed around by the state, I hope Burbank is at least pursuing reimbursement of the city's costs from the state fund that covers unfunded local mandates. The County of Los Angeles indicated it would seek reimbursement for being forced to set up and pay for the Citizens Redistricting Commission I'm on.) Through my comments I have tried to offer you and the city options and legal skills to use in fighting bullying of the city by the state. I have tried repeatedly to help without threatening to sue. So please don't call me a bully.

The California Constitution makes that election method something Burbank's voters may decide. And they have put "at large" in the city's charter. If the city's voters actually want to contemplate changing the City Council election method at some time in the future, they should have the time and information needed to consider a menu of options. And the menu should include keeping at large elections while providing citywide proportional representation through ranked choice voting. For an example of that sort of consideration, including community involvement, please see the attached article, "What Santa Monica can learn about elections from Lowell, Mass," by former Santa Monica mayor Mike Feinstein.

Sincerely,
/s/
David Holtzman
Attachment: What Santa Monica can learn about elections from Lowell, Mass" *-No Council Districts**
**No Council Districts**
--
4 Meredith, Alyssa
From: David Holtzman <
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 3:59 PM
To: City Council DL; Clark, Kimberley; Hess, Justin; City of Burbank, Public Information Office; Jones, Jonathan; City Attorney
Cc: Craig Sherwood; Devin Herenda, MyBurbank.com; Outlook News Burbank Leader; Gavin Quinton, Burbank Leader
Subject: Districting; Falsehoods in PIO-sent Email; CORRECTION NEEDED [Fwd: Burbank City Council District Formation Community Forum 1 of 8]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Honorable Members of the City Council, and Other City Officials:

A city council in a charter city is subject to the city's charter. The city council may not adopt any ordinance, rule, regulation, guideline, or policy that violates the charter. The same prohibition applies to the mayor of a charter city, whether or not the mayor is a member of the city council, and to all other city officials.

This week I received the email below, from "City of Burbank <[email protected]>".

The email states, falsely, that the Burbank City Council has decided to transition to election of its members by district. If that were true, it would be a violation of the City Charter. Nevertheless, the email came from a city office email address and made the statement in the name of the city. (The council has merely resolved "to consider adoption of an ordinance ... to transition to a district-based election system ....") The email also states that "the City will be divided into districts" under a new system for electing city council districts. Again, the email came from a city office and made the statement in the name of the city. A reasonable reader could conclude that there the email states an official city policy. And the policy would be illegal as a violation of the City Charter.

The city should issue a CORRECTION as soon as possible, sent at least as widely as the email below, and to all news media outlets in the city's contact lists, from the email address [email protected]. If you are able, please make sure that happens.

Failure of the city to issue a correction, especially now that I have informed you of the above, could be construed as ratification by the city of the policy, prompting a lawsuit against the city because the policy, if thereby made official, would be illegal as a violation of the City Charter.

Furthermore, if the falsehoods in the email below were drafted by Arellano Associates, LLC, or its agents (or sent to the public by that firm using a city email address) and if the city's contract with that firm, or honest services law, prohibits it from using untruths in its work 1 product under the contract, including information it provides to city officials or the public, the firm could be subject to a California False Claims Act lawsuit or similar action.

So please preserve all records and communication in your possession that may be relevant to potential litigation related to the topics above.

Falsehoods or ambiguities in the email below include:

1. "is undergoing [a] change". As noted above, the truth is simply that the City Council has voted to consider something.
"exciting". This can't possibly be an official characterization. "Depressing" would be more like it, especially since the City Council is only considering the idea of making a change because somebody threatened to sue the city. And if there were no lawsuit threat here, nobody I know would want to split Burbank into city council districts.

3. "decided to transition" • See above.

4. "intended to give residents a more powerful voice in local government". This is not an official statement of intent, as far as I know. And how could it be, when by-district elections would actually diminish voters' voices in electing council members? (The change described would cabin a voter's influence in council elections to the contests in his or her corner of the city, and further limit it to once every 4 years. It would limit voters' choices to only some candidates. Only some voters could vote for some candidates.)

5. "can vote".. Is based on the lies discussed above. "Could vote" would be more like it. (This is a terribly convoluted sentence. Better might be: "Voters could only vote for council candidates who live in the district they live in.")

6. "We invite you" and "We look forward to". Ambiguous because who the email means by "We" is unclear.

Please act on the issues above as soon as possible, because the forum announced in the lying email is scheduled for a week from today.
- David Holtzman
Burbank Resident
Founder,
-__ Forwarded Message -_
Subject:Burbank City Council District Formation Community Forum 1 of 8 Date:Tue, 21 Mar 2023 11:04:14 - 0400 (EDT)
From:City of Burbank <[email protected]>
Reply-To:[email protected]
To
Burbank City Council
District Formation
Community Forum 1 of 8
DATE: Thursday, March 30, 2023
TIME: 6:00 - 7:30 p.m.

LOCATION:

Buena Vista Library
300 N. Buena Vista St
Burbank, CA 91505

PROJECT WEBSITE
The City of Burbank is undergoing an exciting change intended to give residents a more powerful voice in local government. The City Council has unanimously decided to transition from the current at-large election of its members to election by districts.

Under the new system, the City will be divided into districts of approximately equal population. Only voters who live within a district can vote for Council candidates who are also residents and voters of the same district. We invite you to learn more about the process and how you can get involved. We look forward to working together to make this transition a success!
Join us for a Community Forum
We are hosting two rounds of community forums. The first round (March 2023-April 2023) will provide a preview of the districting process, gather initial public input, and inform the public of how to submit draft maps. The second round (May 2023-June 2023) will provide districting process updates, recap community input received, and redefine district boundary options based on the draft maps.

For more information, please contact us at
[email protected] or call the project
helpline at (818) 306-9830. Sign up for project updates at www.OptinBurbankDistricting.com.

Visit the project website by scanning the QR code
or using the link:
www.BurbankCouncilDistricting.com
###
Facebook: @BurbankCA, Twitter: @BurbankCA, Website: www.burbankca.gov City of Burbank | Website
City of Burbank | 275 E Olive Ave, Burbank, CA 91502
Unsubscribe [email protected]
Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by [email protected] powered by
Try email marketing for free today!
Meredith, Alyssa
From: kevin harrop
Sent: Friday, March 24, 20234:54 PM
To: Anthony, Konstantine
Subject: City Council districts
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Konstantine,
I understand there is a move to change the council from at large to districts. I oppose this utterly. I write to ask you to do all you can to oppose this.

Kevin Harrop
Meredith, Alyssa
From: David Holtzman
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 3:57 PM
To: City Council DL; Clark, Kimberley; Hess, Justin; City of Burbank, Public Information Office; Jones, Jonathan; City Attorney
Cc: Craig Sherwood; MyBurbank.com News; Devin Herenda, MyBurbank.com; Outlook News Burbank Leader; Gavin Quinton, Burbank Leader; Eric Carter; Michael Feinstein; Preston Jordan
Subject: CVRA Law: Why The Courts Would Let Burbank Stay Whole (Undistricted) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Just to keep everybody in the loop here....

Council Member Takahashi recently asked me about the legal tools one could use to defend Burbank from a California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) lawsuit that tries to force the city into carving itself into city council districts.

I sent her something like this:

The main tools for defeating or preventing a lawsuit demanding that Burbank split itself into city council districts are just a few statements. If you convey these statements to the people threatening to sue, they should see that they would quickly lose in court and not be entitled to any monetary bounty, reimbursement of costs, or attorney fees:

One: Section 5(b)(4) of Article XI (11) of the California Constitution grants charter cities "plenary authority ... to provide therein [in their city charters] or by amendment thereto [amendment to their city charters], the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several municipal officers... shall be elected or appointed ..."
Two: Since the California Constitution is above legislative statutes in the hierarchy of laws, no statute passed by the California Legislature can force a charter city that has its city council election method specified in its city charter to change that election method.

Three: Burbank is a charter city with "at large" specified in its city charter (in Section 300 and in Section 305) as the election method for its city council members.

Four: No plaintiff can use the statute at issue here (the CVRA, which is a legislative statute) to force Burbank to change its city council election method.

NOTE: "Plenary" means "full; complete; entire; absolute; unqualified." (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/plenary)
If a plaintiff does sue to try and force Burbank into city council districting, making those statements in response should get the court to dismiss the suit. A good way to do that would be to use those statements as the heart of a demurrer.

NOTE: A "demurrer" asserts "the complaint at issue should be dismissed because it fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. Essentially, this defense asserts that even if all the factual allegations in a complaint are true, they do not give rise to a legally cognizable claim for relief." (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/demurrer) SIMILAR CASE NOTE: A few years ago Burbank and other municipalities changed their election dates largely in response to a legislative statute called the "California Voter Participation Rights Act" (CVPRA; SB 415 of 2015). Well, Redondo Beach, a charter city, successfully sued to prevent being forced by that law to change its election dates.

Remember that the "plenary authority" the California Constitution gives to charter cities (see above) applies to "the times" of charter city council elections as well as "the method" of those elections. In October 2018, the trial court judge in the Redondo Beach case ruled that the CVPRA "is unconstitutional as applied to charter cities." [County of Los Angeles Superior Court case BS172218.]
The Court of Appeal in that case did not address the trial court judge's ruling of unconstitutionality. Instead, it sided with the charter city on a narrower ground, basically that the legislature did not clearly say that the CVPRA applies to charter cities. (Courts generally prefer to avoid deciding cases on constitutional grounds when they can rule on narrower grounds.) But the Legislature did explicitly say that the CVRA applies to charter cities. So if Burbank gets sued under the CVRA, any courts) hearing the case would probably address the constitutional issue and rule in Burbank's favor.

By the way, regarding fiscal impact: both courts that heard the Redondo Beach case awarded the city its costs.

Now, to all those I directly addressed or cc'd here, please feel free to email me at if you have any questions, would like copies of my previous correspondence with the Burbank City Council, or would like to offer support for keeping 2 Burbank whole.

Sincerely,
David Holtzman
Burbank Resident
**No Council Districts**
3 Meredith, Alyssa
From: David Holtzman
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 3:53 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Jones, Jonathan; City Attorney; Hess, Justin; Clark, Kimberley; City of Burbank, Public Information Office; Craig Sherwood; MyBurbank.com News; Devin Herenda, MyBurbank.com; Outlook News Burbank Leader; Gavin Quinton, Burbank Leader; Eric Carter; Michael Feinstein; Preston Jordan; David Daley
Subject: Addendum; Request to Repeal Your Intent to District; and Some Relevant History Attachments: DougJohnson-decl-1743097278(1-12).pdf; DougJohnson- suppldecl-1754966741(1-31).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Honorable Members of the City Council:

Here's a quick addendum to the "SIMILAR CASE NOTE" in my previous email (3/24/2023, 3:57 PM); followed by a request to repeal your January 24, 2023, agenda item 7 resolution to consider adoption of an ordinance to transition the city to a district-based city council election system; followed by some more relevant history.

Addendum:

A: The City of Redondo Beach filed the lawsuit that prevented it from being forced to change its election days on February 13, 2018.

B: June 5, 2018 was election day when Burbank voters approved Measure V, the charter amendment that moved City of Burbank election days to Novembers of even-numbered years.

C: All of the then-members of the Burbank City Council (none of you were on the Council at the time) signed the official argument in Measure V's favor. One thing they said there was "we could file a lawsuit to keep our current schedule; that cost cannot be estimated, though we know of no other city doing this." [Emphasis added.]
D: But as we now know, Redondo Beach had already filed such a lawsuit.

And the city won. And the lawsuit cost the city basically nothing.

Request:

I hope the information above, and in my previous correspondence and comments, helps you all get to the point where you agendize repealing your January 24th declaration/resolution relating to districting, and then vote to do so. Please do all that ASAP. (Perhaps without leaving the consultants hired pursuant to the resolution unpaid.)
Sincerely,
David Holtzman
Burbank Resident/Voter
P.S. More History:

Measure V was about more than just moving election days... 1: The cynic in me would say the city council incumbents' unanimous enthusiasm for the measure came from its extending all of their terms in office by a full year plus eight months. Getting more time in office without having to face the voters was at the very least a nice bonus for the council members. The Los Angeles City Council's members had gotten the same deal when they persuaded voters to move their city's election days. (I wasn't a fan of that.)
On the other hand, when the City of Santa Monica moved its election days, its voters shortened the terms of existing officeholders, essentially rounding term lengths down by some months rather than rounding them up by well over a year. [See, in Section 1400 of Santa Monica's charter: "For those elected officers whose terms are to expire in April 1985, those terms shall expire in November 1984. For those elected officers whose terms are scheduled to expire in April 1987, those terms shall expire in November 1986."] Regarding self-interest, I was pleased to notice at your last meeting that you would rather not be seen drawing districts for your own reelections, which is something you now know that you need not do.
2: Burbank Measure V eliminated the primary elections that were part of the election contests for city offices. Making things seem easier for voters, campaigners, and donors has a tendency to be popular. Cost savings for the city were involved, but cost savings should not be the main factor driving 2 changes to election methods, right?
3: Measure V got rid of the hard-to-unpack charter language that governed the city's primaries. I remember a Burbank Charter Review Commission's consultant struggling, years ago, to explain the basis for the rules there. At the time, I was asking the commission to recommend replacing those rules with something that might now be called proportional ranked choice voting (PRCV), but probably wasn't doing a great job of explaining that myself. 4: To help Redondo Beach not have to move its election days, Douglas Johnson, the expert demographer you heard from at your last meeting, wrote a couple of declarations (attached) on the city's behalf, in which he extolled the virtues of cities' having "off-cycle" election days.
**No Council Districts**
1 MICHAEL W. WEBB (BAR NO. 133414). FILED

CITY ATTORNEY
2 CITY OF REDONDO BEACH Superior Court of Calliornia
County of Los Angeles
3 JUN. 15 2018
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
4 Telephone: SherrR. Carter, Bacculue Officer/Clerk
Facsimile: , Deputy
By-
5 Fernando Becerta

RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
6 A Professional Corporation
LISA BOND (BAR NO. 172342)
7 T. PETER PIERCE (BAR NO. 160408)
8 MARVINE. BONILLA (BAR NO. 305888)
9 10 Los Angeles, California 90071-3101
Telephone:

Facsimile:
12 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff
City of Redondo Beach
13 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
16 17 CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, Case No. BS172218
18 Petitioner and Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS
V. JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF
19 CITY OF REDONDO BEACH'S
STATE OF CALIFORNIA and DOES 1 OPENING BRIEF
20 through 10, inclusive,
[FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH
Respondents and Defendants. OPENING BRIEF AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE]
22 Hon. Amy D. Hogue
23 86
24 Date: September 26, 2018
Time: 9:30 a.m.
25 Action Filed: February 13, 2018
26 [Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] 27 86/28/2018 28 •
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D! IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF REDONDO BEACHS

OPENING BRIEF
R6900-105912194159v2.doc
1 DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF 2 REDONDO BEACH'S OPENING BRIEF
3 I, Douglas Johnson, Ph.D., declare as follows:
4 1. I am the President of National Demographics Corporation. I make this 5 declaration in support of Petitioner City of Redondo Beach's Opening Brief in Support of 6 Petition for Writ of Mandate. This declaration is based on personal knowledge, and if 7 called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the matters set forth herein. 8 I graduated Cum Laude from Claremont McKenna College with a BA in 9 Government (Political Science) in 1992, where I was awarded the Philip Roland Prize for 10 Excellence in Public Policy. I obtained an MBA from the UCLA Anderson Graduate 11 School of Management in 1999. I obtained a Ph.D. in Political Science from Claremont 12 Graduate University in 2015. My dissertation was entitled "Independent Redistricting 13 Commissions: Hopes and Lessons Learned."
RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 14 Since 2001, I have served as a Fellow at the Rose Institute of State and Local 15 Government at Claremont McKenna College. As Student Manager of the Rose Institute in 16 1991 and as a Fellow at the Rose Institute in 2001 and 2011, I have led political, 17 demographic and process research on state and local redistricting through three post- 18 decennial census redistricting cycles. In that capacity I have issued numerous white papers, 19 op-ed pieces, in-depth analyses and other reports on the Census, demographics, districting 20 | and redistricting, including primary oversight of the Rose Institute's "Redistricting in 21 America" report and website, which remains widely quoted in state and national news 22 coverage of this issue. These opinion pieces were printed by publications including the New 23 York Times and the Los Angeles Times; I have been quoted in over one hundred national 24 and local news articles; and I have appeared on redistricting-related news pieces on CNN, 25 Fox News, and a number of public and commercial television and radio news broadcasts. 26 I am, and at all times since 2006 have been, the owner and primary consultant 27 for National Demographics Corporation (NDC). Prior to that, I was a Senior Analyst and 28 later Vice President for NDC from 2001 until 2006. In these roles, I have acted as DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF. CITY OF REDONDO BEACH'S

OPENING BRIEF
R6900-1059\2194159v2.doc
demographic and technical consultant on matters related to analysis of demographics, 2 polarized voting, and potential Voting Rights liability for over 300 California jurisdictions, 3 along with numerous jurisdictions in other states. I have worked on the districting or 4 redistricting of 195 state and local jurisdictions, including tiny Clay Elementary School 5 District (in California); the city of San Diego; the counties of San Diego and Los Angeles; 6 and Arizona's 2001 Independent Redistricting Commission. 7 5. I have been a repeat speaker at redistricting discussions and seminars 8 organized by the National Conference of State Legislatures, and some of the presentations I 9 | delivered have included "Communities of Interest in Redistricting: A Practical Guide" 10 (Spring 2008); "Communities of Interest in Redistricting: A key to drawing 2011 plans (and 11 for their defense)" (Spring 2010); and "Citizen Voting Age Data from a line-drawer's 12 viewpoint" (Winter 2011). Most recently, I was the keynote speaker at a May 9 "Town 13 Hall meeting on SB 415" organized by the Burbank/Glendale Chapter of the League of RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 14 Women Voters. 15 I have testified on demographic matters as an expert witness for the City of 16 Palmdale in Jauregui, et al. v. City of Palmdale; as an expert witness for the City of 17 Highland in Garrett v. City of Highland; for the state of North Carolina in Covington v 18 North Carolina; and as an expert witness for Kern County (CA) in Lund v. County of Kern; 19 and as 30(b)(6) "Most Knowledgeable" witness for the Arizona Independent Redistricting 20 Commission in Arizona Minority Coalition v. Arizona Independent Redistricting 21 Commission, including seven days of direct testimony and cross-examination in the state 22 court case. I also testified in the related federal court case regarding Arizona's 2001 23 redistricting.
24 7. I was deposed as an expert witness in Soliz v. Santa Clarita Community 25 College District (which settled) and Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting 26 Commission. I have also submitted declarations and participated as a consultant in other 27 litigation matters.
28 //I •
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, P.. IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF REDONDO BEACH'S

OPENING BRIEF
R6900- 105912194159v2.doc

8. I served as campaign manager for the City Council campaign of Vrej 2 Agajanian in 2005 and 2009, and in that role I was responsible for overseeing the design, 3 printing, and targeting of all campaign mail, precinct walkers, and phone banks; I was a 4 campaign staff member for Stephen Horn for Congress in the summer of 1992; as a Coro

5. Fellow in Public Affairs I worked on the fall 1992 campaign of Ken Calvert for Congress;

6. and have volunteered on numerous local, state, and federal campaigns. 7 9. I have reviewed Senate Bill 415 ('SB 415) and its legislative history. I have 8 also reviewed the following:
9 a. Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee Bill Analysis 10 b. Assembly Floor Analysis
11 c. State Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee Bill 12 Analysis
13 d. State Senate Floor Analysis
ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 14 e. Senate Bill 415 bill history (primarily reviewing previous versions of the bill) 15 f. California Elections Code Section 14050
16 g. July 11, 2017, Opinion Letter No. 16-603 of California Attorney General 17 Xavier Becerra
18 h. Appeals Court ruling in Jauregui v City of Palmdale 19 i. The California Secretary of State's report "Historical Voter Registration and 20 Participation in Statewide General Elections 1910 - 2016" 21 j. The California Secretary of State's report "Historical Voter Registration and •
22 Participation in Statewide Primary Elections 1910 - 2016" 23 k. The Los Angeles County Registrar/Recorder's September 20, 2017, report on 24 "Change of Election Date / Consolidation Activity Pursuant to Elections Code 25 14050 - 14057"
26 1. The Redondo Beach City report "SB 415 Compliance Plans & Neighboring 27 Cities Compliance" (the undated version included in the City Council Blue : 28. Folder' information packets for the Council's November 7, 2017 meeting) - DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF REDONDO BEACH'S

OPENING BRIEF
R6900-105912194159v2.doc
1 m. The "Summons and Complaint" for this case
2 n. The canvass and certifications of the vote for Redondo Beach city and school 3 district elections held in March, 2005; March and May, 2007; November, 4 2008; November, 2009; March, 2011; March and May, 2013; July, 2013; 5 • March and May, 2015; and March and May, 2017
6 o. City of Long Beach Canvass of the vote for the June 2014 municipal runoff 7 ‚election
8 p. The Los Angeles County Registrar's "Votes Cast by Community" report for 9 the June 6, 2014, Statewide Primary election
10 9. Anzia, Sarah F. Timing & Turnout: How Off-Cycle Elections Favor 11 Organized Groups, University of Chicago Press, 2014
12 r. Leighley, Jan E. and Jonathan Nagler, Who Votes Now?, Princeton 13 University Press, 2014
RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 14 s. Holbrook, Thomas, Do Campaigns Matter?, SAGE Publications, 1996 15 10. SB 415 mandates that "a political subdivision shall not hold an election other than on a statewide election date if holding an election on a nonconcurrent date has 17 previously resulted in a significant decrease in voter turnout." (Elections Code § 18 14052(a).) A "significant decrease in voter turnout" occurs when "voter turnout for a 19 regularly scheduled election in a political subdivision is at least 25 percent less than the 20 average voter turnout within that political subdivision for the previous four statewide 21 general elections." (Elections Code § 14051(b).)
22 11. SB 415 is unclear on how it defines turnout: "turnout" could refer to:
23 • "Percentage minus Percentage" threshold: The percentage of voters 24 turning out must be more than the average general election turnout minus 25 0.25?
26 • If statewide general election percentage is 62%, the local must exceed 27 .62 minus. 25, or .37 (37%).
28|///
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF REDONDO, BEACH'S

OPENING BRIEF
R6900-105912194159v2.doc
1 • "Percentage of a Percentage" threshold: The percentage of voters turning 2 out must be no more than one-quarter less than the average general election 3 turnout?
4 • If average statewide general election percentage is 62%, the local must 5 exceed 75% of 62%, or 47%.
6 12. A jurisdiction in compliance with the "percentage minus percentage" 7 threshold could find itself challenged by any number of potential plaintiffs asserting that the 8 "percentage of a percentage" threshold is the legal requirement. 9 13. The threshold is also confusing because it is a moving average, recalculated 10 after each statewide general election. A jurisdiction currently in compliance with the law 11 could, following the November election this year, find itself in violation of the law, long 12 after the bill's "grace period" to avoid a legal challenge has expired. 13 14. The state wishes to impose on local jurisdictions a standard that the state's RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 14 own elections do not meet. 15 15. A jurisdiction that consistently has a high level of voter participation and a 16 large number of candidates in each election might be in compliance with the law, and then 17 find itself with an uncontested election (which in this case would mean either some 18 significant new barrier to challengers has been erected, such as strict campaign finance 19 limits, or - more likely in the situation described - residents are very pleased with how the 20 jurisdiction is being run that suddenly triggers a violation. Jurisdictions may have to avoid 21 or delay putting ballot measures on the ballot in order to avoid triggering a violation of SB 22 415, because unusually low turnout levels can be triggered by relatively low-interest ballot 23 measures and/or by citywide ballot measures on the ballot in an election where only half of 24 the districts in a by-district election system are up for a vote in that election cycle. 25 (Ironically, a measure asking voters to change the election date in a high-turnout charter 26 city that is not already in violation of the law could trigger a violation of the law.) 27 16. I have calculated the statewide "percent minus percent" and "percent of 28 percent" thresholds using data from the California Secretary of State's reports on historic DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF REDONDO BEACH'S OPENING BRİEF
R6900-1059\2194159v2.doc
1 general election registration and turnout, both for the current 2010 - 2016 "last four general 2 elections" range, for the previous 2008 -2014 range, and for a theoretical 2012 - 2018 3 range if turnout in the 2018 gubernatorial general election matches turnout in the last 2014) 4 gubernatorial general election, with the following results:
5 Turnout in California Statewide Elections
6 Year General Election Pct Turnout
Turnout
7 2008 13.743.177 79%
2010 10.300.392 60%.
8 2012 13.202.158 72%
2014 7.513.972 42%
9 2016 14.6.10.509 75%
10 Resulting "Threshold" Calculations
11 4-Election Timeframe Percent minus Percent Percent of Percent 2008 - 2014 38% 48%
12 2010 - 2016 37%. 47%
13 17. But if 2018 matches 2014 (the last Gubernatorial election), then the threshold RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 14 shifts considerably:
15 Percent minus Percent
4-Election Timeframe Percent of Percent
2012 - 2018 33% 44%
16 (with 2018 assumed to
17 eaual 2014)
18 18. It is entirely possible that a jurisdiction that possibly fails to meet the 19 threshold could find itself challenged under SB 415 in court; only to have a new local or 20 statewide election occur in the middle of litigation that brings the jurisdiction into 21 compliance; only to have another statewide election occur a year or two after the case is 22 dismissed that again puts the jurisdiction out of compliance. 23 19. Turnout in Redondo Beach elections reflect the ebb and flow of local 24 government elections that one expects when local voters are following and engaging in 25 debate on local issues. When there are "hot topics" or controversies, turnout increases to 26 match and often exceed statewide primary election turnout levels. When residents are 27 happy with how things are going, fewer candidates run and turnout is lower:
810z/0790 28 ///
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF REDONDO BEACH'S

OPENING BRIEF
R6900-1059\2194159v2.doc
1 Turnout in Redondo Beach March Municipal Elections
2 Year Votes Cast Turnout Pct
2005 13.018 33%
3 2007 6.340 16%
2009 No contested local offices or
4 measures.
2011 8.048 19%
5 2013 13.139 30%
2015 12.886 29%
6 2017 16.546 35%
7 20. I have reviewed and compared turnout in the Redondo Beach Municipal 8 Elections and the previous Statewide Primary election going back to 2011:
9 Statewide / Municipal Year Municipal Turnout Statewide Primary Turnout 2010/2011 19% 31%
10 2012 / 2013 30% 25%
2014 / 2015 29% 48%
11 2016/2017 35% : 25%
12 21. In half of the elections reviewed, turnout in the municipal election exceeded 13 turnout in the corresponding statewide primary election. Yet, SB 415 argues the city should RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 14 move its local elections to the statewide general or primary election - even though that 15 could easily result in lower turnout and lower interest in the local election. 16 22. Some claim that the low turnout levels in some local elections question the 17 legitimacy of those elections in the eyes of the voters. Yet, in these days of multi-lingual 18 ballots, permanent absentee voters, no-stamp-needed mail ballots, automatic voter 19 registration at the Department of Motor Vehicles, and same-day voter registration, the 20 structural hurdles to voting are a shadow of their historic levels. Today the only challenge 21 of voting is finding the time to fill out the ballot and mail it in - ironically, barriers that SB 22 415 increases by significantly increasing the length and complexity of the ballots in many 23 jurisdictions.
24 23. The state aims to hold local jurisdictions to a standard that the state's own 25 elections fail to meet. Going back to 2002, six out of eight California statewide primaries 26 failed to meet both the "percent of a percent" and "percent minus percent" SB 415 27 /I/
28 -8-
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF REDONDO BEACH'S

OPENING BRIEF
R6900-1059\2194159v2.doc
1 thresholds and a seventh met the "percent minus percent" but not the "percent of a percent" 2 threshold:
3 Statewide Primary Turnout vs SB 415 Thresholds
4 Primary Threshold General "Percent "Percent of Primary Pass / General Election minus a Percent" Turnout Fail
5 Elections Turnout Percent"
Average
6 1996 - 2002
2002 61.2% 36.2% 45.9% 34.6% Fail Both
7 2004 1998 - 2004 63.8% 38.8% 47.8% 44.3% Fail
"Percent
8 of a
Percent"
9 2006 2000 - 2006 63.4% 38.4% 47.6% 33.6% Fail Both
2008 2002 - 2008 65.6% 40.6% 49.2% 28.2% Fail Both
10 2010 2004 - 2010 67.8% 42.8% 50.9% 33.3% Fail Both
2012 2006 - 2012 66.9% 41.9% 50.2% 31.1% Fail Both
11 2014 2008 - 2014 63..4% 38.4% 47.5% 25.2% Fail Both
12 2016 2010 - 2016 62.4% 37.4% 46.8% 47.7% Pass
13 24. If the turnout law applied to state elections, then those elections would be RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 14 banned. If we acknowledge that statewide primary elections are a necessity, then turnout in 15 those elections should be part of the threshold calculations. But they are not included in the SB 415 calculations.
17 25. The legislative committee and floor reports on SB 415 also mention "voter fatigue" from frequent elections as a problem potentially discouraging turnout. Yet, I am 19 not aware of any evidence that frequent elections are a more significant cause of "voter 20 fatigue" (defined as not casting a ballot on a given election contest) than overwhelming 21 ballot length. While some academic papers have looked at lower turnout levels in many 22 local elections compared to "drop off" or "roll off" (where voters leave down-ballot 23 elections blank in consolidated elections) and found that "drop off" is usually smaller than 24 differences in turnout, those papers all fail to review how many voters at consolidated 25 elections were not aware of the local election prior to filling out their ballot and simply 26 voted based on last name and/or job description that was suddenly thrust before them. 27 Those voters are also symptoms of "voter fatigue" because they are too overwhelmed to 8100/02/90 28
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF REDONDO BEACH'S

OPENING BRIEF
R6900-1059\2194159v2 doc
1 research and make informed decisions on the multitude of elections now cluttering their 2 ballot at the same time (and in the same overwhelming flood of campaign mail, social 3 media messages, and television spots).
4 26. Based on my review of the studies listed above as well as personal 5 observations from my own experience working on and analyzing campaigns, putting local 6 issues on statewide election ballots increases information costs; involve many more "low 7 information by choice" voters who are harder to reach; and shifts local election decisions 8 from candidate debates and media coverage to ballot titles and last names. 9 27. Local-only elections bring out voters who are particularly interested in and 10 aware of issues in their local jurisdiction. The local media is able to focus coverage and 11 host debates featuring local candidates, neighbors can discuss the election with neighbors, 12 and those who vote do so because they have an interest and awareness of the issues and 13 candidates in that election. All of those factors are lost in a statewide election, when the RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 14 media and the neighborhood talk is focused on national and statewide issues and 15 candidates. As a result, the burden falls on local candidates to fund more voter contact 16 efforts, and voter contact is more expensive for three reasons: (1) there are many more 17 potential voters to contact (a fact, but not a bad thing overall); (2) those voters are less 18 interested in local issues and thus less likely to pay attention to candidate messaging; (3) 19 local candidate messaging is "drowned out" in the sea of better-funded national, statewide 20 and county candidate messages; and (4) per-voter messaging is more expensive because of 21 the competition with the better-funded county, state and national campaigns for printer and 22 television time.
23 28. There is a significant difference between a voter turnout drive that aims to 24 increase voter participation in an off-cycle local election, and simply sticking the local 25 election on a higher-turnout general election ballot. The former involves convincing 26 residents to care about, learn about, and participate in the debate and vote on local issues. 27 The latter involves asking voters who remain uninterested in local elections to vote on local 81020290 28|///
-10-
DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF REDONDO BEACH'S

OPENING BRIEF
R6900-105912194159v2.doc
1 issues and candidates - likely with little more awareness of those questions than the name 2 and job description appearing on the ballot.
3 I declare under penally of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 4 foregoing is true and correct.
5 Executed on this 14th day ol' June 2018, at Glendale, California. 6 7
8 9
13 RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAYI - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 4 5 16
1 7
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
:
28 DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF REDONDO BEACH'S

OPENING BRIEF
R6900-1059(21941s9v2,dnc
06/20/201

PROOF OF SERVICE
2 City of Redondo Beach v. State of California
Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS172218
3 I, Kelley Herrington, declare:
4 I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years and not a party 5 to the within action. My business address is Los Angeles, California 90071-3101. On June 15, 2018, I served the within documents) described as:
6 DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF 7 REDONDO BEACH'S OPENING BRIEF
8 on the interested parties in this action as stated below:
9 Jonathan M. Eisenberg
Deputy Attorney General
10 Government Law Section
Office of the California Attorney General
300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702
Los Angeles, California 90013
12 Tel.: (213) 269-6246
Attorneys for the State of California and Alex Padilla, Secretary of State 13 of the State of California
RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 14 (BY MAIL) By placing a true copy of the foregoing documents) in a sealed envelope addressed as set forth above. I placed each such envelope for collection and mailing 15 following. ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this Firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, the 16 correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California, in the ordinary course of 17 business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day atter date of deposit for 18 mailing in affidavit.
19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
20 Executed on June 15, 2018, at Los Angeles, Californ
! 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 -1-
00 PROOF OF SERVICE
IB60nn-10501216960lvl dac

ORIGINAL
1 MICHAEL W. WEBB (BAR NO. 133414)

CITY ATTORNEY
2 CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
3 Redondo Beach, California 90277 FILED
4 Telephone: Superior Court of California
Facsimile: County of Los Angeles
V SEP 12 2018

RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
6 A Professiona. Corporation Sherri R. Carter, ExecunusUfficer/Clerk LISA BOND (BAR NO. 172342) 7. Deputy
7 By-
Fernando Decena,
T. PETER PIERCE (BAR NO. 160408)
8 MARVIN E. BONILLA (BAR NO. 305888)
•9
10 Los Angeles, California 90071-3101
Telephone:
11 Facsimile:
12 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff
City of Redondo Beach
13 RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
16 17 CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, Case No. BS172218
18 Petitioner and Plaintiff, SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF V. DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN
19 SUPPORT OF CITY OF REDONDO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; ALEX BEACH'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT

OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF

MANDATE
[FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH REPLY
22 Respondents and Defendants. BRIEF AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL

NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
23 WRIT OF MANDATE]
24 Judge: Hon. Amy D. Hogue
Dept: 86
25 Date: September 26, 2018
26 Time: 9:30 a.m.
810Z/67/60 27 Action Filed: February 13, 2018
28 [Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Govt. Code § 6103] SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF REDONDO R6900-10592218208VI doc BEACH'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF WRIT OF MANDATE 1 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN 2 SUPPORT OF CITY OF REDONDO BEACH'S REPLY BRIEF
3 1, Douglas Johnson, Ph.D., declare as follows:
4 I am the President of National Demographics Corporation. I make this supplemental declaration in support of Petitioner City of Redondo Beach's Reply Brief in 6 Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate. This declaration is based on personal knowledge, 7 and if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the matters set forth 8 herein.
9 2. I have reviewed the August 28, 2018 declaration submitted by Zoltan Hajnal 10 ("Hajnal Declaration") on behalf of Respondent Secretary of State in this matter. 11 The information set forth in the Hajnal Declaration does not alter my opinions 12 set forth in my original declaration in this matter. 13 As set forth in my prior declaration in this matter, as a result of the 25% RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 14 threshold set forth in Senate Bill 415 as codified in the California Voter Participation Rights 15 Act, the state aims to hold local jurisdictions tọ a standard that the state's own elections fail 16 to meet. If the turnout law applied to state elections, then those elections would be banned. 17 Going back to 2002, six out of eight California statewide primaries failed to meet both the 18 "percent of a percent" and "percent minus percent" SB 415 thresholds and a seventh met 19 the "percent minus percent" but not the "percent of a percent" threshold:
20 Statewide Primary Turnout vs SB 415 Thresholds
21 Primary Threshold General "Percent "Percent of a Primary Pass / Fail General Election minus Percent" Turnout
22 Elections Turnout Percent"
Average
23 2002 1996 - 2002 61.2% 36.2% 45.9% 34.6% Fail Both
2004 1998 - 2004 63.8% 38.8% 47.8% 44.3% Fail
24 "Percent
of a
25 Percent"

20.06 2000 - 2006 63.4% 38.4% 47.6% 33.6% Fail Both
26 2008 2002 - 2008 65.6% 40.6% 49.2% 28.2% Fail Both
2010 2004 - 2010 67.8% 42.8% 50.9% 33.3% Fail Both
27 2012 2006 - 2012 66.9% 41.9% 50.2% 31.1% Fail Both
28 2014 2008 - 2014 63.4% 38.4% 47.5% 25.2% Fail Both
2016 2010 - 2016 62.4% 37.4% 46.8% 47.7% Pass
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF REDONDO

BEACH'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF WRIT OF MANDATE
R6900-105912218208vl.doc
• :

True and correct copies of the documents that support the information in the above 2 table are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The Hajnal Declaration does not dispute any of the 3 contentions set forth in this paragraph.
4 The Hajnal Declaration attempts to dispute my contention that putting local issues on statewide election ballots increases information costs. Hajnal states "I would 6 argue that it is possible that voters find it easier to search for information on all elections and candidates at the same time." (Hajnal Declaration, p. 17, footnote 21) Based on my 8 experience, newspaper and other mass media coverage of local elections declines for on- 9 cycle elections when national and state elections are competing for limited print space and 10 television time, and, television and print advertising costs go up during the on-cycle 11 elections. If a city is required to conduct its local election at the same time as the federal or 12 state elections, the candidates for state and federal offices generally receive greater media 13 exposure and local issues get lost. Even the article cited in the Hajnal Declaration supports RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 14 this concept. I have reviewed the article identified as Curtis Wood, C. 2002. "Voter 15 Turnout in City Elections, " Urban Affairs Review 38:209-231, cited in the Hajnal 16 Declaration, p. 6, Item 22. That article recognizes that "Media exposure to candidates and 17 their policy positions may be greater for those seeking higher office. Candidates for higher 18 office with larger constituencies can reach a greater proportion of their electorate through 19 the mass media than can a candidate running a grassroots campaign for a district election in 20 many American cities..." (Id. at 213, citations omitted.) The source referenced by Wood 21 in that article is Charles Bullock, 1990, "Turnout in Municipal Elections," Policy Studies 22 Review, Spring 1990. At page 542 of the article, Professor Bullock goes into more detail 23 on his findings:
24 "Expectations that turnout rates for positions elected from smaller communities 25 will exceed those for offices in more populous political units may ignore the 26 modern communications network and the great reliance that most Americans 27 place on television for information. Exposure to candidates and their policy 28 positions may be greater for those who seek higher than lower offices." - 3.

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF REDONDO

BEACH'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF WRIT OF MANDATE
R6900-105912218208vl.doc

6. A true and correct copy the article written by Professor Bullock referenced in 2 the previous paragraph is attached as Exhibit 2:
3 Page 11 of the Hajnal Declaration states "One of the main claims by Dr.

Johnson is that moving to on-cycle elections might lower turnout because lower elections 5 would be placed further down the ballot." I made no such claim. 6 On page 17, the Hajnal Declaration states "Despite the claims made by 7 Douglas Johnson, there is absolutely no research showing that national and statewide 8 campaigns reduce the amount of attention paid to local issues."" He fails to note there is no 9 academic research on this topic either way - rather my opinion is based both on my own 10 personal experiences managing campaigns and my awareness of the rapidly declining 11 resources available at newspapers and other media today. 12 I am not aware of any research on the topic of, and the Hajnal Declaration 13 cites no research regarding, the declaration's page 18 theory regarding the importance of RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 14 the "total [cumulative] knowledge" of all voters participating in an election. When voting, 15 each individual voter bases his or her decision on what the he or she knows. The Hajnal 16 Declaration appears to be proposing a theory about the relevance of "total knowledge" as 17 something apparently measured as the cumulative total of all knowledge about an election 18 among all voters. Such a theory has no relevance to the individual voter casting a vote, nor 19 to the questions posed in this case.
20 10. On page 12, the Hajnal Declaration makes a factually incorrect claim about 21 its data when it states "all of the analysis... only counts as voters those individuals that 22 vote in local elections." Since Los Angeles County and other California jurisdictions do not 23 report statewide primary or general election blank, under-voted and over-voted ballots for 24 each election contest, such data is not available and thus obviously not used in those 25 analysis. This incorrect assumption about the data undermines much, if not most, of the 26 Hajnal declarations and opinions.
27 11. Page 20 of the Hajnal Declaration cites "exceptionally high turnout" in more 28 recent elections and states "it is likely that turnout in earlier off-cycle elections in the city SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF REDONDO

BEACH'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF WRIT OF MANDATE
R6900-1059\2218208vl doc
1 was substantially below turnout in earlier statewide primary elections." A simple look at the County Registrar's online reports show that the increases in the numbers of votes cast in 3 Redondo Beach elections closely track the increases in the number of registered voters in the city. The claimed "exceptionally high turnout" numbers are, in fact, essentially unchanged turnout levels as a percentage of registered voters. 6 12. On that same page 20, the declaration states in footnote 28 that "I have 7 requested statewide primary election returns for Redondo Beach from the city but have not 8 yet received them." In California, statewide primary and general election data are collected 9 by and available from the counties, not the individual cities or other local jurisdictions. The 10 data in question is available on the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters website. 11 13. In point #12 on page 22, the Hajnal Declaration states "In every case that has 12 been examined, on-cycle elections are substantially cheaper than off-cycle elections." That 13 may be factually true but the best use of local revenues are by definition a matter for local, RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 14 not statewide, control. 15 14. I have also reviewed my prior declaration and need to make a correction to 16 Paragraphs 20 and 21, as follows: I have reviewed and compared turnout in the Redondo 17 Beach Municipal Elections and the previous Statewide Primary election going back to 18 2011:
19 Statewide / Municipal Year Municipal Turnout Statewide Primary Turnout 2010/2011 19% 31%
20 2012 / 2013 30% 25% 28%
2014/2015 29% 48% 22%
21 2016/2017 35% 25% 32%
22 In half three of the four elections reviewed, turnout in the municipal election 23 exceeded turnout in the corresponding statewide primary election. 24 15. Moreover, instead of Redondo Municipal (March) election turnout exceeding 25 the corresponding statewide primary in two of the last four election cycles, the actual count 26 is three of the last four election cycles. Yet, SB 415 argues the city should move its local 27 elections to the statewide general or primary election - even though that could easily result 28 in lower turnout and lower interest in the local election.

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF REDONDO

BEACH'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF WRIT OF MANDATE
R6900-1059\2218208v1.doc
1 16. True and correct copies of the files from the County Registrar showing the 2 voter registration total and the ballots cast count used to cálculate the percentages in the 3 above Statewide Primary Turnout table are attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The City election 4 percentages are from the official City canvasses of the vote that were attached to the City 5 resolutions certifying the election results for each election. These percentages are also included in the City's Administrative Report regarding Senate Bill 415, dated November 7, 7 2017, and attached as Exhibit 8 to the City's Request for Judicial Notice in support of its 8 opening brief.
9 ///
///
111•
//
RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ¿ . = = //
15 / //
16 /
17 ///
18 //
19 ///
20/11
21 /11
22 /1/
23 1/11
24 / 11
25 ///
26 /11
8IA7/67/60 27
28 /11
-6-
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF REDONDO

BEACH'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF WRIT OF MANDATE
R6900-1059\2218208vl.doc
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 2 foregoing is true and correct.
3 Executed on this I day of September 2018, at Glendale, California. 4 6
7 8
RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 20 22
23 24฿
26 27
28 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF REDONDO 09/29/20 BEACH'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF WRIT OF MANDATE R6900. 105912217039vi.doc
0187/67;60
EXHIBIT 1

HISTORICAL VOTER REGISTRATION AND
PARTICIPATION IN STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTIONS 1910-2016
Registration Votes Cast
Turnout Turnout
Election Date Eligible Democratic Republican Other Total Total Votes Registered Eligible Nov. 8, 1910 725,000 393,893 54.33%
Nov. 5, 1912 P 1,569,000 987,368 707,776 71.68% 45.11%
Nov. 3, 1914 1,726,000 1,219,345 961,868 78.88% 55.73%
Nov. 7, 1916 P 1,806,000 1,314,446 1,045,858 79.57% 57.91% Nov. 5, 1918 1,918,000 1,203,898 714,525 59.35% 37.25%
Nov. 2, 1920 P 2,090,000 1,374,184 987,632 71.87% 47.26% Nov. 7, 1922 2,420,000 319,107 968,429 244,848 1,532,384 1,000,997 65.32% 41.36% Nov. 4, 1924 P 2,754,000 397,962 1,183,672 240,723 1,822,357 1,336,598 73.34% 48.53% Nov. 2, 1926 2,989,000 410,290 1,298,062 204,510 1,912,862 1,212,452 63.38% 40.56% Nov. 6, 1928 P 3,240,000 592,161 1,535,751 185,904 2,313,816 1,846,077 79.78% 56.98% Nov. 4, 1930 3,463,000 456.096 1,638,575 150,557 2,245,228 1,444,872 64.35% 41.72% Nov. 8, 1932 P 3,573,000 1,161,482 1,565,264 162,267 2,889,013 2,330,132 80.65% 65.22% Nov. 6, 1934 3,674,000 1,555,705 1,430,198 154,211 3,140,114 2,360,916 75.19% 64.26% Nov. 3, 1936 P 3,844,000 1,882,014 1,244,507 127,300 3,253,821 2,712,342 83.36% 70.56% Nov. 8, 1938 4,035,000 2,144,360 1,293,929 173,127 3,611,416 2,695,904 74.65% 66.81% Nov. 5, 1940 P 4,214,000 2,419,628 1,458,373 174,394 4,052,395 3,300,410 81.44% 78.32% Nov. 3, 1942 4,693,000 2,300,206 1,370,069 150,491 3,820,776 2,264,288 59.26% 48.25% Nov. 7, 1944 P 5,427,000 2,418,965 1,548,395 173,971 4,141,331 3,566,734 86.13% 65.72% Nov. 5, 1946 5,800,000 2,541,720 1.637.246 204,997 4,383,963 2,759,641 62.95% 47.58% Nov. 2, 1948 P 6,106,000 2,892,222 1,908,170 261,605 5,061,997 4,076,981 80.54% 66.77% Nov. 7, 1950 6,458,000 3,062,205 1,944,812 237,820 5,244,837 3,845,757 73.32% 59.55% Nov. 4, 1952 P 7,033,000 3,312,668 2,455,713 229,919 5,998,300 5,209,692 86.85% 74.07% Nov. 2, 1954 7,565,000 3,266,831 2,415,249 203,157 5,885,237 4,101,692 69.69% 54.22% Nov. 6, 1956 P 8,208,000 3,575,635 2,646,249 186,937 6,408,821 5,547,621 86.56% 67.59% Nov. 4, 1958 8,909,000 3,875,630 2,676,565 200,226 6,752,421 5,366,053 79.47% 60.23% Nov. 8, 1960 P 9,587,000 4,295,330 2,926,408 242,888 7,464,626 6,592,591 88.32% 68.77% Nov. 6, 1962 10,305,000 4,289,997 3,002,038 239,176 7,531,211 5,929,602 78.73% 57.54% Nov. 3, 1964 P 10,959,000 4,737,886 3,181,272 264,985 8,184,143 7,233,067 88.38% 66.00% Nov. 8, 1966 11,448,000 4,720,597 3,350,990 269,281 8,340,868 6,605,866 79.20% 57.70% Nov. 5, 1968 P 11,813,000 4,682,661 3,462,131 442,881 8,587,673 7,363,711 85.75% 62.34% Nov. 3, 1970 12,182,000 4,781,282 3,469,046 456.019 8,706,347 6,633,400 76.19% 54.45% Nov. 7, 1972 P 13,322,000 5,864,745 3,840,620 760,850 10,466,215 8,595,950 82.13% 64.52% Nov. 6, 1973 S 13,512,000 5,049,959 3,422,291 617,569 9,089,819 4,329,017 47.62% 32.04% Nov. 5, 1974 13,703,000 5,623,831 3,574,624 729,909 9,928,364 5,364,597 64.11% 46.45% Nov. 2, 1976 P 14,196,000 5,725,718 3,468,439 786,331 9,980,488 8,137,202 81.53% 57.32% Nov. 7, 1978 14,781,000 5,729,959 3,465,384 934 643 10,129,986 7,132,210 70.41% 48.25% Nov. 6, 1979 S 15,083,000 5,594,018 3,406,854 1,006,085 10,006,957 3,740,800 37.38% 24.80% Nov. 4, 1980 P 15,384,000 6,043,262 3,942,768 1,375,593 11,361,623 8,775,459 77.24% 57.04% Nov. 2, 1982 15,984,000 6,150,716 4,029,684 1.378.699 11,559,099 8,064,314 69.78% 50.45% Nov. 6, 1984 P 16,582,000 6,804,263 4,769,129 1,500,238 13,073,630 9,796,375 74.93% 59.08% Nov. 4, 1986 17,561,000 6,524,496 4,912,581 1,396,843 12,833,920 7,617,142 59.35% 43.38% Nov. 8, 1988 P 19,052,000 7.052,368 5,406,127 1,546,378 14,004,873 19,194,539 72.81% 53.51% Nov. 6, 1990 19,245,000 6,671,747 5,290,202 1,516,078 13,478,027 7,899,131 58.61% 41.05% Nov. 3, 1992 P 20,864,000 7,410,914 5,593,555 2,097,004 15,101,473 11,374,565 75.32% 54.52% Nov. 2,1993 S 20,797,000 7,110,142 5,389,313 2,043,168 14,524,623 5,282,443 36.37% 27.73% Nov. 8, 1994 18,946,000 7,219,635 5,472,391 2,031,758 14,723,784 3,900,593 60.45% 46.98% Nov. 5, 1996 P 19,526,991 7,387,504 5,704,536 2,570,035 15,662,075 13,263,490 65.53% 52.56% Nov. 3, 1998 20,806,462 6,989,006 5,314,912 2,665,267 14,969,185 3,621,121 57.59% 41.43% Nov. 7, 2000 P 21,461,275 7,134,601 5,485,49: 3,087,214 15,707,307 11,142,843 70.94% 51.92% Nov. 5, 2002 21,466,274 6,825,400 5,388,89: 3,089,174 15,303,469 7,738,821 50.57% 36.05% Oct. 7, 2003 S 21,833,141 6,718,111 5,429,256 3,236,059 15,383,526 9,413,494 61.20% 43.12% Nov. 2, 2004 P 22,075,036 7,120,425 5,745,518 3,691,330 16,557,273 12,589,683 76.04% 57.03% Nov. 8, 2005 S 22,487,768 6,785,188 5,524,609 3,581,685 15,891,482 7,968,757 50.14% 35.44% Nov. 7, 2006 22,652,190 6,727,908 5,436,314 3,672,886 15,837,108 3,899,059 56.19% 39.29% Nov. 4, 2008 P 23,208,710 7,683,495 5,428,052 4,192,544 17,304,091 13,743,177 79.42% 59.22% May 19, 2009 S 23,385,819 7,642, 108 5,325,558 4,185,346 17,153,012 4,871,945 28.40% 20.80% 09/29/2018
4 Ex l

HISTORICAL VOTER REGISTRATION AND
PARTICIPATION IN STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTIONS 1910-2016 (continued) Registration Votes Cast
Turnout Turnout
Election Date Eligible Democratic Republican Other Istal Total Votes Resistered Eligible Nov. 2, 2010 23,551,699 7,620,240 5,361,875 4,303,768 17,285,883 10,300,392 59.59% 43.74% Nov. 6, 2012 P 23,802,577 7,966,422 5,356,608 4,922,940 18,245,970 13,202,158 72.36% 55.47% Nov. 4, 2014 24,288,145 7,708,683 5,005,422 5,089,718 17,803,823 7,513,972 42.20% 30.94% Nov. 8, 2016 P 24,875,293 8,720,417 5,048,398 5,642,956 19,411,771 14,610,509 75.27% 58.74% Notes
* Indicates information not available.

P indicates a presidential election year.

S indicates a statewide special election.

The first statewide record of party affiliations was reported in 1922.

In 1911, women gained the right to vote in California.

In 1972, the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18.
09/29/2018
5 •
• HISTORICAL VOTER REGISTRATION AND
PARTICIPATION IN STATEWIDE PRIMARY ELECTIONS 1914 - 2016 Registration Votes Cast
No Party Total Turnout Turnout
Primary Date Eligible Democratic Republican Other Preference* Total Votes Registered Eligible August 25, 1914 1,710,000 ** ** **
: : 324,366
May 2, 1916P 1,786,000 735,569 4.08% 18.16%
August 29, 1916 1,798,000 ** ** **
:: ::
* 647,234 56.21%.

August 27, 1918 1,906,000 1,151,365 33.96%
May 4, 1920 P 2,047,000 :: : 1.111.192 618,981 55.70% 30.24% August 31, 1920 2,072,000 488,261 ** 23.56%
August 29, 1922 2,386,000 305,658 927,046 46,790 172,799 1,452,293 813,166 55.99% 34.08% May 6, 1924 P 2,670,000 339,300 1,012,701 37,277 110,317 1,499,595 742,827 49.54% 27.82% August 26, 1924 2,719,000 367,277 1,084,997 39,671 129,508 1,621,453 674,231 41.58% 24.80% August 31, 1926 2,964,000 399,599 1,262,480 38,808 153,584 1,854,471 1,031,900 55.64% 34.81% May 1, 1928 P 3,177,000 465,793 1,254,514 28,950 100,722 1,849,979 853,669 46.14% 26.87% August 28, 1928 3,214,000 508,645 1,360, 152 30,251 110,551 2,009,599 740,556 36.85% 23.04% August 26, 1930 3,440,000 449,824 1,599,413 23,297 114,940 2,187,474 1,301,847 59.51% 37.84% May 3, 1932 P 3,546,000 847,264 1,394,850 24,839 110,190 2,377,143 1,379,113 58.02% 38.89% August 30, 1932 3,562,000 1,027,657 1,497,432 27,743 112,998 2,665,830 1,493,827 56.04% 41.94% August 28, 1934 3,663,000 1,494,111 1,418,826 31,841 117,539 3,062,317 1,817,027 59.34% 49.60% May 5, 1936 P 3,802,000 1,687,288 1,163,780 16,561 96,707 2,964,336 1,535,280 51.79% 40.38% August 25, 1936 3,826,000 1,783,028 1,198,550 19,135 96,116 3,096,829 1,472,094 47.54% 38.48% August 30, 1938 4,015,000 2,052,519 1,246,773 51,793 102,973 3,454,058 2,069,025 59.90% 51.53% May 7, 1940 P 4,169,000 2,172,853 1,308,211 43,773 127,437 3,652,274 1,572,173 43.05% 37.71% August 27, 1940 4,195,000 2,259,613 1,361,657 35,233 126,199 3,782,702 1,885,537 49.85% 44.95% August 25, 1942 4,643,000 2,252,901 1,352,907 21,917 123,571 3,751,296 1,768,929 47.16% 38.10% May 16, 1944 P 5,244,000 1,968,376 1,285,977 15,393 101,232 3,370,978 1,884,820 55.91% 35.94% June 4, 1946 5,722,000 2,393,997 1,530,335 11,899 177,377 4,113,608 2,087,864 50.76% 36.49% June 1, 1948 P 6,042,000 2, 365,560 1,749,223 28,003 189,343 4,632,129 2,538,585 54.80% 42.02% June 6, 1950 6,385,000 2,862,063 1,826,350 32,608 204,348 4,925,369 3,140,472 63.76% 49.19% June 3, 1952 P 6,913,000 2,995,768 2,192,446 23,650 171,657 5,383,521 3,651,912 67.84% 52.83% June 8, 1954 7,454,000 3,112,004 2,348,412 29,838 174,434 5,664,688 3,184,565 56.22% 42.72% June 5, 1956 P 8,074,000 3,059,873 2,277,530 21,304 129,115 5,487,822 3,656,586 66.63% 45.29% June 3, 1958 8,763,000 3,542,374 2,552,678 30,172 154,952 6,280,176 4,125,124 65.68% 47.07% June 7, 1960 P 9,446,000 3,676,495 2,519,975 30,305 148,507 6,375,282 4,004,059 62.81% 42.39% June 5, 1962 10,155,000 3,996,964 2,833,889 7,788 212,948 7,051,589 4,479,723 63.53% 44.11% June 2, 1964 P 10,823,000 4,022,302 2,895,448 25,414 179,560 7,122,724 5,124,175 71.94% 47.35% June 7, 1966 11,346,000 4,485,777 3,125,884 37,611 205,830 7,855,102 5,079,911 64.67% 44.77% June 4, 1968 P 11,737,000 4,347,406 3,197,815 202,678 177,718 7,925,617 5,723,047 72.21% 48.76% June 2, 1970 12,105,000 4,388,052 3,274,967 112,086 278,284 8,053,389 5,011,908 62.23% 41.40% Tune 6, 1972P 13,084,000 5,134,178 3,398,716 135,691 436,702 9,105,287 6,460,220 70.95% 49.37% stune 4, 1974 13,624,000 5,333,522 3,499,773 112,737 552,469 9,498,501 5,128,375 53.99% 37.64% June 8, 1976 P 14,093,000 4,987,795 3, 165,495 66,981 490,485 8,710,756 6,323,651 72.60% 44.87% Fune 6, 1978 14,659,000 5,610,357 3,450,469 110,931 763,084 9,934,841 6,843,001 68.88% 46.68% 5 Registration Votes Cast
No Party Total Turnout Turnout
Primary Date Eligible Democratic Republican Other Preference" Total Votes Registered Eligible June 3, 1980 P 15,258,000 5,786,806 3,703,515 245,103 959.236 10,694,660 6,774,184 63.34% 44.40% June 8, 1982 15,859,000 5,853,273 3,867,531 267,294 1,099,064 11,087,162 5,846,026 52.73% 36.86% June 5, 1984 P 16,457,000 6,142,820 4,047,509 250,109 1,089,331 11,529,769 5,609,063 48.65% 34.08% June 3, 1986 17,357,000 6,181,719 4,566,785 366,591 1,091,537 12,206,632 4,937,941 40.45% 28.45% June 7, 1988 P 18,917,000 6,380,397 4,782,248 267,047 1,107,515 12,537,207 6,037,468 48.16% 31.92% June 5, 1990 19,133,000 6,453,186 5,072,331 249,873 1,206,039 12,981,429 5,386,545 41.49% 28.15% June 2, 1992 P 19,180,000 6,581,888 5,242,805 435,572 1,308,983 13,569,248 6,439,629 47.46% 33.58% June 7, 1994 18,946,000 6,924,121 5,261,009 459,884 1,526,397 14,171,411 4,966,827 35.05% 26.22% March 26, 1996 P 19,326,000 6,849,330 5,373,746 697,203 1,603,084 14,523,363 6,081,777 41.88% 31.47% June 2, 1998 20,653,000 6,830,530 5,225,686 685,871 1,863,590 14,605,677 6,206,618 42.49% 30.05% March 7, 2000 P 21,220,772 6,684,668 5,140,951 773,523 2,032,663 14,631,805 7,883,385 53.88% 37.15% March 5, 2002 21,507,390 6,873,476 5,354,358 798,155 2,254,819 15,280,808 5,286,204 34.59% 24.58% March 2, 2004 P 21,887,894 6,518,631 5,364,832 727,658 2,480,039 15,091,160 6,684,421 44.29% 30.54% June 6, 2006 22,542,844 6,685,288 5,387,865 704,313 2,890,973 15,668,439 5,269,142 33.63% 23.37% February 5, 2008 P 22,948,059 6,749,406 5,229,425 690,758 3,043,164 15,712,753 9,068,415 57.71% 39.52% June 3, 2008 23,033,970 7,053,860 5,244,394 696,849 3,128,684 16,123,787 4,550,227 28.22% 19.75% June 8, 2010 23,453,690 7,553,109 5,228,320 771,852 3,423,750 16,977,031 5,654,993 33.31% 24.11% June 5, 2012 P 23,713,027 7,442,921 5, 186,492 869,678 3,654,608 17,153,699 5,328,296 31.06% 22.47% June 3, 2014 24,192,752 7,692,670 5,036,610 1,243,511 3,749,215 17,722,006 4,461,346 25.17% 18.44% June 7, 2016 P 24,783,789 8,029,130 4,888,771 819,504 4,177,648 17,915,053 8,548,301 47.72% 34,49% Notes
*Known as "Decline to State" before 2011 when the Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act took effect. **Indicates information not available.

P indicates a presidential primary election.

The first statewide record of party affiliations was reported in 1922.

In 1911, women were given the right to vote in California.

In 1972, the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18.

Source: CA Secretary of State
89/29/2018
6 8107767/68
Policy Studies Review, Spring 1990
Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 539-549

TURNOUT IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
Charles S. Bullock, III
The decline in voter participation in recent presidential elections has sparked widespread concern. It is often overlooked that as poor as the turnout rate may be in a presidential contest, that election involves more voters than any others. The further one goes down the hierarchy of govern- ments, the smaller the share of eligibles who express preferences. All other things being equal, turnout tends to be poorest in local elections such as those for municipal offices.

Municipal turnout has continued to generate little scholarly interest even in the face of growing academic curiosity about the correlates of participation in other contexts. The most comprehensive analyses of urban turnout have concentrated on the use of nonpartisan ballots and council- manager versus unreformed governing arrangements (Alford & Lee, 1968; Karnig & Walter, 1983). Karnig and Walter's longitudinal comparisons show that cities adopting nonpartisan and city manager reforms experienced greater declines in turnout than occurred in unreformed cities. The impact of other structural features have been largely ignored.

To be analyzed here are the relationships of two structural features of municipal government and ethnicity with turnout. The structural features-- electoral districting and the vote share needed for election--originated in the same reform era as nonpartisan ballots and the city manager. The features reviewed here, unlike nonpartisanship and the council-manager plan, have been the subjects of litigation in many communities in recent years. Challenges to the majority vote requirement and electoral formats other than single-mem- ber districting are based on claims arising under the 1982 Voting Rights Act that these arrangements dilute the influence of minority voters. We will examine turnout to determine whether there is a relationship with the chal- lenged mechanisms. Since changes have often resulted from complaints by blacks, we will compare turnout for blacks and whites.

Municipal elections have been little studied, at least in part, because of data collection difficulties. While most cities will provide the most recent election returns available upon request, it may be difficult to go back in time. Even when figures are obtained, they may not be wholly comparable.

Data collection problems are such that this study makes no claim to com- prehensiveness nor that the communities from which data are reviewed constitute a representative sample of all American cities. Instead the propositions explored here are presented in the hope that further research will be stimulated.

INTERPOLATION FROM THE LITERATURE
Turnout in municipal elections has been so little studied that there is 09/29/2018 cant literature to review, and that which exists suffers from the problen f comprehensiveness and representativeness that also affect this pape:

Therefore, at this point in the presentation we draw on the general litera- 539
ExZ
•
•
540 Policy Studies Review, Spring 1990, 9:3
ture in order to provide a background against which to present bits and pieces of data on municipal participation rates.

Race
the 1988 presidential election, self-reported black turnout lagged 7.6 per- centage points behind white turnout (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1989, p. 1). differences with blacks voting at lower rates than whites because they are, on the average, less well-educated than whites (Wolfinger & Rosenstone, 1980, p. 71). Others have found race to have an independent effect on turnout even after socioeconomic factors and region have been held con- stant (Abramson & Claggett, 1984, p. 734). Those who have commented on racial turnout in urban elections have followed Abramson and Claggett in explaining lower black than white turnout (Engstrom, 1988, pp. 150-155).

Despite a general pattern of lower black than white participation, there is great variability. In 1986 turnout among southern blacks was only 1 percentage point below that of whites while in the rest of the country a 3.5 point gap existed (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1989, p. 1). In contrast, nationwide, whites voted at rates about 12 points greater than did blacks in presidential elections from 1968 to 1976. However, recently in some states, blacks have reported voting at higher rates than whites (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1989, pp. 6-9).

Some analyses designed to explore directly the relationship between black socioeconomic status and voting have found no linkage. A multi- variate analysis of black turnout in Mississippi around 1970 reported that "The neutral loading of the SES variables in multiple regression analysis suggests that they vote at pretty much the same rate regardless of their income, their education, or their occupational status" (St. Angelo & Puryear, 1982, p. 122). Hanes Walton who, after reviewing turnout in Atlanta black precincts across four presidential elections, also challenged the SES explanation, observed that "The fluctuation is more than the SES index can explain for such a short time frame" (1985, p. 115).

These findings for southern communities are in line with recent multi- variate analyses of National Election Studies. Using pooled data for four elections between 1972 and 1982, Mitchell and Wlezien (1989) found that blacks turned out at higher rates than whites. Blacks also participated more in the states voting on Super Tuesday of 1988 although the racial difference was not statistically significant (Norrander, 1989).

Majority Vote
It has been generally agreed that where a majority vote requirement maintains, turnout will drop from the first to the second election (Key, 0912912818 1949; Ewing, 1953, 1980). Key showed that in 30 of 38 gubernatorial runoffs, fewer people voted in the second than the first primary (p. 419). Recently he Joint Center for Political Studies stated, with no substantiatin vidence, that "Moreover, because turnout usually falls off in run-off ele tions, the winning candidate in the second round sometimes actually Bullock: Turnout in Municipal Elections 541
receives fewer votes than the front-runner did in the first round" (1984, pp. 7-8).

Once one gets beyond well-recognized sociodemographic characteristics such as age and education (Wolfinger & Rosenstone, 1980), turnout rates may be determined largely by voter interest, although structure may have some effect. Where a majority vote is required, the first balloting narrows the field of candidates to two per post or, in a pure at-large system, to twice as many candidates as there are slots to be filled. If participation levels drop between the two elections, the decline may be attributable to supporters of candidates eliminated in the first election who find neither of the remain. ing options sufficiently attractive to motivate a return to the polls for the runofi. Alternatively, if some posts have been filled, the size of the elec corate eligible for the second election may be smaller than in the first election. For example, in a city that elects its mayor at-large and council members from districts, if a mayoral candidates gets a majority in the first election, the runoff may be confined to a single district in which no can- didate got a majority initially. With the runoff being held in only one of five or more districts in the city, it might be impossible for turnout in the second primary to be anything but less than in the initial election. (If the electorate is approximately evenly distributed across five districts, then if turnout citywide in the first primary exceeded 20%, even a 100% turnout in the one ward in which the runoff occurred could not match the number of voters participating in the first primary.)
If the potential electorate in the second election is the same as in the initial one, then turnout in the runoff may actually exceed the participation rate in the first primary, just as in partisan elections, turnout in the general election typically exceeds that in the primary. The two remaining can- didates may receive greater media attention than did the larger initial field making it easier for voters to learn about and develop preferences when choosing between two rather than among a larger number. Voter interest may be stirred if the perception develops that the outcome of the runoff will be close thereby providing an additional motivation to vote.

Electoral Districting
There are also suggestions, but little evidence, that communities in which representatives are chosen from single member districts have higher turnout rates than do cities that elect the council at-large. Challenges to at-large electoral systems sometimes rest on a claim that turnout is depressed. "It is my expectation that the higher participation will consis- tently...be in districts" (Willingham, 1985a, pp. 57-58; also see Willingham, 1985b, p. 10). Higher turnout is expected in districted cities because "[s]mall size may provide an additional impetus for civic participation; it may en- courage greater citizen involvement in the governmental process" (Karlan, 1989, p. 182). Operating here may be a presumption that a smaller com- munity enhances the potential for retail politics in which voters can have 89/29/2018 personal contact with candidates. Firsthand knowledge about candidates may give voters a greater sense of having a stake in the outcome and may stir enthusiasm leading to higher turnout.
542 Pollcy Studies Review, Spring 1990, 9:3
Expectations that turnout rates for positions elected from smaller com- munities will exceed those for offices in more populous political units may ignore the modern communications network and the great reliance that most Americans place on television for information. Exposure to candidates and their policy positions may be greater for those who seek higher than lower offices. Only in the smallest political units is it feasible for candidates to actually contact a significant share of the electorate in person. Candidates for higher offices with larger constituencies can reach a greater proportion of their electorate through television appearances than could a candidate running a person-to-person campaign for a ward seat on the councils of many American cities. As evidence that the potential for personal campaigning does not trans- late into higher turnout, one need only compare levels of participation for various offices. Typically more voters express preferences for president than for local offices such as county commissioner even though the number of voters who have had contact with a candidate for the county commission far exceeds those who have met one of the presidential candidates. Perceptions of what is at stake are, again, a potential factor in turnout which may help account for roll-off for lower offices and for differential turnout rates for contests held on different days. Thus turnout is less in presidential preference primaries--espe- cially those held separately from the ones at which party nominees for other offices are chosen--and in municipal elections held independently from other positions.

Citywide turnout may be less in communities that use single member districts to create smaller constituencies than in cities that elect council members at-large. The more city officials elected at-large, the greater the likelihood that there will be contested elections. To the degree that voter interest drives turnout, participation should increase with the number of contests. Where all positions are filled in elections from districts, it is likely that contests will not develop in some districts so that voters in part of the city will have no reason to go to the polls.

RESULTS
Race
Several recent studies have found that black-white differences in tur- nout have been reduced if not altogether eliminated. Black turnout, which was always at least 10 points lower than white turnout in Chicago mayoral elections during the latter half of the 1970s (p. 148), rose in 1983 so that "turnout among the two [black and whitel population groups was quite comparable" (Preston, 1987, p. 159). Black and white turnout rates were comparable in the Morial elections in New Orleans (Perry & Stokes, 1987), and in the 1983 Philadelphia mayoral contest black turnout is reported to have been slightly higher than white (Ransom, 1987, p. 285). While black turnout in Chicago varied, relative to white turnout, there was no relation- 09/29/2018 ship between black income and turnout (Preston, 1987, pp. 152, 159).

Black turnout in Chicago jumped in an effort to make Harold Washington the city's first black mayor. This pattern has been observed elsewhere.

Heilig and Mundt report that "it is not uncommon in local elections in the South for minorities to turn out in greater proportions than other voters, Bullock: Turnout in Municipal Elections 543
particularly when minority candidates are involved" (1984, p. 80). An attrac- tive black candidate who is perceived to be competitive is sufficient to overcome the socioeconomic drag frequently observed to reduce turnout among the poor so that despite being less affluent generally than whites, blacks may nonetheless vote at higher rates. The candidacies of Harold Washington in Chicago, "Dutch" Morial in New Orleans, Wilson Goode in Philadelphia and Maynard Jackson in Atlanta (Bullock, 1984, pp. 241-242) coincided with bigher black than white turnout rates.

Even less than charismatic black candidates may stimulate black tur- nout. In 11 elections from 1963 through 1985 in which one or more blacks sought election to the Sarasota, Florida, city council, black turnout ex- eed for hite tur race in all but and on blacko the oe it balot, tally equal for the two races.
voted at only half the rate of whites. Although not applicable to Sarasota, Engstrom has asserted that black turnout varies with the number of black candidates appearing on the ballot (1988, p. 129).

While a black candidacy may suffice to boost black turnout, it may not be necessary. Black turnout often exceeded that among whites in Atlanta's mayoral elections before blacks sought the city's top office. Similarly, in seven Durham elections from 1951 to 1967, blacks never voted at a lower rate than did whites, although in some years the rates for the two were essentially the same (Keech, 1968).

Given the rich diversity among cities and their politics, it is hardly surprisingly that while a black candidate sometimes pumps up black tur- nout, it does not always have that effect. A review of four sets of primaries and general elections in Springfield and one special election (1975-1985) fails to uncover a single instance in which the share of the black population voting exceedad the share of whites. Since 1975, blacks participated at a rate no better than half that of whites. Neither the presence of a black in a regular primary nor in a special election evoked exceptional enthusiasm from the black electorate.

Jackson, Tennessee, offers another example of a community where during six primaries and four runoffs conducted over the span of sixteen years (1967-1983) black participation always lagged behind white voting. In three elections in which a black candidate ran for the city commission, black turnout approximated two-thirds the rate for whites, but in two other primaries, the rate of white voting more than doubled that for blacks.

Across the state in Chattanooga, the share of the black voting age popula- tion that voted in the last three general primaries and runoffs was always lower than the share of whites although the differences never reached four percentage points (Gant, 1989). Using a different estimating technique, Kousser (1989) calculated turnout as a share of registration. He confirmed Gant's conclusion that whites vote at higher rates than blacks but found larger disparities of approximately 10 percentage points.

While the potential of electing a black can stimulate especially high black turnout, the potential defeat of a black incumbent may not suffice to get 09/29/2018 blacks back to the polls. Data from Fort Lauderdale demonstrate the point.

In the 1973 general election in which the first black was elected to the five-member council, black turnout peaked at 43%, several points higher than white turnout. Black turnout remained higher than white turnout in 1975 when the black incumbent was re-elected and matched the white 544 Policy Studies Review, Spring 1990, 9:3
voting rate in 1977. In 1979 the black incumbent lost when blacks voted at only half the rate of six years earlier and, for the first time in the decade, participated at a lower rate than did whites. Declines in black turnout in Riviera Beach, a majority-black Florida town, allowed whites to regain control in some elections (Button, forthcoming). The end of six years of black control of the mayor's office in Chicago was also accompanied by blacks constituting a smaller share of the voters (Schmidt, 1989, p. 12).

In contrast with the seeming disinterest in maintaining a black of. ficeholder in Fort Lauderdale, elsewhere voter interest is linked, at least partially, to the ethnicity of the candidates. In Augusta, Georgia, the amount of rolloff depends on the race of the candidates. The electoral system used in Augusta until 1988 called for at-large elections but provided that each of the city's eight wards have two residents on the council (i.e., at-large elections with a residency requirement). Several wards were popu- lated almost exclusively by a single race and the candidates who ran from such wards tended to be of the race of the overwhelming bulk of the electorate. For example, it is estimated that about a third of both races' voters participated in the 1986 city elections with virtually all white par- ticipants registering a preference in Ward 6 that featured a contest between two whites. In Wards 2 and 4 from which only blacks ran, approximately 10% fewer whites expressed a preference than in Ward 6. About 80% of the blacks who turned out expressed a preference in Wards 2 and 4, contrasted with approximately twice as much rolloff in Ward 6. Similar patterns prevailed in 1983. Greater black than white rolloff in contests having few racial overtones conforms with the pattern reported by Vanderleeuw and Engstrom (1987) in a study of voting on three New Orleans referenda.

Racial differences in rolloff are not restricted to non-racial issues since blacks rolloff more than whites even when there are black candidates competing for offices further down the ballot. Data from Atlanta show that in the 1973 primary, 54% of the black registrants participated in the mayoral primury as compared with 51% of the whites. Turnout in other contests held on that day that had both black and white contestants were 49% of each race voted in the election for council president; 37% of each race voted in a council contest between two incumbents; whites outvoted blacks 32% to 28% in a second council election and 35% to 30% in a third council contest. Heavier rates of black participation might have elected the black candidates for the latter two council posts since the share of the white votes going to the black candidates exceeded the share of black votes received by white candidates.

As the figures for Atlanta and New Orleans suggest, rolloff is more prevalent among blacks. This is not a recent phenomenon. Writing more than 30 years ago, Price observed that
many whites vote at least partly because they regard it as a duty and as part of being a good citizen. Once at the polls, they usually take the trouble to indicate & choice in most of the contests on the ballot.

Negroes, however, have not been subjected to decades of civic exhor- 09/29/2818 tations on the virtues of voting per se....once in the voting booth, Negro registrants are still quite likely to indicate a choice only in the contest or contests that have particularly attracted their interest. (1957, p. 77)
Bullock: Turnout in Municipal Elections 545
From Price we could expect that where black participation has been free of state-sanctioned obstacles for a longer period, rolloff would be less tied to race. Supportive of that proposition is survey work done in Ohio that shows blacks voted in a larger number of the contests on that state's 1986 general election ballot than did whites (Caldeira et al., 1989).

Majority Vote Requirement
Data with which to analyze the impact of the majority vote requirement come from six cities and the period covered is for at least ten years ending in 1986.? Each city elected at least some of its council members at-large during the period analyzed and the elections in each were nonpartisan. Each city has a true runoff; that is, candidates who poll a majority in the initial contest are elected. In testing whether turnout declines from the primary to the runoff, only years in which there was at least one citywide runoff will be considered. If the second election involved a contest in only a portion of the city, it might be impossible for turnout in the runoff to be anything but less than in the initial election.

In the analysis, if a city reports a turnout figure, that number is used. If the city does not report the number of voters who participated, the turnout measure is the sum of the votes cast in the contest that attracted the most participation.

The six cities had a total of 37 citywide runoffs and in 22 of these (59%), more voters participated in the second than the initial election. In Tallahas- see, turnout in the runoff exceeded that in the first election in five of six years while in Austin in only one of four years was turnout greater in the initial election. Sarasota generally had higher turnout in the second contest while in Atlanta, Jackson, and Pomona, there was no pattern for which election would attract more voters.

If turnout is about the same in the pair of elections held in a year, dichotomizing on the basis of whether the runoff attracted more or fewer voters may be too gross. Therefore a trichotomy is presented in Table 1 that includes an intermediate category in which turnout in the runoff is within :

Table 1
Comparison of Primary and Runoff Turnout
Turnout in Runoffs Was
95% of PE + 5% OГ PE 5% above PE
Atlanta 2 1 3
Austin 2 1
Jackson 2 1
: 5
Pomona 3 1
Sarasota 2 2 5
Tallahassce 1 5
Total 10 7 20
27% 19% 54%
....
546 Policy Studies Revlew, Spring 1990, 9:3
five percent of the turnout in the first election. Table 1 shows that there were twice as many elections in which runoff turnout exceeded first election turnout by 5% as there were elections in which runoff turnout trailed first election participation by at least 5%. In no city did first election turnout exceed runoff turnout by 5 points more than half the time. We conclude, therefore that while there may be a dropoff in voters from the first to the second election, the more common pattern is for the runoff to attract a larger electorate.*
A number of potential correlates of primary-runoff turnout differences were explored. These were items that it was thought might tap relative voter interest in the two stages of the election and included the number of minority candidates, the number of offices being contested, the incidence of competitive primaries and an interaction term created by multiplying percent black times a dummy for the presence of at least one black candidate. Neither singularly nor in combinction was there much relationship between the predictors and the dependent variable that was differences in turnout between the two elections. Only one variable achieved statistical significance. There was a significant relationship between the percent of runoffs that followed close primaries, but the relationship was negative; if close primaries stimulated interest, there should have been a positive relationship. Runoff turnout tends not to exceed primary turnout when there are more minority candidates in the runoff or where there are more contested positions in the runoff. Nor was runoff turnout higher when the mayor's position was one of the contests to be decided in the second election.

Runoffs in six cities were inspected to determine whether turnout patterns across the two elections differed for black and white voters. Generally the trend from primary to runoff was similar for blacks and whites. In eight pairs of elections, turnout was higher in the second contest for both races while in six elections, fewer members of both races participated in the runoff. In three elections black turnout rose in the runoff while fewer whites turned out and in one election white turnout rose as black participation dipped. Runoffs seem not to be a major impediment to participation nor do they discourage blacks more than whites from turning out a second time.

Change in Districting Format
Little longitudinal work has been done to assess the impact of changing districting formats on turnout. In the one notable exception, Heilig and Mundt traced turnout in 11 cities all but one of which moved from at-large to district elections. The eleventh city changed from ten to five districts. In the initial election following implementation of districts, turnout in- creased, but it also rose in Peoria when the number of districts was reduced The authors speculated that "any structural change may temporarily heighten voting levels" since some open seats are created (1984, p. 77).

Increased participation is short-lived as a new generation of incumbents 8T07/67/60 quickly establish themselves. The authors report that by the second elec- tion after a shift to districts, turnout rates were back to the levels ex- perienced before the change and their graphs--which are admittedly difficult to interpret (pp. 78 - 79)--seem to show a frequent drop in turnout to below the levels found when elections were at-large.

Bullock: Turnout In Municipal Elections 547
Heilig and Mundt's results conform with our expectation that more

CONCLUSIONS
Much remains to be done, and it is the modest intent of this paper to stimulate comprehensive research into the correlates of participation in municipal elections. The data used here raise questions about several assumptions concerning turnout. Changing to single member districts does not produce & long term increase in voting but, rather, seems likely to further depress participation. Should longitudinal data for a set of cities become available, we can establish whether the spread of district elections is accompanied by fewer contested seats and a drop in turnout.

Runoffs do not result in the critical choices of the second election being the province of a smaller electorate than participated in the initial primary. Nor is there evidence that blacks consistently vote less in runoffs than primaries.

Despite variation, blacks do not appear to be regularly less active in city elections than are whites. Different cities seem to have their own traditions of racial turnout with blacks often going to the polls in greater numbers than whites while elsewhere white turnout exceeds that for blacks. En- thusiasm surrounding a black candidacy may suffice to produce exception- ally high black voting, but in some cities black candidacy is not necessary to get blacks to the polls while in other cities, the possibility that a black This paper has identified some intra-city differences; the next task is to letermine correlates of these differences. Also awaiting study is the degre to which the predictors of municipal turnout conform to the reasonably wel understood correlates of turnout in partisan elections for higher positions.

NOTES
'Data reported in this paper for which no reference is given came from ny files and involve cities where I have worked as a consultant The cities and the first election for which data were collected are a follows: Atlanta, 1961; Austin, 1973; Jackson, Tennessee, 1971; Pomona, 1965; Sarasota, 1963; and Tallahassee, 1974.
8I0Z/67/60 Excluded are cities that have a two-stage election process in which the initial balloting reduces the field to two, but even candidates who receive a majority in the first election must compete in the second. 548 Policy Studies Review, Spring 1990, 9:3
'Hero (1986) reports that in the 1975 Denver mayoral election, turnout dropped by 2.2 points between the primary and the runoff; in 1983, runoff turnout exceeded that in the primary by 8.2 points.

REFERENCES
Abramson, P.R., & Claggett, W. (1984). Race-related differences in self- reported and validated voting. Journal of Politics, 46 (August), 719-738.

Alford, R., & Lee, E. (1968). Voting turnout in American cities. American Political Science Review, 62 (September), 796-813.

Bullock, C.S., III. (1984). Racial crossover voting and the election of black officials. Journal of Politics, 46 (February), 238-251.

Button, J. (forthcoming). Blacks and social change. Princeton: Princeton University.

Caldeira, G.A., Clausen, A., & Patterson, S.C. (1989, April). Partisan mobilization and electoral participation. Paper presented at the annual ' meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.

Engstrom, R.L. (1988). Testimony given in Whitfield v. Democratic Party of the State of Arkansas (March 7).

Ewing, C.A. {1953, 1980). Primary elections in the south: A study in uniparty politics. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma, reprinted Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Gant, M. (1989). Expert report filed in Brown u. City of Chattanooga.

Heilig, P., & Mundt, R.J. (1984). Your voice at city hall: The politics, procedures, and policies of district representation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Hero, R.E. (1986, March). The election of hispanics in city government: An examination of the election of Federico Pena as Mayor of Denver. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Social Association, San Antonio, TX.

Joint Center for Political Studies (1984). Background Paper: Run-off primaries. Washington, DC: Joint Center for Political Studies.

Karlan, P.S. (1989). Maps and misreadings: The role of geographic com- pactness in racial vote dilution litigation. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 24, 173-248.

Karnig, A.K., & Walter, B.O. (1983). Decline in municipal voter turnout.

American Politics Quarterly, 11 (October), 491-505.

Keech, W.R. (1968). The impact of negro voting. New York: A. Knopf.

Mothel, C. & Were, C. (983, Apri. Voter ve Gist at Cho taus ga. turnout, 1972-1982. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid- west Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.

Norrander, B. (1989, April). Turnout in the 1988 Presidential primaries:

Testing alternative models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
89/29/2818 Perry, H.L., & Stokes, A. (1987). Politics and power in the sunbelt: Mayor Morial of New Orleans. In M.B. Preston, L.J. Henderson, Jr., and P.L.

Puryear (Eds.), The new black politics (2nd ed.). (pp. 222-255). New York:

Longman.

Bullock: Turnout in Municipa/ Elections 549
Preston, M.B. (1987). The election of Harold Washington: An examination of the SES Model in the 1983 Chicago mayoral election. In M.B. Preston, L.J. Henderson, Jr., and P. Puryear (Eds.), The new black politics (2nd ed.). (pp. 139-171). New York: Longman.

Price, H.D. (1957). The Negro and southern politics. New York: New York University Press.

Ransom, B. (1987). Black independent electoral politics in philadelphia:

The election of Mayor W. Wilson Goode. In M.B. Preston, L.J. Henderson, Jr., and P. Puryear (Eds.), The new black politics (2nd ed.). (pp. 256-289).

New York: Longman.

Schmidt, W.E. (1989). Chicago landslide behind him, Daley now looks for a coalition. New York Times (April 6), pp. 1, 12.

St. Angelo, D., & Puryear, P. (1982). Fear, apathy, and other dimensions it black voting. In M.B. Preston, L.J. Henderson, Jr., and P. Puryea Eds.), The new black politics, (2nd ed.). (pp. 109-130). New York Longman.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1989). Voting and registration in the election of November 1988. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Vanderleeuw, J.M., & Engstrom, R. (1987). Race, referendums, and roll- off. Journal of Politics, 49 (November), 1081-1092.

Willingham, A. (1985a). Deposition given in Baker v. Gay (February 22).

Willingham, A. (1985b). Deposition given in Reid v. Martin (July 18).

Wolfinger, R., & Rosnestone, S. (1980). Who Votes? New Haven: Yale. 09/29/2018
550 Policy Studies Review, Spring 1990, 9:3
Aaron Wildavsky giving the Jeffrey Pressman Award for the best article in the Policy Studies Review in 1989 at David Robertson at the PSO Awards Luncheon.
09/29/2018
09/29/2018
EXHIBIT 3
- -
DO BATEMADE DO EAT PRIMARY ELECTRONI REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK VOTE CAST BY COMMUNITY AND COUNCIL DISTRICT PAGE 252 TO BE HELD 06/08/10 CLOSE 05/24/10
REDONDO BEACH CONTINUED ON 253

REGISTRATION TOTAL DEM REP A/I GR LIB P/F N/ P
40471 15586 13419 919 263 280 93 9911
BALLOTS CAST 12522 4897 5434 141 47 77 1918 VOTE CAST 8 30.94 TOTAL PRECINCTS 43 PRECINCTS REPORTING 86

NP NP QUESTION NP LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AI TREASURER DEM INSURANCE COMMISSIONER AI DEMOCRATIC 495 JIM KING 47 BILL LOCKYER 3,932 CLAY PEDERSEN 48 REPUBLICAN 492
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR 28 MIMI WALTERS TREASURER REP INSURANCE COMMISSIONER GR 4, DOM JAMES CASTILIO 3,890 WILLIAM BALDERSTON 33

EDMUND G BROWN

JOE SYMMON LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR LIB TREASURER AI INSURANCE COMMISSIONER LIB PETER SCHIRMAN 80 PAMELA J BROWN 57 ROBERT LAUTEN 43 RICHARD BRONSTFIN 55 CHARLES PINEDA JR 167
RICHARD W AGUIRRE 178 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR PF TREASURER GR INSURANCE COMMISSIONER PF VIBERT GREENE 123 C T. WEBER CHARLES CRITTENDEN 30 DINA J PADILLA LOWELL DARLING 82
SECRETARY OF STATE DEM TREASURER L5B SERTE BD EQUALTZATION DA DEM REP DEBRA BOWEN 3,896 EDWARD M TEYSSIER JEROME E HORTON 2,740 LAWRENCE NARITELLI 63
53 SECRETARY OF STATE REP TREASURER STATE BD EQUALIZATION D4 AI ORLY TAITZ PE SHAWN HOFFMAN 50
3,933 DAMON DUNN 3, 058 DEBRA I REIGER

ATTORNEY GENERAL DEM STATE BD EQUALIZATION DA LIB
SECRETARY OF STATE AI PEDRO NAVA PETER DEBAETS 55
DOUGLAS R HUGHES 50 MERTON D SHORT 54 ALBERTO TORRICO
45 MIKE SCHMIER 163 STATE BD EQUALIZATION D4 PF
SECRETARY OF STATE GR TED W LIEU 2,006 NANCY LAWRENCE
C NIGHTINGALE AI ANN MENASCHE 36 ROCKY DELGADILLO 460
33 CHRIS KELLY 446 UNITED STATES SENATOR DEM
MARKHAM ROBINSON 33 SECRETARY OF STATE LIB KAMALA D HARRIS 997 BARBARA BOXER 3,985 CHRISTINA TOBIN 56 BRIAN QUINTANA 707
GOVERNOR GR ATTORNEY GENERAL REP ROBERT M KAUS 286
S DEACON ALEXANDER * SERIOU CAD STATE PF STEVE COOLEY 2,661 4 TOM HARMAN 811 UNITED STATES SENATOR REP
JOHN EASTMAN CARLY FIORINA 3,287
GOVERNOR LIB CONTROLLER DEM AL RAMIREZ 71
DALE E• OGDEN 52 JOHN CHIANG 3,951 ATTORNEY GENERAL CHUCK DEVORE 1,157 DIANE B TEMPLIN 49 TOM CAMPBELL 970
GOVERNOR PF CONTROLLER REP TIM KALEMKARIAN 49
CARLOS ALVAREZ TONY STRICKLAND 2,779 ATTORNEY GENERAL GR 1,677 PETER ALLEN 32 UNITED STATES SENATOR AI
EDWARD C NOONAN 24
CONTROLLER AI ATTORNEY GENERAL DON GRUNDMANN 12
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DEM LAWRENCE G BELIZ 32 TIMOTHY J HANNAN 23 GAVIN NEWSOM 2,041 NATHAN E JOHNSON 23
ERIC KOREVAAR 469 ATTORNEY GENERAL PF UNITED STATES SENATOR GR JANICE HAHN 2,070 CONTROLLER GR ROBERT J EVANS 3 DUANE ROBERTS 32 ROSS D FRANKEL 32
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR REP INSURANCE COMMISSIONER DEM UNITED STATÉS SENATOR LIB SCOTT L LEVITT 263 CONTROLLER I.TR DAVE JONES 1,948 GAIL K LIGHTFOOT 54 1,720 ANDREW FAVOR 56 HECTOR DELATORRE 1,405
YVONNE R GIRARD 252 UNITED STATES SENATOR PF
ARE MADONADO 263 CONTROLLER PF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER REP MARSHA FEINLAND 2,039 KAREN MARTINEZ 4 BRIAN FITZGERALD 2,222
429 MIKE VILLINES
REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK VOTE CAST BY COMMUNITY AND COUNCIL DISTRICT PAGE . 148 TO BE HELD 06/05/12 CLOSE 05/21/12

REDONDO BEACH

REGISTRATION TOTAL DEM REP A/I GR LIB P/F N/ P
39858 15121 13072 997 255 295 88 10030
BOTAN PRECTICES 11347 175 47 71 10 1825 VOTE. CAST % 28.47 43 PRECINCTS REPORTING 86
NP CROSSOVER NP US SENATOR CCC 66TH ASSEMBLY DEM JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #10 Nº AMERICAN IND 47 KABIRUDDIN K ALI 16 DONALD L DEAR 1,271 SANJAY T KUMAR DEMOCRATIC 368 RICK WILLIAMS 5,010
205 DIANE M WALLACE 1,520 KIM SMITH 3,277
ROGELIO I GLORIA 17 RAY WATERS 1,181
PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE DEM DON J GRUNDMANN 63 TIM GOODRICH 1,135 JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #38 Nº BARACK OBAMA LORRAINE GEITTMANN 1,483 DOUGLAS W WEITZMAN 2,393 250 CONNIE SULLIVAN 1,039 LYNN D OLSON 5,448
PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE DAVID ALEX LEVITT 125 KANJI SAHARA 1,068 NEWT GINGRICH ORLY TAITZ 1,266 JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #65 Nº MITT ROMNEY AL RAMIREZ 202 BOBBI BUBSCHER 1,198 ANDREA C THOMPSON 4,388 C E ROEMER III 31 DIRK ALLEN KONOPIK 886 SHANNON KNIGHT FRED KARGER 25 DONALD KRAMPE 1,999
756 MATT SCHONBRUN 1,633

RICK SANTORUM MIKE STRIMLING
RON PAUL DIANE STEWART 121 CCC 66TH ASSEMBLY REP JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #78 NP NAK SHAH 874 JAMES D OTTO 5,530
PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE NACHUM SHIFREN 1,665 KENNETH R HUGHEY 2,600 EDWARD C NOONAN 32 DENNIS JACKSON KENNETH MADLER 399
MAD MAX RIEKSE 19| DAN HUGHES PO LAGRELIUS 1,101 JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #114 NP LAURIE ROTH 39 GREG CONLON 652 STEVE REDLICH 928 ERIC HARMON 4,855 JOHN BORUFF KETNAPA SIRI 522 BEN M BREES 1,411
PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE GRN OSCAR A BRAUN WILLIAM L SCHMIDT 1,108 BERJ PARSEGHIAN 1,893 JILL STEIN 13 MARSHA FEINLAND LARRY E JONES 775
KENT MESPLAY DIANNE FEINSTEIN DAVID F HADLEY 1,730 DISTRICT ATTORNEY NP ROSEANNE BARR 19 KENNETH A HARTLEY 1,522 BOBBY GRACE 339 BRYAN W MATTHEWS 3,083
PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE LIB G RICK MARSHALL 1,961
BARBARA J WAYMIRE 33RD CONGRESS DIST KIM MAC MULLAN 1,408 ALAN JACKSON 2,222 LEE WRIGHTS CHRISTOPHER DAVID 1,741 702 DANETTE E MEYERS 1,239 ROGER GARY 3:710 KEE ROBOLS JOHN L BREAULT III 282
JAMES OGLE 2,935
SCOTT KELLER DAVID W STEINMAN SUPERVISOR 4TH DISTRICT NP GARY SOHNSON BRUCE MARGOLIN GRN DON KNABE 6,369
22 STEVE COLLETT 15
SARI ERSON BILL BLOOMFIELD 18 STATE MEASURE 28 28
TIM PAPE 115 5,917
JOHN WENGER 16 NO. 4,679
PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PF 66TH ASSEMBLY DIST REP CORDULA OHMAN 13 ROSS C ANDERSON CRAIG HUEY 3,540 BOB KENNEC 13 STATE MEASURE 29 29 STEWART ALEXANDER 5 AL MURATSUCHI 4,288 MICHAEL TAN SACHS 5,001 STEPHEN DURHAM NATHAN MINTZ 2,172 PARKER ALLEN JEAN 5,751

JESSICA CHUAN
DELEGS 33RD CONG DIST DEM RICHARD CHACKER 11 LA COUNTY MEASURE H BARACK OBAMA 3,930 MICHAEL FEINSTEIN 6,316
LINDA PIERA-AVILA 3,904
DELEGS 33RD CONG DIST REP
NEWT GINGRICH 165 JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #3
MITT ROMNEY 3,377 133LE COUNTY MEASURE 1.

LAURENCE N KALDOR 6,482
C E ROEMER III 31 3,702
FRED KARGER 25 SEAN D COEN
RICK SANTORUM 211 JOE ESCALANTE 1; 059
RON PAUL 540
Community RUN 8/28/20143:53:56 PM REGISTRAR RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK VOTE CAST BY COMMUNITY PAGE 130 CO LORD BERET PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD 06/03/14 CLOSE 05/19/14 TOTAL PRECINCTS 76 CONTINUED ON PAGE 131
TOTAL
REGISTRATION 43528
BALLOTS CAST 9673 VOTE CAST % 22.22
GOVERNOR CONTROLLER 33RD CONGRESS DIST JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #48 VOTER NOMINATED VOTER NOMINATED VOTER NOMINATED CAROL ROSE 4749 LUIS J RODRIGUEZ GRN 100 BETTY T YEE DEM 1780 BRENT C ROSKE NP 17 CHARLES M CALDERON 2332 ALMA MARIE WINSTON REP LAURA WELLS GRN 549 ZEIN E OBAGI JR DEM OVER EDMUND G BROWN DEM 4873 TAMMY D BLAIR DEM 259| M WILLIAMSON • NP 874 UNDER 2586 JANEL H BUYCKS NP JOHN A PEREZ DEM 1572 KEVIN MOTTUS REP 229 ANDREW BLOUNT REP 131 DAVID EVANS REP 1358 BARBARA L MULVANEY DEM 249 JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #54 RAKESH K CHRISTIAN NP ASHLEY SWEARENGIN REP 2946 MATT MILLER DEM 653 SHANNON L KNIGHT 4554 GLENN CHAMP REP OVER 24 ELAN CARR REP 2294 DEBRA L LOSNICK 2544 NEEL KASHKARI REP UNDER 1185| DAVID KANUTH DEM 84 OVER
TIM DONNELLY REP 1308 TOM FOX NP UNDER • 2574
"BO" B AMBROZEWICZ NP TREASURER VINCE FLAHERTY DEM
AKINYEMI AGBEDE DEM 61 VOTER NOMINATED KRISTIE HOLMES DEM 92 JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #61 RICHARD W AGUIRRE REP ELLEN H BROWN GRN 556 MARK MATTHEW HERD LIB 110 DAYAN MATHAI 3625 ROBERT NEWMAN NP GREG CONLON REP. 3455 JAMES GRAF DEM 31 B OTIS FELDER 844 CINDY L SHEEHAN PF 109 JOHN CHIANG DEM 4723, WENDY GREUEL DEM 1025 | JACQUELINE H LEWIS 2692 JOE LEICHT NP 2 LILY GILANI REP 761 OVER
OVER 230 UNEA 937 MICHAEL SHAPIRO DEM 46 UNDER 2507

UNDER MICHAEL IAN SACHS GRN
ATTORNEY GENERAL TED LIEU DEM 2495 JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #72 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR VOTER NOMINATED OVER 49 CHRIS J FRISCO 5585 VOTER NOMINATED PHIL WYMAN REP 889 UNDER 466 OVER
ALAN REYNOLDS AE 121 DAVID KING REP UNDER 4088
GEORGE YANG REP 868 ORLY TAITZ NP 265 26TH STATE SENATE DIST DAVID FENNEL DEM 413 KAMALA D HARRIS DEM 4624 VOTER NOMINATED JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #76 REP 702 JOHN HAGGERTY REP 785 BETSY BUTLER DEM 1359 HELEN KIM 3117 AMOS JOHNSON PF JONATHAN JAECH LIB 232 PATRIC M VERONE DEM 179 ALISON M ESTRADA 4153 GAVIN NEWSOM DEM 4421 RONALD GOLD REP 992 SANDRA FLUKE • DEM 1335 OVER RON NEHRING REP 2088 OVER 27 VITO IMBASCIANI DEM 385฿ UNDER 2402 JENA F GOODMAN GRN UNDER 1058 AMY HOWORTH DEM 1609
OVER BARBI S APPELQUIST DEM 105 JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #82 UNDER 77 INSURANCE COMMISSIONER: BEN ALLEN DEM 1250 ANN H PARK 5562
VOTER NOMINATED SETH STODDER 2054 OVER
SECRETARY OF STATE NATALIE HRIZI PF-- -469 'OVER — - -24 UNDER - •-4111 VOTER NOMINATED DAVE JONES DEM: 4345 UNDER 1373
DEREK DRESSMAN DEM 624 TED GAINES REP 3340 JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #87 DEM 692 OVER 12 66TH ASSEMBLY DIST TOM GRIEGO 1919
DAVID CURTIS GRN UNDER 1507 VOTER NOMINATED STEVEN P SCHREINER 2397 ALEX PADILLA DEM 2524 AL MURATSUCHI DEM 4581 ANDREW M STEIN 2656 PETE PETERSON REP 2970 STATE BD EQUALIZATION D3 DAVID HADLEY REP 4022 OVER JEFFREY H DROBMAN DEM 315| VOTER NOMINATED OVER UNDER 2696 ROY ALLMOND REP 368 JEROME E HORTON DEM 4788 UNDER 1067 DAN SCHNUR 741 OVER 1385 JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT 422 JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #90 OVER 57 UNDER SERENA R MURILLO 5608
UNDER 1110 PAMALA F MATSUMOTO 2749 OVER
AMY CARTER 45461 UNDER 4065
OVER 2373.

UNDER
Community RUN 6/8/20168:25:08 AM REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK VOTE CAST BY COMMUNITY PAGE 119 TO BE HELD 06/07/16 CLOSE 05/23/16
TOTAL PRECINCTS 38 CONTINUED ON PAGE 120

TOTAL DEM REP AT GRN
REGATION 44400 17051 13457 1134 209 109 12069
BALLOTS CAST 14396 7173 4313 151 30 59 11 2659 VOTE CAST % 32.42 PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE DEM PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PF UNITED STATES SENATOR JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #11 KEITH JUDD GLORIA E LA RIVA 4 VOTER NOMINATED STEVEN SCHREINER 3234 MICHAEL STEINBERG 24 LYNN S KAHN 2 GEORGE C YANG REP 240 PAUL-KIM 1188 BERNIE SANDERS 3954 MONICA MOOREHEAD 2 FALK LIGHTFOOT REP JONATHAN A MALEK 1159 WILLIE WILSON 26 LIB 167 DEBRA R ARCHULETA 4744
ROQUE DE LA FUENTE CCC 66TH ASSEMBLY - DEM DEM MIKE BEITIKS NP HILLARY CLINTON 4642 BOBBI BUESCHER 1776 PAMELA ELIZONDO GRN 157 JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #42 HENRY HEWES CONNIE SULLIVAN 1944 SCOTT A VINEBERG NP CYNDY ZUZGA 3314 RAYMOND L WATERS 1657 STEVE STOKES DEM ALICIA MOLINA 2156 PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE REP DONALD L DEAR 1303 DUF SUNDHEIM REP 1100 E MATTHEW ACEVES 3285 DONALD TRUMP 2770| N M HENDERSON 1536 LING LING SHI NP MICHAEL P RIBONS 1388 BEN CARSON 118 STACEY A MICHAELS 2086 LORETTA L SANCHEZ DEM 2029 TED CRUZ 356 VARO ASORIAN 1404 PHIL WYMAN REP 319 JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #60 JOHN R KASICH 646 CANEY ARNOLD 1480| JARRELL WILLIAMSON REP 76 SW BAGHDASSARIAN 2241 JIM GILMORE 45 LORRAINE GEITTMANN 1688 TG DEL BECCARO REP 882 JAMES A KADDO 7421 BRANDII GRACE 1267 RON UNZ REP 134
PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE GREG CONLON REP 485 JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #84 ROBERT ORNELAS JASON KRAUS NP HUBERT S YUN 1807
ALAN SPEARS DON KRAMPE REP 131 SUSAN J TOWNSEND 4432
WILEY DRAKE MARK MATTHEW HERD LIB AARON J WEISSMAN 1774 JAMES HEDGES VON HOUGO REP 66 | JAVIER PEREZ 1979

THOMAS HOEFLING JASON HANANIA NP
ARTHUR HARRIS KAMALA D HARRIS DEM 5477 JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #120 JR MYERS GAR MYERS NP RAY SANTANA 7327
PAUL MERRITT NP 24 ERIC O IBISI 2192
PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE GRN MASSIE MUNROE DEM 88
JILL STEIN ELEANOR GARCIA JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #158
DARRYL CHERNEY NP DAVID A BERGER 3051
WILLIAM KREML SON GROAN NP KIM L NGUYEN 3842
KENT MESPLAY NP 16 ONICA VALLE COLE 588
S MOYOWASIFSA-CURRY PRESIDENT C GRAPPO DEM NASER KHOURY 1414 HERBERT G PETERS DEM FRED MESROPI 1287

PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE TOM PALZER REP
GARY JOHNSON JOHN T PARKER JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT #165
MARC FELDMAN KAREN ROSEBERRY REP 301 KA SOLORZANO 7570
RHETT SMITH EMORY RODGERS DEM TAMI L WARREN 2351

JOY WAYMIRE
STEVE KERBEL 33RD CONGRESS DIST DISTRICT ATTORNEY
JOHN HALE VOTER NOMINATED JACKIE LACEY 8963
JOHN MCAFEE DEM 8700
CECIL INCE KEEN WIGHT REP 4405 SUPERVISOR 4TH DISTRICT
AUSTIN PETERSEN STEVE NAPOLITANO 4792
DARRYL W PERRY 66TH ASSEMBLY DIST JANICE HAHN 6010
DERRICK M REID VOTER NOMINATED RALPH PACHECO 927
JACK ROBINSON JR DAVID HADLEY REP 5314
AL MURATSUCHI DEM 6619 | STATE MEASURE 50
MIKE MADRIGAL DEM 784 YES 8243
NO 4021
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 City of Redondo Beach v. State of California
Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. B$172218
3 I, Audrey J. Powell, declare:
4 I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years and not a party 5 to the within action. My business address is
Califormia 90071-3101. On September 12, 2018, I served the within documents) descriAn ales, 6 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS JOHNSON, Ph.D. IN 7 SUPPORT OF CITY OF REDONDO BEACH'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
8 on the interested parties in this action as stated below:

Jonathan M. Eisenberg
10 Deputy Attorney General
Government Law Section
11 Office of the California Attorney General
12 Los Angeles, California 90013
Telephone:
13 E-Mail:

Attorneys for the State of California and Alex Padilla, Secretary of State RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 14 of the State of California 15 (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) By placing the documents) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a 16 FedEx agent for delivery, or deposited in a FedEx box or other facility regularly maintained by FedEx, in an envelope or package designated by the express service carrier, with 17 delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) at the addresses) set forth 18 X (BY E-MAIL) By transmitting a true copy of the foregoing documents) to the e-mail 19 addresses set forth above.
20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that foregoing is true and correct.
21 Executed on September 12, 2018, at Los Ange
22 :
23 24
25 26
LC
871 27
28 PROOF OF SERVICE
... -
Meredith, Alyssa
From: David Holtzman
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 1:05 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Clark, Kimberley; Hess, Justin; City of Burbank, Public Information Office; Jones, Jonathan; City Attorney; Craig Sherwood; MyBurbank.com News; Devin Herenda, MyBurbank.com; Outlook News Burbank Leader; Gavin Quinton, Burbank Leader; Eric Carter; Michael Feinstein; Preston Jordan
Subject: Re: CVRA Law: Why The Courts Would Let Burbank Stay Whole (Undistricted) Attachments: Palmdale City Charter (PDF).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers, and Those Copied Here:

The Palmdale case Albany Councilmember Preston Jordan cites in his message below does not apply to Burbank.

What matters here is that there are two types of charter city:

Type I: Charter cities that have their city council election methods specified in their city charter.

Type Il: Charter cities that do not.

Burbank is Type I. Palmdale was (and is) Type II. (Palmdale's city charter is a rudimentary document that the city chooses to post almost as if it were written in script on parchment paper (see attached).)
That is the critical difference lawyer Marguerite Leoni, who was involved in the Palmdale case, glossed over in her presentation to the Burbank City Council.

The Plenary Authority Clause in the California Constitution (Article XI Section 5(b) part (4)) protects certain things, when specified in a city's charter, from state government intrusion - even if a branch of state government decides that any of those things are a matter of statewide concern.

I know of no case regarding the Plenary Authority Clause that says otherwise. - David Holtzman
1 P.S. The Albany councilmember's analyses below are interesting, especially for how they show Proportional Ranked Choice Voting to be an excellent choice of election method for a city like Albany or Burbank. So you may want to keep those analyses in mind.

On 3/30/2023 8:00 AM, Preston Jordan wrote:

Hello Mayor and Councilmembers-
As I was copied on this message and am a Councilmember in Albany, California, it is incumbent on me to clarify that I was not involved in writing this message. Beyond that, while I am not an attorney, 1 am ethically bound to relay that the basis of this message does not comport with legal precedent. As your City Attorney may have informed you in response to the message, in Jauregui v. City of Palmdale (2014) the appellate court found the California Voting Rights Act does apply to charter cities. Specifically, "The trial court rejected defendant's argument that as a charter city, it could not be subject to the California Voting Rights Act. The trial court reasoned that the dilution of minority voting rights is a matter of statewide concern. In addition, the trial court ruled, 'To the extent a conflict exists between [defendant's] charter provisions as to the election of its council members and the California Voting Rights Act, the court finds that the city is not immune from state legislative enactments in this area of statewide concern," and
The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision.

I was copied on this message because Albany recently avoided being forced to districts by CVRA suit threat, instead adopting proportional ranked choice voting. This is the citywide (as in multiseat) version of ranked choice voting. The City entered a settlement agreement with the plaintiff allowing Albany to use proportional ranked choice voting in 2022 on a provisional basis after 73% of Albany's voters approved of transitioning to this method in 2020 (Measure BB here). After the provisional use in 2022, the settlement provided that plaintiff's attorney could call for a meet and confer with the City if they judged the outcome of the election did not remedy the CVRA violation they alleged Albany's prior use of plurality at large created.

Based on the outcome of the election, plaintiff's attorney opted not to call for such meet and confer (for the first time in its history Albany elected two candidates of color to the both seats up for election).

I was additionally copied on this message because through an intermediary I was asked to analyze the situation in Burbank similar to the analysis | performed for Albany. The results of such analysis here finding proportional ranked choice voting would provide a better remedy to the alleged CVRA violation than single member districts.

The analysis of Burbank indicates proportional ranked choice voting may be a better remedy than single member districts, with a caveat explained at the end.

The analysis involves drawing a reasonable district with as high a percentage of the protected group as possible. In Burbank's case Latinos. First map below, based on 2020 Census data. Note the districts drawn on this map may make no sense to someone that lives in Burbank. They are hypothetical based on the sole goal of maximizing the share of Latinos living in one district and working out from there. The 2 second map regards that share of the population that is "Asian alone" in Census parlance, meaning people that identified as Asian only, not-Hispanic, rather than Asian and one or more other races.

The charts below the maps show the share of the election threshold each that people of each protected group attains in each district as compared to proportional ranked choice voting. These show that for Latinos, Asian alone, and both combined, proportional ranked choice voting provides them more electoral power.

The caveat is that these results are based on total population. To be definitive they need to redone with the shares of actual voters in a past election, which is available from the statewide redistricting database, or with estimates of the citizen voting age population from the US Census. These can readily be done but from experience the results will be the same in terms of proportional ranked choice voting providing voters of protected groups more electoral power than single member districts.

If any of this is of interest but you have questions or would like to discuss, happy to do so. I don't expect such though as you did not ask for any of this.

Take care. I wish you the best in determining how to proceed for your City.

Preston Jordan
https://www.albanyca.org/government/city-council/preston-jordan, for identification ***
%Latino
N <13%
Univ 13% to <24%
A
24% to <38%
38% to 56%
Miles
0 0250.5 >56%
%Asian alone
N <4%
4% to <11%
11% to <18%
18% to 29%
0 02505F
>29%
- Whole population basis
Latinos - Absolute values likely lower due to
age and citizenship differences
120% - Relative values likely the same
100% Control
80%
% of election threshold 60%
Influence
....
40%
20%
0%
1 2 3 1 2 SW2 SW1 NE1 NE2
PRCV citywide Districts
5 - Whole population basis
Asians - Absolute values likely lower due to
age and citizenship differences
120% - Relative values likely the same
_Control
100% -—
old
80%
lection thresh
60%
Influence
of
20%
0%
3 1 2 SW2 SWI C NE1 NE2
PRCV citywide Districts
- Whole population basis
Latinos+Asians -Absolute values likely lower due to
age and citizenship differences
120% - Relative values likely the same
100% ControL
80%
% of election threshold 60%
Influence
...
40%
20%
0%
1 2 1 SW2 SW1 NE1 NE2
PRCV citywide Districts
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 3:57 PM David Holtzman wrote:

Just to keep everybody in the loop here...
6 Council Member Takahashi recently asked me about the legal tools one could use to defend Burbank from a California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) lawsuit that tries to force the city into carving itself into city council districts.

I sent her something like this:

One: Section 5(b)(4) of Article XI (11) of the California Constitution grants charter cities plenary authority ... to provide therein [in their city charters] or by amendment thereto [amendment to their city charters], the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several municipal officers... shall be elected or appointed...." Two: Since the California Constitution is above legislative statutes in the hierarchy of laws, no statute passed by the California Legislature can force a charter city that has its city council election method specified in its city charter to change that election method.

Three: Burbank is a charter city with "at large" specified in its city charter (in Section 300 and in Section 305) as the election method for its city council members.

Four: No plaintiff can use the statute at issue here (the CVRA, which is a legislative statute) to force Burbank to change its city council election method.

NOTE: A "demurrer" asserts "the complaint at issue should be dismissed because it fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. Essentially, this defense asserts that even if all the factual allegations in a complaint are true, they do not give rise to a legally cognizable claim for relief." (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/demurrer)
SIMILAR CASE NOTE: A few years ago Burbank and other municipalities changed their election dates largely in response to a legislative statute called the "California Voter Participation Rights Act" (CVPRA; SB 415 of 2015). Well, Redondo Beach, a charter city, successfully sued to prevent being forced by that law to change its election dates.

Remember that the "plenary authority" the California Constitution gives to charter cities (see above) applies to "the times" of charter city council elections as well as "the method" of those elections. In October 2018, the trial court judge in the Redondo Beach case ruled that the CVPRA "is unconstitutional as applied to charter cities." [County of Los Angeles Superior Court case BS172218.] The Court of Appeal in that case did not address the trial court judge's ruling of 7 unconstitutionality. Instead, it sided with the charter city on a narrower ground, basically that the legislature did not clearly say that the CVPRA applies to charter cities. (Courts generally prefer to avoid deciding cases on constitutional grounds when they can rule on narrower grounds.) But the Legislature did explicitly say that the CVRA applies to charter cities. So if Burbank gets sued under the CVRA, any court(s) hearing the case would probably address the constitutional issue and rule in Burbank's favor.

By the way, regarding fiscal impact: both courts that heard the Redondo Beach case awarded the city its costs.

Now, to all those I directly addressed or c'd here, please feel free to email me at if you have any questions, would like copies of my previous correspondence with the Burbank City Council, or would like to offer support for keeping Burbank Sincerely,
David Holtzman
Burbank Resident
**No Council Districts**
**No Council Districts**
8 CITY OF PALMDALE

CITY CLERK'S
CERTIFICATION, AUTHENTICATION and ATTEST
OF THE
CHARTER OF THE CITY OF PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA 2009
I, Victoria L. Hancock, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Palmdale, State of California, do hereby certify, authenticate and attest as follows:

The attached Charter of the City of Palmdale, California is a full, true and correct copy of the Charter of the City of Palmdale 2009, which was adopted by a majority of the voters at a General Municipal Election, held on November 3, 2009.

I further certify, authenticate and attest as follows that I have carefully compared the same with the original on file and of record in my office and that said attachment is a full, true, and correct copy of the original signed Charter of the City of Palmdale, California 2009.

Witness my hand and the seal of the City of Palmdale this 18th day of January 2010.

Victoria L. Hancock, CMC
City Clerk

CITY OF PALMDALE
Charter of the City of Palmdale, California 2009

PREAMBLE
WE THE PEOPLE of the City of Palmdale declare our intent to restore to our community the historic principles of self-governance inherent in the doctrine of home-rule. Sincerely committed to the belief that local government has the closest affinity to the people governed, and firm in the conviction that the economic and fiscal independence of our local government will better serve and promote the health, safety and welfare of all the citizens of this City, we do hereby exercise the express right granted by the Constitution of the State of California to enact and adopt this Charter for the City of Palmdale.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the voters at the general municipal election of November 3, 2009.
ent Laura Bettencourt, Councilmember

CITY OF PALMDALE
Charter of the City of Palmdale, California 2009

ARTICLE 1. MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Section 100. Powers of City.

The City shall have full power and authority to adopt, make, exercise and enforce all legislation, laws and regulations and to take all actions relating to municipal affairs, without limitation, which may be lawfully adopted, made, exercised, taken or enforced under the Constitution of the State of California.

Section 101. Municipal Affairs; Generally.

Without limiting in any manner the foregoing power and authority, each of the matters set forth in this Charter are declared to be municipal affairs, consistent with the laws of the State of California. The implementation of each matter uniquely benefits the citizens of the City of Palmdale and addresses peculiarly local concerns within the City of Palmdale. The municipal affairs set forth in this Charter are not intended to be an exclusive list of municipal affairs over which the City Council may govern.

Section 102. General Law Powers
In addition to the power and authority granted by the terms of this Charter and the Constitution of the State of California, the City shall have the power and authority to adopt, make, exercise and enforce all legislation, laws and regulations and to take all actions and to exercise any and all rights, powers, and privileges heretofore or hereafter established, granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California or by any other lawful authority. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Charter and the provisions of the general laws of the State of California, the provisions of this Charter shall control. / / /

CITY OF PALMDALE
Section 103. Incorporation and Succession.

The City shall continue to be a municipal corporation known as the City of Palmdale. The boundaries of the City of Palmdale shall continue as now established until changed in the manner authorized by law. The City shall remain vested with and shall continue to own, have, possess, control and enjoy all property rights and rights of action of every nature and description owned, had, possessed, controlled or enjoyed by it at the time this Charter takes effect, and is hereby declared to be the successor of same. It shall be subject to all debts, obligations and liabilities, which exist against the City at the time this Charter takes effect. All lawful ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations, or portions thereof, in force at the time this Charter takes effect and not in conflict with or inconsistent herewith, are hereby continued in force until the same have been duly repealed, amended, changed or superseded by proper authority.

ARTICLE 2. FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Section 200. Council-Manager Form of Government.

The municipal government established by this Charter shall be the "Council-Manager" form of government, under which the City Council sets policy and the City Manager will carry out that policy.

ARTICLE 3. FISCAL MATTERS
Section 300. Public Works Contracts.

Except as provided by City ordinance or by agreement approved by the City Council, the City of Palmdale, as a Charter City, is exempt from the provisions of the California Public Contracts Code and from the provisions of any other California statute regulating public contracting and purchasing. The City shall have the power to establish standards, procedures, rules or regulations to regulate all aspects of the bidding, award, contract provisions and requirements and performance of any public works contract, including, but not limited to, the compensation rates to be paid for the performance of such work. The City shall have the power to accept gifts and donations, including donations of material and labor, in the construction of any public works project. The City shall have the power to perform any work of improvement by use of its own forces and is not required to contract for the construction of works of public improvement.

The City may also contract with other public agencies for the construction of works of public improvement.

CITY OF PALMDALE
Section 301. Prevailing Wages.

The provisions of California Labor Code Section 1770 et. Seg. regarding the payment of prevailing wages on public works and related regulations as now existing and as may be amended, are accepted, reaffirmed and made applicable to the City.

Section 302. Purchasing.

The City shall have the power to establish standards, procedures, rules or regulations related to the purchasing of goods, property, or services.

Section 303. Public Financing.

The City shall have the power to establish standards, procedures, rules or regulations related to any public financing.

Section 304. Utilities and Utility Franchises.

The City shall have the power to own, acquire, develop, and/or operate any utility, and to adopt any ordinance providing for the granting of a franchise to any utility not owned by the City that proposes to use or is using City streets, highways or other rights-of-way.

Section 305. Enterprises.

The City shall have the power to lawfully engage in any enterprise deemed necessary to provide revenues for the general fund or any other fund established by the City Council.

ARTICLE 4. REVENUE RETENTION
Section 400. Reductions Prohibited.

All revenues due to, and raised by the City, shall remain within the City of Palmale for appropriation solely by the City Council. No such revenue shall be subject to subtraction, retention, attachment, withdrawal or any other form of involuntary reduction by any other level of government.

Section 401. Mandates Limited.

No person, whether elected or appointed, acting on behalf of the City, shall be required to implement or give effect to any function which is mandated by any other level of government, unless and until funds sufficient for the performance of such function are provided by such mandating authority.
/

CITY OF PALMDALE
ARTICLE 5. LAND USE REGULATION
Section 500. Local Control of Land Use.

The citizens of Palmdale recognize and declare that managing land use and development within the City of Palmdale and ensuring that necessary public facilities are provided to the citizens of the City of Palmdale are quintessential elements of local control and therefore are municipal affairs. The adoption of this Charter recognizes and reaffirms the principles of local land use management and control and affirms the principle that City of Palmdale local land use regulations may be superior to and take precedence over any conflicting general laws of the State of California. The intent of this Charter is to allow the City Council and the voters to exercise the maximum degree of control over land use matters within the City of Palmdale.

ARTICLE 6. ELECTIONS
Section 600. Elections.

The City shall have the power to adopt ordinances establishing procedures, rules or regulations concerning City of Palmdale elections and public officials, including but not limited to, the qualifications and compensation of elected officials, the method, time and requirements to hold elections, to fill vacant offices and for voting by mail. Unless in conflict with ordinances adopted by the City, state law regarding elections shall apply.

ARTICLE 7. FINES AND PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CITY ORDINANCES Section 700. Fines and Penalties.

The City shall have the power to adopt ordinances establishing penalties, fines and forfeitures for violations of the provisions of the Palmdale Municipal Code.

ARTICLE 8. AMENDMENT
Section 800. Amendment to Charter, Revision or Repeal.

This Charter and any of its provisions may be amended by a majority vote of the electors voting on the question. Amendment, revision or repeal may be proposed by initiative or by the governing body, provided, however, that any such amendment or repeal proposed by the governing body, must be voted on at an election held in November, unless the proposed measure is approved by at least four members of the City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting, in which case, the measure may be voted on at a special or any other municipal election. / /3 /

CITY OF PALMDALE
ARTICLE 9. INTERPRETATION
Section 900. Construction and Interpretation.

The language contained in this Charter is intended to be permissive rather than exclusive or limiting and shall be liberally and broadly construed in favor of the exercise by the City of its power to govern with respect to any matter that is a municipal affair.

Section 901. Severability.

If any provision of this Charter should be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or otherwise unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by laze.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the voters at the general municipal election of November 3, 2009.

Steven D. Hofbauer, Mayor Pre Tem Laura Bettencourt, Councilmember like Dispenza, Coun member Tom
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Preston Jordan
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 8:00 AM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Clark, Kimberley; Hess, Justin; City of Burbank, Public Information Office; Jones, Jonathan; City Attorney; Craig Sherwood; MyBurbank.com News; Devin Herenda, MyBurbank.com; Outlook News Burbank Leader; Gavin Quinton, Burbank Leader; Eric Carter; Michael Feinstein; David Holtzman
Subject: Re: CVRA Law: Why The Courts Would Let Burbank Stay Whole (Undistricted) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Mayor and Councilmembers-
As I was copied on this message and am a Councilmember in Albany, California, it is incumbent on me to clarify that I was not involved in writing this message. Beyond that, while I am not an attorney, I am ethically bound to relay that the basis of this message does not comport with legal precedent. As your City Attorney may have informed you in response to the message, in Jauregui v. City of Palmdale (2014) the appellate court found the California Voting Rights Act does apply to charter cities. Specifically,
"The trial court rejected defendant's argument that as a charter city, it could not be subject to the California Voting Rights Act. The trial court reasoned that the dilution of minority voting rights is a matter of statewide concern. In addition, the trial court ruled, 'To the extent a conflict exists between [defendant's] charter provisions as to the election of its council members and the California Voting Rights Act, the court finds that the city is not immune from state legislative enactments in this area of statewide concern," and The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision.

After the provisional use in 2022, the settlement provided that plaintiff's attorney could call for a meet and confer with the City if they judged the outcome of the election did not remedy the CVRA violation they alleged Albany's prior use of plurality at large created.

I was additionally copied on this message because through an intermediary I was asked to analyze the situation in Burbank similar to the analysis I performed for Albany. The results of such analysis here finding proportional ranked choice voting would provide a better remedy to the alleged CVRA violation than single member districts.

The analysis of Burbank indicates proportional ranked choice voting may be a better remedy than single member districts, with a caveat explained at the end.

The analysis involves drawing a reasonable district with as high a percentage of the protected group as possible. In Burbank's case Latinos. First map below, based on 2020 Census data. Note the districts drawn on this map may make no sense to someone that lives in Burbank. They are hypothetical based on the sole goal of maximizing the share of Latinos living in one district and working out from there. The second map regards that share of the population that is "Asian alone" in Census parlance, meaning people that identified as Asian only, not-Hispanic, rather than Asian and one or more other races.

If any of this is of interest but you have questions or would like to discuss, happy to do so. I don't expect such though as you did not ask for any of this.

Take care. I wish you the best in determining how to proceed for your City.

Preston Jordan
https://www.albanyca.org/government/city-council/preston-jordan, for identification ***
%Latino
N <13%
13% to <24%
24% to <38%
38% to 56%
0 02505 >56%
%Asian alone
<4%
Universal 4% to <11%
A
11% to <18%
18% to 29%
a Miles
0 02505 1 >29%
- Whole population basis
Latinos - Absolute values likely lower due to
age and citizenship differences
120% - Relative values likely the same
100% Control
80%
% of election threshold 60%
Influence
40%
20%
0%
1 2 3 1 2 SW2 SW1 NE1 NE2
PRCV citywide Districts
4 - Whole population basis
Asians - Absolute values likely lower due to
age and citizenship differences
120% - Relative values likely the same
100% Control
80%
% of election threshold 60%
Influence
40%
20%
0%
2 3 1 2 SW2 SW1 C NE1 NE2
PRCV citywide Districts
- Whole population basis
Latinos+Asians - Absolute values likely lower due to
age and citizenship differences
120% - Relative values likely the same
100% Control
80%
60%
Influence
....
40%
20%
0%
1 2 3 1 2 sW2 SW1 NE1 NE2
PRCV citywide Districts
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 3:57 PM David Holtzman <[email protected]> wrote:

Just to keep everybody in the loop here...
5 Council Member Takahashi recently asked me about the legal tools one could use to defend Burbank from a California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) lawsuit that tries to force the city into carving itself into city council districts.

I sent her something like this:

One: Section 5(b)(4) of Article XI (11) of the California Constitution grants charter cities "plenary authority... to provide therein [in their city charters] or by amendment thereto [amendment to their city charters], the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several municipal officers... shall be elected or appointed ...."
Two: Since the California Constitution is above legislative statutes in the hierarchy of laws, no statute passed by the California Legislature can force a charter city that has its city council election method specified in its city charter to change that election method.

Three: Burbank is a charter city with "at large" specified in its city charter (in Section 300 and in Section 305) as the election method for its city council members.

Four: No plaintiff can use the statute at issue here (the CVRA, which is a legislative statute) to force Burbank to change its city council election method.

NOTE: "Plenary" means "full; complete; entire; absolute; unqualified." (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/plenary) If a plaintiff does sue to try and force Burbank into city council districting, making those statements in response should get the court to dismiss the suit. A good way to do that would be to use those statements as the heart of a demurrer.

Now, to all those I directly addressed or co'd here, please feel free to email me at [email protected] if you have any questions, would like copies of my previous correspondence with the Burbank City Council, or would like to offer support for keeping Burbank whole.

Sincerely,
David Holtzman
Burbank Resident
**No Council Districts*
7 Meredith, Alyssa
From: eric ericisonline.com
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 9:43 AM
To: Takahashi, Tamala
Subject: For County Supervisor
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Ms. Takahashi,
It was a pleasure to meet with you during your office hours last week. I look forward to future meetings and how we can make this city of Burbank continue to improve.

You had asked me to send over some points for a possible communication with our county supervisor.

Here are some of the benefits of county elections transitioning to RV. These county offices would include:
• All five County Supervisors,
• Superior Court Judges,
• County Sheriff,
• District Attorney,
• County Assessor
Because RCV would eliminate the need for a primary election, this would save the county a tremendous amount of money in processing a primary election for these races. In addition, it would save the county a tremendous amount of money and paperwork processing financial data from candidates for two elections (primary and general).

For our other eighty-eight municipalities and other jurisdictions that have their elections consolidated with the county, this would allow them the option to use RCV should they choose to do so. Recently, the city of Redondo Beach, which uses a private vendor to process its elections voted to move to RCV, voted in favor of transitioning to RCV by a vote of 77.49%, on March 7th, this year. Other cities have been discussing moving towards RCV.

Our challenge has been the County Registrar, Dean Logan. While he has said to many that if a city passes an ordinance, he will make the changes with the voting equipment. However, when city clerks contact his office, his staff state that the county will not be changing its voting equipment, no matter what kind of ordinance a city passes.

Any help that she can provide to give direction to Dean Logan to process the necessary software updates to allow for RCV would be greatly appreciated as many cities are wanting to change to RCV.

Thank you.

Meredith, Alyssa
From: Peter Berg
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 8:29 PM
To: City Council DL; Hess, Justin
Subject: Switch to District based Elections
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Could you briefly explain to me why we are switching to District based elections? Were we in violation of existing law with our city wide system that we have used for years?
My main concern with this new plan is about voters losing their voice.

What if we don't have anyone running for City Council or School board in our 'district. So we wouldn't get to vote? Or what if there is only 1 person running in our neighborhood. We basically wouldn't get a choice of candidates? It just seems that for a smaller city like ours.. this district system might remove the power of the vote and in some cases we would have less voice in our elected officials.

Could you help clarify that? I also think you are not doing a good job so far about educating the public about this. Is this new system happening for sure.. or it's just being considered? Why is it happening and what will happen to the individua voice of the voters. It seems like a pretty big change and I don't think the public is being educated enough about what impacts this might have on their voice in their government.

Thank you.
-Peter Berg
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Jamal El-Amin
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 2:09 PM
To: Anthony, Konstantine
Subject: District Elections
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Mayor Anthony,
I have very strong concerns about the process. In my experience districting has had very negative effects on protective classes. There are black communities nationwide fighting against the nefarious intentions of gerrymandering and voter suppression.

I'm concerned, initially, with the process of it all. We get basically extorted into changing our voting system, without the will of the people being voiced. Also I haven't heard any proof that our at large elections are disenfranchising.

One person can threaten law suit and we change our whole voting procedures? That doesn't sit well with me, and feels very anti American. It sounds like it's not our fault, but that system should be looked into a bit more.

Districting may be the way to go, but I'd like more studies done comparing the two systems before we jump into it. I attended community forum today and they were just talking about mapping and moving forward full steam ahead. I'm sure most of our residents don't even know what's going on. They're gonna wake up on election day and find that they're in a district and wonder what's going on.

This really has to be advertised widely. This process feels very back room. I think we can find a way to implement changes if needed and make sound prudent alterations on our own timeline. If we're forced to do this, what else may we be strong armed into doing down the road?
Look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Best regards,
Jamal El-Amin
Meredith, Alyssa
From: D. A. Holtzman
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 9:47 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Tom Charron; Sean Dugar; Jim Lindsay; Steve Chessin; Guy Cammilleri Subject: Re: Burbank Councilmember wants PRCV - and your Help! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Steve - I wrote to Steve and Guy (Guy at a different address), but not to Tom, Sean, and Jim. Thanks for looping them in!
All - note that when you write to the Burbank City Council < [email protected]> and reference the Agenda Item # for a hearing, your email and any PDF attachments get posted and are publicly available through the "Correspondences" link for that Item.

The cutoff for that is usually 4 PM on the day of the Council meeting.

So if you can't call in, please write!
:-) d
On 4/6/2023 6:06 PM, Steven Hill wrote:

HI David, sounds like progress. I am pretty swamped at the moment, I might be able to testify but not sure I can help mobilize. Have you emailed Tom, Sean, Jim Lindsay, Guy and Steve Chessin from CaRV? I am cc:ing them, maybe they have some ideas, maybe some members in Burbank/LA that might respond to a mobilization.
-----Original Message-.-.

From: D. A. Holtzman
Sent: Apr 6, 2023 5:46 PM
To: Steven Hill
Subject: Burbank Councilmember wants PRCV - and your Help! Hi Steve! Well it's not an op-ed, but ...

Burbank City Councilmember Tamala Takahashi told me today that she wants Burbank to use Proportional Ranked Choice Voting for its City Council elections!
And - this is where you come in — she would like public commenters to back her up on that at next week's Special Hearing on Council elections, where she plans to
1) ask city officials to get feedback on the idea from the community in general, and
2) ask for a report from staff on PRCV as an option for Burbank to use in response to the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) lawsuit threat the city is under now.

The hearing is scheduled for shortly after 6:00 PM on Tuesday, April 11. (See the "Public Comment Options" and Item H.1. and related links on the Agenda here.) Please let me know if you offer can offer public comments in person or by phone then (or, submit an email beforehand) in support of Burbank using PRCV as a response to the threatened CVRA lawsuit and any related voting rights concerns.

If so, please also let me know if you would like to meet with me for pre-hearing planning on Zoom at 12:00 noon on Monday or Tuesday.

I think this is an exciting development! I hope you can and will help. :-) dave h.
p.s. if you'd like to call, my phone (cell) is

INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTION BALLOT - RANKED CHOICE VOTING
Candidate list: (names)
Your choices, in the order you prefer them:

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. (...)

INSTANT RUNOFF ELECTION BALLOT - RANKED CHOICE VOTING
Candidate list: (names)
Your choices, in the order you prefer them:
2 3
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Clark, Kimberley
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2023 10:45 AM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Hess, Justin; Wilke, Judie; McDougall, Joseph H.; Thuyen, Kane; Vander Borght, Jill; Dekermenji, Melissa; Gamez, Xiomara; Meredith, Alyssa; George, Sandra Subject: FW: Letter to Burbank City Council Re: Proposed District Based Electoral System Dear Honorable Mayor Anthony and City Council Members,
Dr. David Gordon asked me to send you this letter.

Thank you and kind regards,

BURBANT KIMBERLEY CLARK
City Clerk
(818) 238-5851
275 E. Olive Avenue
Burbank, CA 91502
CITY CLERK'S [email protected]
OFFICE BurbankCA.gov
From: David W Gordon •
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2023 5:36 AM
To: Clark, Kimberley <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter to Burbank City Council Re: Proposed District Based Electoral System CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable Members of the City Council:

I recently became aware of the proposal to change Burbank's voting structure from an At-Large to a District-Based system in response to threatened litigation alleging potential violation of the CVRA. Like many other community members I have spoken to, but for a single email message announcing the public meetings enabling residents to give their input on how the Districts ought to be drawn, I would not have been aware of anything about the Council's actions to implement these historic voting structure changes nor have the opportunity to voice support for or opposition to it.

Upon doing preliminary research to better understand and appreciate the impacts of such historic changes to our City's longstanding voting practices and recognizing the limited opportunity for the public to become aware of and give informed, meaningful input to the Council I have opted to provide you with this Burbank elector's questions and concerns.

Questions:

1. Voter Dilution: According to his July 12, 2021 press release, Attorney General Rob Bonta stated, in part,
"To establish vote dilution under the CVRA, there must be a showing that an at-large electoral system in particular has precluded a protected class from exercising the power it would otherwise have to meaningfully influence the outcome of elections if the at-large system had not been adopted."
Prior to taking action to advance District-Based voting was the Council provided with unequivocal historical, demographic and/or legal evidence that Burbank "...has precluded a protected class from exercising the power it would otherwise have to meaningfully influence the outcome of elections if the at-large system had not been adopted."?

2. Gerrymandering: Has been defined as manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency so as to favor one party or class. Burbank has not done any gerrymandering because it has not yet drawn any districts. Rather, what we have here is failure to gerrymander. The allegation is more or less that the City has failed to draw a district to give a particular "protected class" or "race" a chance for fair electoral representation even though the there has been no credible showing that any particular "race" needs such a district in Burbank.

Prior to taking action was the Council provided with unequivocal historical, demographic and/or legal evidence that Burbank's At-Large electoral system ever resulted in favor to one party or class?

3. January 24, 2023 Resolution / Transition to a District-Based Election System: Council's Resolution ". ...to consider adoption of an ordinance...to transition to a district-based election system for use in the City's General Municipal Election for City Council members beginning in November 2024," appears as a "done deal" reached with little of no meaningful public input in response to a single letter asserting potential violation of the CVRA. Has the Council obtained any indication by polling or other manner of public input that the electors of this City have been generally informed about this historic change to be imposed upon them by this action and support it? Has the Council received information about this behind closed doors, and from whom, that has not been disclosed to the public?
Concerns:

It appears from the information that I was able to review on this matter that the assertion of intentional or unintentional voter dilution or action to disfavor any particular voting class or group in Burbank, past or present, is unfounded and neither the letter nor intent of the CVRA have been violated in Burbank. It likewise appears the Council January 24 Resolution was to "consider adoption of an ordinance...to transition to a district-based election system." implies the such an ordinance has not yet been adopted.

It would not be unprecedented for the Council majority to reverse its previously given direction on an item. For example, part of the (new/relocated) IKEA development in Burbank set for approval by the Council majority, included forgiving two years worth of generated sales tax that normally would be obligated to the City as an enticement to build here. The concern was that if the sales tax forgiveness was not offered the company would relocate the project or, if built in Burbank, the sales tax revenue in question would be diverted to another IKEA jurisdiction. The Council was led to believe, erroneously, that not to offer the sales tax forgiveness risked losing the project and/or millions in long term sales tax revenue. When it was revealed during the public session that the law required the 2 generated sales tax be paid to the jurisdiction wherein the point of sale was located, the Council unanimously acted to reverse the sales tax forgiveness proposal instantly preserving millions of dollars for the City.
urge you all to consider the following and have the political courage to reverse this action immediately:

1. Lack of Adequate Time and Informed Public Input Prior to Council Action: Not enough time or opportunity has been afforded the public to understand and meaningfully provide input to the Council about this dramatic and historic change in Burbank's voting system. There is no indication that the public approves of this change or that it will enhance government representation of any particular "protected class" or the electors as a whole. In fact, implementation of such a district-based system will Balkanize the City and potentially disenfranchise not only the targeted protected class(es) but electors in general.

2. District-Based Voting will Polarize the City and Disenfranchise All Burbank Electors: Carving the City up into artificial districts by its very nature will lend itself to gerrymandering. Burbank electors are used to being able to support or oppose, cheer on or hold accountable all five of the City's elected Councilmembers. From a political perspective, three district representatives could band together to control the City's plans and directions without being held accountable by those citizens impacted by their decisions but living outside their districts. This smacks more of dictatorship than democracy. Conversely, a single district may have important, if not unique, issues affecting its residents that may not be of concern to any or all of the other Council members representing other districts such that those issues may never be recognized or addressed. Likewise, there may be other electors who reside outside a given district but have interests or concerns about or within a district for which they have no representative accountable to them, effectively disenfranchising them from what they historically and traditionally have held as their rights of Burbank citizenship.

Concluding Comment:

Last year, Ukraine was invaded by what seemed to be an irresistible force. Apart from the death and physical destruction associated with any such military incursion, at stake was the destruction of Ukraine's democratic government and it's people's traditions, culture and identity. The "experts" proclaimed that Ukraine's government would fall in 72 to 96 hours. However, Ukraine's leaders opted not to take the easy way out, not take the experts' advice but rather to stand firm and fight, whatever the cost. Ukraine's people united and cohesively fought against this seemingly insurmountable threat. Today, more than one year after the onslaught struck Ukraine, the country still remains a sovereign nation.

Burbank is not Ukraine. But Burbank has been threatened by an outside entity unjustified in its allegations. Now is not the time for you, our City's elected leaders, to capitulate after one shot has figuratively been fired above your collective heads. Now is the time, instead, to stand firm and fight this threat. Yes, it will cost money. But the City has spent many millions of dollars in the past to mount a broad legal defense when it faced serious legal challenges as was the case defending against a threatened "Consent Decree" associated with turmoil and misconduct within Burbank's police department.

I urge you to alter course, rescind this change to district-based voting and preserve what has served the City well since its founding in 1911.

Thank you for your consideration,
3 David Gordon
Former Burbank Councilmember and Mayor
Meredith, Alyssa
From: eric
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:14 AM
To: eric ericisonline.com
Subject: Fw: The People of Redondo Beach Just Chose Ranked Choice Voting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

FYI. Congrats to Redondo Beach!
Also, Redondo Beach uses a private vendor for their elections, like Long Beach. They are not consolidated with the county. But, this helps the movement, nonetheless, as more communities are wanting to transition to RCV.

Current vote count is:

Yes - 77.49%
No - 22.51%
Take care,
Eric
From: California RCV Coalition
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 8:01 AM
To: eric
Subject: The People of Redondo Beach Just Chose Ranked Choice Voting The movement is moving! Redondo Beach just voted overwhelmingly for better elections. As of last nigh 75% of Redondo Beach voters said yes to Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). IRV is another name for single RCV.

With this win, Redondo Beach becomes the eighth city in California to adopt RCV, and the first in Los Ar County.
"Runoff elections are expensive and have historically been hostile. Runoff elections also tend to have lov turnout than the city's March general election. Using instant runoff, Redondo Beach will experience more amicable campaigns at a lower cost." said Redondo Beach City Councilmember Laura Emdee in her arg favor of RCV.

The RCV movement you are a part of has real momentum. "Ranked choice voting has now won 22 s city ballot measures, because it solves problems and makes our elections better for everyone," said Rob President and CEO of FairVote, one of Cal RCV's national partner organizations.

Thank you for being a part of the movement!
What We've Been Reading
LA Times - Opinion: Can California's top-two primary handle the race for Feinstein's seat? Don't:
on it
The Oaklandside - Judge declares Mike Hutchinson winner of OUSD school board race DemocracySOS - Which proportional representation method is best for America? CaRCV Upcoming Online Events
All Volunteers Meeting, Mar 14th 6 PM
ABCs of RCV on Wed, Mar 29 at 6 PM
All Volunteers on Mon, Apr 17 at 7 PM
ABCs of RCV on Thu, Apr 27 at 8 PM
Statewide on Wed, May 10 at 6 PM
Other Upcoming Events
March 9th, Thursday 8:00pm | Weekly RCV Pitch Training | Rank The Vote March 16th, Thursday 8:00pm | Weekly RCV Pitch Training | Rank The Vote Want more RCV wins? Consider becoming a monthly donor, which is the best way to create a stable thri non-profit organization. Make your contribution here.

Thank you for being a part of the movement.
- The Cal RCV Team
California RCV Coalition Sacramento, CA 95832, United States This email was sent to To stop receiving emails, click here.

You can also keep up with California RCV Coalition on Instagram or on TikTok or on Twitter or Facebook. 3 From: Michael Feinstein
To: City Council DL
Cc: Anthony, Konstantine; Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; Mullins, Zizette Subject: Agenda Item H.1. - Council should further investigate PRCV for local elections and contact City of Santa Monica to learn more about its defense in a CVRA case
Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 12:40:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Burbank City Council
Greetings, my name is Michael Feinstein. I am a former Mayor and City Councilmember in Santa Monica, and a long time electoral reform organizer and advocate.

I am writing to encourage you to
- Take the time to fully investigate use of PRCV for your municipal elections.

PRCV can greatly empowering voters by giving them more ability to express their preferences; and can achieve fuller representation of diverse groups and views held in your community.
- Ask your staff to be in contact with the Santa Monica City Attorney's office about Santa Monica's experience with the CVRA.

As you may know, a CVRA litigation against the City of Santa Monica was filed on April 12, 2016 (Pico Neighborhood Association and Maria Loya v. City of Santa Monica in the matter of California Voting Rights. Case Number BC616804).

Santa Monica has contested the litigation. After a July 9, 2020 decision in Santa Monica's favor in the Court of Appeals, the case is now scheduled to be heard upon appeal by the plaintiffs in front of the California Supreme Court, likely sometime in 2023.

Instead of conceding the plaintiffs argument - and rather than automatically changing its electoral system from multi-seat, at-large/plurality elections, to single- seat, winner-take-all districts, Santa Monica maintains - that contrary to the argument of the plaintiffs, under Santa Monica's current system the local Latino community has been quite successful in helping to elect candidates of its preference, and therefore there is no basis for a CVRA claim and - that the district proposed by the plaintiffs — a district in which the plaintiffs live — would have only 30% Latinos, far from a majority-minority district remedy often favored in CVRA cases; and that at the same time 2/3 of Santa Monica Latinos would live outside of district proposed by the Plaintiffs.

I encourage you and your staff to look into the Santa Monica case in greater detail, to see what insights can be gained for your own process. Here are links for the Santa Monica home page for the litigation, which contains links to all relevant court documents, and specific links to documents around Santa Monica's victory in the Court of Appeals in this case.

Background
https://www.santamonica.gov/Election-Litigation-PNA-V-Santa-Monica Santa Monica's At-Large Election System Affirmed in Court of Appeal Decision (City of SM)
https://www.santamonica.gov/press/2020/07/09/santa-monica-s-at-large-election-system- affirmed-in-court-of-appeal-decision
Copy of Decision in. pdf
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B295935.PDF Case Summary
https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm? dist=2&doc_id=2279812&doc_no=B295935 &request token=NilwLSEmXkw4Wz ApSCI9WE5IQDw6US×TKiNOIzISICAgCg%3D%3D
Here is a podcast I did on the CVRA case, interviewing former Santa Monica Interim City Attorney George Cardona:

PODCAST: Democracy in Santa Monica. How We elect our City Council and the California Voting Rights Act
With former Santa Monica Mayor Mike Feinstein, current Santa Monica Interim City Attorney George Cardona and Election Law Attorney Gautum Dutta https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/democracy-in-santa-monica-how-we-elect- our-city-council/id1476619656?i=1000487780223
Regarding the ability of the County of Los Angeles to conduct RCV elections, in my direct conversations with Dean Logan, Los Angeles County Registrar, he has assured me that while their new Voting Solutions for All People (https://vsap.lavote.gov/) voting system was not built containing RCV, it can be easily added upon request by a municipality (for whose elections the County conducts.) You should ask your staff to confirm this with the Registrar's office, but I have no doubts about this.

Finally here are my writings on the topic, which look at how the CVRA's preferred remedy of single-seat, winner-take-all district does not fit well for all cities, and how PRCV can be a preferable alternative.

What Santa Monica can learn about elections from Lowell, Mass Santa Monica Daily Press. August 24, 2019
https://www.smdp.com/what-santa-monica-can-learn-about-elections-from-lowell- mass/179790
Santa Monica case reveals flawed California Voting Rights Act Santa Monica Daily Press. April 2, 2019
https://www.smdp.com/santa-monica-case-reveals-flawed-california-voting-rights- act/173897
Supporting Santa Monica's voting rights ruling appeal
Santa Monica Daily Press. February 25, 2019
https://www.smdp.com/supporting-santa-monicas-voting-rights-ruling= appeal/173028
Appeal for Reason
Santa Monica Daily Press. December 3, 2018
https://www.smdp.com/appeal-for-reason/171268
Please let me know if you have any questions
Michael Feinstein
Santa Monica
Meredith, Alyssa
From: kevin harrop
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 3:18 AM
To: Perez, Nikki
Subject: Re: City council districts?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Nikki,
How stupid of me to forget meeting you! Sorry about that.

As for the districting, I am understanding that there is little we could do about it but spend a lot of money on a legal fight we likely would lose. Bummer.

Kevin
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 12:13:39 AM PDT, Perez, Nikki < [email protected]> wrote:

Good Evening Kevin,
It's good to hear from you! We've actually met a few times in democratic circles, most recently at Laura Friedman's campaign launch during the last election cycle and glad to hear you're getting involved again.

In regards, to districts we are moving forward with exploring changes under threat of litigation.

I share your sentiment about the negative impacts of districts and am looking forward to working with our City Attorney's office and constituents on ensuring that we have a system in Burbank that does not indirectly limit the voice of protected classes while ensuring that we are protecting taxpayers from paying steep litigation costs.

Thank you,
• DURBANY Nikki Perez ( Councilmember
Burbank City Council
Burbank City Hall | 275 E. Olive Avenue, Burbank, CA 91502 (818) 238-5750 | [email protected]
1 From: kevin harrop
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 4:59 PM
To: Perez, Nikki <[email protected]>
Subject: City council districts?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Ms. Perez,
First, congratulations on getting elected. We don't know each other yet. If you ask any of your four colleges you will find that I am a pretty active constituent. I have slowed down a bit since Will Rogers died. I walked to 22,000 homes with him in his campaign.

My purpose in writing you is the proposal to change Burbank City Council from at large to districts. I am utterly opposed to this. I am asking you to do all you can to prevent the change.

Best regards,
Kevin Harrop
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Steven Hill
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 3:53 PM
City Council DL; Anthony, Konstantine; Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; Mullins, Zizette Subiect: letter of comment on agenda item H1, "Hearing Regarding the Composition of Districts"
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To: Burbank City Council
From: Steven Hill, elections consultant, co-founder of FairVote Re: comments on agenda item H1, "Hearing Regarding the Composition of Districts" Dear Burbank City Council
My name is Steven Hill, and I am a cofounder of FairVote and one of the architects of the Ranked Choice Voting method that is used in over 60 US cities and many states. I have authored several books and dozens of articles on this topic. I was contacted by Burbank residents and asked to offer you some thoughts about the current move to go to district elections as a result of a California Voting Rights Act threat.

An alternative method exists that not only would likely provide better representation to the underrepresented communities targeted by the CVRA, but it also would allow Burbank to retain citywide elections and at the same time offer Burbank a degree of "safe harbor" from the CVRA. That method is called Proportional Ranked Choice Voting.

The Burbank city attorney staff report says "It is not statistically possible to create a single-member electoral district in Burbank in which Latino eligible voters (citizens of voting age population or "VAP") constitute a majority. Both the Latino and the Asian populations of the City are disbursed throughout." So it seems pointless to use districts which will not achieve the goals of the CVRA. But proportional ranked choice voting would actually accomplish the job of allowing traditionally underrepresented communities to have a fair chance to win representation while maintaining the citywide perspective and not moving to districts. In the election year in which three seats are being elected, under proportional RCV rules it would take 25 percent of the vote to win one of those three seats, and the Latino population of Burbank is very close to that victory threshold.

Proportional representation methods have been used for many decades, both in the United States and in many other countries. Proportional voting has a demonstrated history of electing diverse legislatures, including minorities, women, candidates lacking deep financial resources, and many others.

In addition, switching to proportional RCV would actually delay any CVRA attempt to force the council to switch to districts. The reason why is because a CVRA action is a data-driven process. The plaintiffs have to come forward with specific data that proves their claims of a long-standing pattern of racially polarized voting under the current system, and to some extent a lack of political success for minority candidates and voters under the current system. But if Burbank switched to P-RCV, that act would "reset the clock" in terms of collecting data.

The plaintiffs could not claim there is polarized voting under P-RCV when P-RCV has not been used yet. So plaintiffs would have to delay their CVRA lawsuit for a number of years.

I have followed the lawsuit in Santa Monica closely, and I understand that as councilmembers you feel that you are in a difficult situation. Nevertheless, you do have some time to explore options that arguably will fulfill the goals of the California Voting Rights Act better than district elections will.

If I can be of any assistance in your deliberations, do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, all the best Steven Hill
elections consultant
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Paula Lee d
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 3:57 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: H.1. "Special Public Hearing" on districting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable Councilmembers,
Suing cities like Burbank for CVRA violations has become a profitable business for some attorneys.

You need of course to take this threat seriously and you are wise to pursue districts as a remedy.

However, since your report indicates the demographer may find it impossible to draw a majority minority district it would be wise to explore the option of proportional voting NOW as a optional remedy the court would agree to as has happened in other cities in CA.

You could keep your at large elections, not have to re-draw districts every 10 years and achieve representation for voters no matter where they live.

Isn't it more important how they think? what they value? What they want in a city than where they live?
Why not at least explore both options before you have to divide your city up into little kingdoms forever.

With proportional representation, voters win and the city wins.

Paula Lee
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Joan Hardie
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 4:13 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: David Holtzman; Mary Dickson; Paula Lee
Subject: Special Hearing 4/11 City Elections
Attachments:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 Dear Honorable City Council members,
My name is Joan Hardie, I'm a volunteer for the League of Women Voters of Greater Los Angeles and we have a unit that provides voter services in the Glendale/Burbank area.

We routinely provide candidate forums, with cooperation of the City, for local, state and federal elections. For each election, The State League provides useful voter service tools such as the EasyVoter Guide and in-depth materials called Pros/Cons on the ballot measures.

Since the League of Women Voters has been around for over 100 years offering voter services it not only has a lot of knowledge of the electoral process but continues to study how to improve the voting process and voter turnout. In fact, one of the educational efforts our Glendale/Burbank League did was on PRCV, and this was about 5 - 10 years ago. We held a member event at Gordon Biersch and invited the public and elected city officials and we spoke about PRCV and even did a mock election. We also had a holiday party where we had a League expert talk about PRCV. I remember several City Council Members Bob Frutos and Jess Talamantes were in attendance and they acknowledged the benefits of PRCV. So, this a concept that I know the City of Burbank has talked about before as being a good choice for how Burbank runs its local elections.

As volunteer for the League, I'm excited to hear Burbank talking about how to best improve their electoral process. And I want to add the League of Women Voters supports PRCV as good alternative to what Burbank currently has.

Thank you.

Meredith, Alyssa
From: David Holtzman
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 5:00 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: 4/11/20 Item H.1. Questions To Ask Staff Tonight CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Honorable Members of My City's Council
Here are questions to ask staff tonight for the benefit of the public:

1. Who was involved in writing each of attachments 3, 4, and 2 to tonight's Agenda Item H.1.?

2. How were the groups selected for outreach chosen? Who was involved with that? What relevant correspondence can you provide for public release?

3. Why does your outreach plan related to the California Voting Rights Act not include one or more USPS mailings to every registered voter in the city, as is done with elections? After all the CVRA is about voting.

4. Do you believe the statement on Page 4 of Attachment 3 that says, "The current, at-large method of election to the Burbank City Council impairs the ability of members of protected classes to clect candidates of their choice and their ability to influence the outcomes of elections"??? Who wrote that? Isn't it your job to contest such libel against the city?

5. Even if you believe that statement, why did you allow publication of the false conclusion that follows, "Therefore, district elections must be established in the City of Burbank"??? PRCV does not require districts.

Instituting PRCV is an acceptable (indeed preferable, especially in terms of minority voting strength) resolution to a CVRA challenge.
- David Holtzman
**No Council Districts**
1

Burbank City CouncilApril 11, 2023

Burbank City Council
April 11, 2023