Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica, 15 Cal.5th 292 (2023) 534 P.3d 54, 312 Cal.Rptr.3d 319, 23 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8126... © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 19 until all seats are filled. (See Tideman, The Single Transferable Vote (Winter 1995) 9 J. Econ. Persp. 27, 27–28, 32– 35; see generally Note, The Madisonian Case for Ranked Choice Voting: Federalist No. 10, Preferential Voting, and the American Democratic Tradition (2021) 23 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol'y 953, 963.) 9 We recognize that where there is complete racial polarization, the protected class may itself need to make up a majority of the district in order to have an ability to elect its preferred candidate. But “ ‘[i]n practice, such extreme conditions are never present.’ ” ( Strickland, supra, 556 U.S. at p. 45, 129 S.Ct. 1231 (dis. opn. of Breyer, J.) [“No voting group is 100% cohesive”]; see id. at pp. 32–33, 129 S.Ct. 1231 (dis. opn. of Souter, J.) [“of course minority voters constituting less than 50% of the voting population can have an opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice, as amply shown by empirical studies confirming that such minority groups regularly elect their preferred candidates with the help of modest crossover by members of the majority”].) As the high court has acknowledged, “there are communities in which minority citizens are able to form coalitions with voters from other racial and ethnic groups, having no need to be a majority within a single district in order to elect candidates of their choice.” ( Johnson v. De Grandy (1994) 512 U.S. 997, 1020, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 ( De Grandy).) 10 An amicus curiae letter submitted in support of Pico Neighborhood Association's petition for review by the chairs of the Assembly's Latino, Black, and Asian and Pacific Islander caucuses recites that while some members were elected in majority-minority districts, many others were elected in districts in which their membership group made up only 20 to 40 percent of the eligible voters. The trial court here similarly found that candidates from minority groups who had been “unsuccessful in at-large elections have won district elections” in districts “where the minority group is one-third or less of a district's electorate.”
11 “The threshold of exclusion ‘is the percentage of the vote that will guarantee the winning of a seat even under the most unfavorable circumstances.’ ” ( Dillard, supra, 699 F.Supp. at p. 874.) It “is calculated according to the following formula: 1/(1 + number of seats available).” ( U.S. v. Vill. of Port Chester (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 704 F.Supp.2d 411, 450.)
12 Plaintiffs suggest it would be rare for a group constituting less than 25 percent of the relevant voting population to make the required showing. We have no occasion here to explore that suggestion, since the Latino population in the proposed district exceeds that threshold.
End of Document © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
PGCC 3-6-2024
!
"##
"
$
#%
%#%%
%
%
%
%
&'()*+,*,)
#-.
#.% -
#/
#
.
"0
12341456473 8966:3;<<===>12?1@6@43>A7B<54=3<:A36<CDCE<DF<GC<12?@HA75@2I3J:74K4I1AJ76I:A@34LI6AI 743A?M4IN4OIMA6@5BI7@B963I1234P
#./
%#
.
Q
"0
#.
#%-
" 0
# .
/#
#/
#
.
R S
#T
RS
U"0
#
#
-#V
#
#
" 0
Q
#
#
#
#
.
W
"X
#
#
V .
#
"
-#V Y
Z
#
#
#
#%-
#
.
"0
#.
#
"0
##
" PGCC 3-6-2024
!
"##
"
$
#%
%#%%
%
%
%
%
&
#
'
(
%
)
(
#
#%*
)
" +
##
",
(
#
##&
-.
)
*
%#
)
)/
*) # #
##
#
#
*)#
##"0 &
#
*
" 1
)2 &
3#
4
"&
##
#
#
))53)5
",
-.
6
#
%#
)
"&
# #
63)%3)
#
*
" .
%#
)
*) # )7##
#
#7
7
#
)
# #
#
#
# "7 ,
#
#
##
#
/#
#
#
#
## #)
#
)
)#
#0
#
#
)
)
"&
# #
/#
8#
3
#
#
)
"0 PGCC 3-6-2024
!
"##
"
$
#%
%#%%
%
%
%
%
&
'
'(
)*
+ ,
-
'
#
# '-
('.##
#
#"/0
#%(
#1"#
#
#
#
#'-
%#
'
"
#2
",
# .
#
('%%#/
#
" ,
#
##
#
% #
'
'
('# ' .# ##/
.##
#
#"/ 3
#4#'
#( 4 '
",
5#
)*
# (
'('
#'6
##",
789#'6
(
)*
" .*#'6
/
4 #(
##
#
# #
#
#
#" ,
# # #
-
('#
# #
#
#
#
(
('
#
-
#
#
#
#
#'"
#
##
:
",
-
##
#'#
#
'#4
" PGCC 3-6-2024
!
"##
"
$
#%
%#%%
%
%
%
%
&
'
'
#
#
"
#
(#
#
)
"
(
*
)
#
#(("
+
#
,-$ ./,010-$%$
2/,010-$%$
PGCC 3-6-2024
1 CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE
§ 10010. Political subdivision changing from at-large method of election to district-based election or establishing district-based elections; public hearings; application; notice of action (a) A political subdivision that changes from an at-large method of election to a district-based election, or that establishes district-based elections, shall do all of the following before a public hearing at which the governing body of the political subdivision votes to approve or defeat an ordinance establishing district-based elections:
(1) Before drawing a draft map or maps of the proposed boundaries of the districts, the political subdivision shall hold at least two public hearings over a period of no more than 30 days, at which the public is invited to provide input regarding the composition of the districts. Before these hearings, the political subdivision may conduct outreach to the public, including to non-English-speaking communities, to explain the districting process and to encourage public participation. (2) After all draft maps are drawn, the political subdivision shall publish and make available for release at least one draft map and, if members of the governing body of the political subdivision will be elected in their districts at different times to provide for staggered terms of office, the potential sequence of the elections. The political subdivision shall also hold at least two additional hearings over a period of no more than 45 days, at which the public is invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft map or maps and the proposed sequence of elections, if applicable. The first version of a draft map shall be published at least seven days before consideration at a hearing. If a draft map is revised at or following a hearing, it shall be published and made available to the public for at least seven days before being adopted.
(b) In determining the final sequence of the district elections conducted in a political subdivision in which members of the governing body will be elected at different times to provide for staggered terms of office, the governing body shall give special consideration to the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001, and it shall take into account the preferences expressed by members of the districts. (c) This section applies to, but is not limited to, a proposal that is required due to a court-imposed change from an at-large method of election to a district-based election. (d) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) “At-large method of election” has the same meaning as set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 14026. (2) “District-based election” has the same meaning as set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 14026.
PGCC 3-6-2024
2 (3) “Political subdivision” has the same meaning as set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 14026. (e)(1) Before commencing an action to enforce Sections 14027 and 14028, a prospective plaintiff shall send by certified mail a written notice to the clerk of the political subdivision against which the action would be brought asserting that the political subdivision's method of conducting elections may violate the California Voting Rights Act of 2001.
(2) A prospective plaintiff shall not commence an action to enforce Sections 14027 and 14028 within 45 days of the political subdivision's receipt of the written notice described in paragraph (1). (3)(A) Before receiving a written notice described in paragraph (1), or within 45 days of receipt of a notice, a political subdivision may pass a resolution outlining its intention to transition from at-large to district-based elections, specific steps it will undertake to facilitate this transition, and an estimated timeframe for doing so.
(B) If a political subdivision passes a resolution pursuant to subparagraph (A), a prospective plaintiff shall not commence an action to enforce Sections 14027 and 14028 within 90 days of the resolution's passage.
(C)(i) A political subdivision and the prospective plaintiff who first sends a notice pursuant to paragraph (1) may enter into a written agreement to extend the time period described in subparagraph (B) for up to an additional 90 days in order to provide additional time to conduct public outreach, encourage public participation, and receive public input. The written agreement shall include a requirement that the district boundaries be established no later than six months before the political subdivision's next regular election to select governing board members. However, in a political subdivision that holds a primary election as part of its process for selecting governing board members, the written agreement shall include a requirement that district boundaries be established no later than six months before the political subdivision's next regular primary election.
(ii) No later than 10 days after a political subdivision enters into a written agreement pursuant to clause (i), the political subdivision shall prepare and make available on its internet website a tentative schedule of the public outreach events and the public hearings held pursuant to this section. If a political subdivision does not maintain an internet website, the political subdivision shall make the tentative schedule available to the public upon request.
(f)(1) If a political subdivision adopts an ordinance establishing district-based elections pursuant to subdivision (a), a prospective plaintiff who sent a written notice pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) before the political subdivision passed its resolution of intention may, within 30 days of the ordinance's adoption, demand reimbursement for the cost of the work product generated to support the notice. A prospective plaintiff shall make the demand in writing and shall substantiate the demand with financial documentation, such as a detailed invoice for demography services. A political subdivision may request additional documentation if the provided documentation is insufficient to corroborate the claimed costs. A political subdivision shall reimburse a prospective plaintiff for reasonable costs claimed, or in an amount to which the parties mutually agree, within 45 days of receiving the written PGCC 3-6-2024
3 demand, except as provided in paragraph (2). In all cases, the amount of the reimbursement shall not exceed the cap described in paragraph (3).
(2) If more than one prospective plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement, the political subdivision shall reimburse the prospective plaintiffs in the order in which they sent a written notice pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), and the 45-day time period described in paragraph (1) shall apply only to reimbursement of the first prospective plaintiff who sent a written notice. The cumulative amount of reimbursements to all prospective plaintiffs shall not exceed the cap described in paragraph (3). (3) The amount of reimbursement required by this section is capped at thirty thousand dollars ($30,000), as adjusted annually to the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, United States city average, as published by the United States Department of Labor.
PGCC 3-6-2024