1 Xavier Mota
From: Brodsky, Michael <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 9:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Subject: Item 4: Close Session recommendations
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Item 4.A. Do NOT renew leases on underground storage tanks at SMO.
Item 4.D. Do NOT settle this case.
Sincerely,
Michael Brodsky
Santa Monica
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Cathy Larson and Roger Allen <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 10:58 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; councilmtgitems
Subject: Oct 10 Item 4-D
EXTERNAL
I support at large voƟng.
All voices heard by all Councilmembers.
Cathy Larson
Santa Monica Resident
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Michael Feinstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 8:04 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; councilmtgitems
Cc: David White; Douglas Sloan
Subject: City Council item 4-D, October 10, 2024
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis, City Councilmembers and City Staff
Regarding your closed session item 4-D, I encourage you to continue to defend the City’s position in the CVRA case in front of the Court of Appeals, because the recent California Supreme Court decision puts the City in a strong position. https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Communication.aspx?Frame=&Meeti ngID=1380&MediaPosition=&ID=2150&CssClass=
As you know, the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) was enacted to ensure that historically disadvantaged voters have a meaningful opportunity to win representation. But key terms were left undefined. In its recent ruling in Pico Neighborhood Neighborhood vs. City of Santa Monica, the California Supreme Court has defined those terms and in the process, has substantially changed the CVRA landscape.
Previously, the plaintiffs have maintained that to prove “vote dilution” and compel a change in a voting system, one only needs to show the existence of “racially polarized voting”. It is upon this basis that they have argued that the single time former Santa Monica Latino Councilmember Tony Vasquez was defeated proves their case, but the three times he was elected should be discounted. This same kind of supposition about vote dilution (and racially polarized voting) has driven the change to single-seat, winnertake-all districts across California, where concerned with legal costs and liability, several hundred local governments have simply changed voting systems without going to court or seeking a vote of its citizens.
Now that Santa Monica has had the will and resources to defend its record all the way to the State Supreme Court, this supposition by the plaintiffs has been challenged and heard in court. The result is that the Court ruled that vote dilution is not an absolute, but must be judged against another legally allowable system proposed by the plaintiffs. Furthermore, ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
2 this must occur via an 'intensely local appraisal’ of all the relevant electoral and electionrelated facts, to see if the system proposed by the plaintiffs would give voters from the protected class demonstrably more influence. If not — especially in situations where the targeted minority community is too geographically spread out to benefit from single-seat, winner-take-all districts — and might even lose influence — the dilution would be ruled insufficient to compel court-imposed change.
Given the Court’s ruling, it is easy to see that the CVRA was not meant for a city like Santa Monica.
In Santa Monica, most Latino-preferred candidates (that run viable campaigns) already win under its at-large system.
At the same time, a change to the plaintiff’s proposed seven singleseat districts could lead to a net loss of self-identified Latinos on the City Council, of which there are currently three out of seven elected at-large -- including two living in one of the same proposed districts, that would have to compete against each other if single-seat, winner-take-all districts were imposed upon the City.
But going to the heart of the plaintiff’s request for such single-seat districts is the fact that because Latinos are spread out over Santa Monica, the highest Latino concentrated district would be only 30%.
At the same time, the other two-thirds of Santa Monica Latinos would be left outside of this district, spread over the other six. These ‘less-than-equal’ Latinos would see their own influence significantly diluted in each of the new districts (districts which would be substantially more white than the city at-large), and these 2/3 of Santa Monica Latinos would lose their vote (and influence) on six of the seven city council seats they have today, which occur in a more diverse city-wide electorate.
Meanwhile, even for the concentrated 30%, there is no clear demonstration of increased ‘influence’ for them that doesn’t require a great deal of unprovable speculation. The plaintiffs - in trying to make their case for increased influence by this 30% - suggest that this 30% will be united in its vote, based upon a few past cases when there was a strong Latino vote supporting a single Latino candidate running in multiple-candidate (three or four-seat) City Council races. But such theoretical ‘unity’ will disappear from among this Latino 30% where there are multiple Latino and/or Latino-preferred candidates all competing against each other for a single district seat, which is highly likely to occur in the Pico-neighborhood-based district proposed by the plaintiffs if the city were compelled to adopt single-seat, winner-take-all districts.
At some point, logic has to be stretched beyond credulity to suggest there would be enough clear and demonstrable additional ‘influence’ under the seven-district model ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
3 proposed by the plaintiffs to compel a change in Santa Monica’s electoral system under the Supreme Court’s new definition of dilution.
Thank you for your time in reading this message.
Sincerely
Mike Feinstein
Ocean Park neighborhood
Santa Monica
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Adele Andrade Stadler (via Google Docs) <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 9:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Santa Monica public comments (CVRA).docx
EXTERNAL
Adele Andrade Stadler attached a docum ent
Adele Andrade Stadler (adeleandradestadler@ gm ail.com ) has attached the follow ing docum ent:
Santa M onica public com m ents (CVRA).docx
Snapshot of the item below:
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
As a former Alhambra Mayor and current Alhambra Councilwoman, I am writing to you as a supporter of the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) and an advocate of by‐district elections.
By‐district elections have served Alhambra well. The transition from Alhambra’s former at‐ large from‐district system was seamless. Both councilmembers and residents embraced it.
Consequently, Alhambra’s communities of color are better ensured sustainable and fair representation. I can also attest that the transition has not altered councilmembers’ collective concern for all residents of Alhambra. The only difference now is that we can spend more time with the residents of our districts, which helps us better understand and address the needs of our constituents.
My fear is that Santa Monica’s continued CVRA litigation will ultimately weaken the CVRA, resulting in the loss of fair representation for marginalized communities across California. The CVRA is a landmark law that ought not be diminished but lifted up in the face of a significantly weakened federal Voting Rights Act and consistent attacks on democracy.
I encourage Santa Monica to embrace by‐district elections, and in so doing, safeguard the California Voting Rights Act for under‐represented communities of color across California.
Sincerely,
Adele Andrade Stadler
Alhambra Councilwoman, Fifth District
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
2 Google LLC, 1600 Am phitheatre Parkw ay, M ountain View , CA 94043, USA You have received this em ail because adeleandradestadler@ gm ail.com shared a docum ent with you from Google Docs.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Brian O'Neil <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:32 AM
To: Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; councilmtgitems
Cc: David White; Attorney Mailbox
Subject: City Council Agenda 10/10/23 (Closed Session Conference Regarding CVRA Case: Pico Neighborhood Association and Maria Loya v. City of Santa Monica)
EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council, City Attorney, City Manager From: Brian O’Neil
Re: City Council Agenda Item 3‐C (Closed Session Conference Regarding CVRA Case: Pico Neighborhood Association and Maria Loya v. City of Santa Monica)
Date: October 10, 2023
Dear Council Members, City Attorney, City Manager
I’d like to reiterate my urging that the City Council drop the City’s appeal in the CVRA case, which will be discussed in closed session at tonight’s City Council meeting.
Besides the reasons I noted last month in my letter to you, which I’ve pasted below for reference, I want to highlight now how the move to district-based elections would greatly improve our local representative democracy. Indeed, some food for fought, Harvey Milk would have never been elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977 had the SF Board not recently adopted district-based elections. There is no doubt that dropping the appeal and adopting some form of district-based elections would open the door for new candidates and fresh voices here in Santa Monica. Currently, as you are all aware, the At-Large System requires big money to run for office in the entire city, big money usually supplied by the machine PACs of SMRR and SM Forward or other special interests. Adopting District-based Elections would allow for true electoral competition and truly grass-roots candidates to stand a chance.
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
2 Take the lesson of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977 and the subsequent election of a grass-roots candidate like Harvey Milk, and help create a truly representation democracy in Santa Monica.
Many thanks for your service to our city,
Brian O’Neil
Pico Resident
From: Brian O’Neil
Re: City Council Agenda Item 3‐C (Closed Session Conference Regarding CVRA Case: Pico Neighborhood Association and Maria Loya v. City of Santa Monica)
Date: September 12, 2023
Dear Council Members, City Attorney, City Manager
As an historian and a long‐term Pico neighborhood resident, I urge you to drop the City’s appeal in the case of Pico Neighborhood Association and Maria Loya v. City of Santa Monica, popularly known as the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) case, which you will be discussing in closed session at today’s City Council meeting.
Why should the City drop its the appeal?
TO DO THE RIGHT THING!
THREE SIMPLE REASONS:
1) VOTING RIGHTS FOR ALL SANTA MONICANS!
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
3 2) REPRESENTATION & EQUITY FOR THE PICO NEIGHBORHOOD 3) FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY& EQUITY FOR ALL SANTA MONICANS 1) VOTING RIGHTS & the CVRA
Are we in Selma, Alabama in 1965 or Santa Monica in 2023? The CVRA was put in place to enhance the voting rights protections of the US Voting Rights Act of 1965. All by one of you (Councilmember Davis being the exception) were not on the Council when the decisions were made in 2018 to appeal the CRVA case. It has boggled my mind since 2018 why the purportedly “progressive” Santa Monica City Council has for years now aggressively fought against the CRVA case. Most of CA’s truly progressive and leaders understand that Santa Monica’s continuing of the appeal of the CRVA case is an affront to voting rights for all Californians. Senator Alex Padilla has remarked that our City’s appeal could undue over 20 years of progress for voting rights in our state.
See:
Read or listen to our State Senator's opinion here.
California Supreme Court case threatens voting rights ‐ CalMatters You all (including Councilmember Davis) have the opportunity to now stop the suppression of voting rights in our city and shift to the historic side of advancing the expansion of voting rights by dropping the appeal.
While there are many legitimate and complicated issues to discuss regarding the transition away from the current At‐Large Electoral system, which the Los Angeles Superior Court found violates the CVRA, to a more equitable District‐based (or hybrid District‐based + At‐Large Mayoral) electoral system, the basic facts in this case point to how Latinos in the Pico neighborhood (and I would argue all Pico residents) have for years had their votes diluted by the current At‐Large voting system. This dilution has, in turn, led to the systematic marginalization of the Pico neighborhood.
2) REPRESENTATION & EQUITY FOR THE PICO NEIGHBORHOOD
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
4 Quick history lesson. The Pico Neighborhood has been politically and socially marginalized since the early 20th century. Thanks to racist redlining real estate practices, for decades Pico was only neighborhood in Santa Monica open to non‐whites. It has historically been the dumping ground to serve all the city’s major mass transit and infrastructure projects: Interstate‐10 Freeway; the City Yards and Recycling Center, the Metro Maintenance Facility. More recently in 2018, a private preschool was given a CUP to operate a 20‐student preschool (a business) out of a single‐family home at 2953 Delaware Ave, a CUP fiercely opposed by nearly the entire neighborhood, a CUP that flew in the face of the LUCE and local zoning intended to preserve our residential neighborhoods, a CUP that would have NEVER been approved in any other Santa Monica neighborhood, but was approved by the City Council because of the business‐owner’s political ties to city leaders. There is no doubt that had the Pico neighborhood had just political representation, such inequities would not have been the pattern in the Pico neighborhood.
Today the Pico neighborhood faces ongoing policy impacts related to the commericialization and densification of our residential neighborhoods, the redevelopment of Bergamont Station, the proposed Resilience Center at VAP. Thankfully, there are currently two councilmembers that live in and look out for the Pico neighborhood (De la Torre & Parra). This political shift, however, only occurred via a herculean grass‐roots effort in the 2020 elections. With the current At‐Large system, there is every chance that in 2024, big money interests could work to unseat Councilmembers De La Torre and Parra and our neighborhood would once again have No Direct Representation in our City Council. Please drop the CVRA appeal and start the transition to some sort of district elections system so that the Pico neighborhood, and all Santa Monica neighborhoods, can have truly representative democracy.
3) FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY& EQUITY FOR ALL SANTA MONICANS To date the City has spent millions of dollars fighting the CVRA (I’ve heard estimates of $10‐15 million). Tragically for a city that prides itself on being a fighter for the environment, much of that money has gone to Gibson, Dunn, a law firm known to regularly defend the big oil companies. Stop throwing good money after bad by dropping the appeal. If the appeal in not dropped the CVRA will undoubtedly drag on for years more, and probably end up back in the CA Supreme Court. To continue the appeal would mean millions and millions more to Gibson, Dunn; money that would be much better spent improving our city’s safety and services.
In the end, DO THE RIGHT THING and drop the appeal!
Have your legacy be as fighter for voting rights and representative democracy! ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
5 Thank you all for your continued service to our beloved city, Santa Monica, Highest Regards,
Brian O’Neil
Pico Resident
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Tom Charron <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:54 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Jim Lindsay
Subject: Written comment RE: Agenda Item 4.D. on the closed session agenda of 10/10/23
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis, Councilmembers and staff,
The California Ranked Choice Voting Coalition (Cal RCV) believes in real democracy. Plurality at‐large voting (PAL) is well known to be a discriminatory and undemocratic system.
Santa Monica continuing to fight the Pico lawsuit is undemocratic. Doing so would seek to continue using PAL, which is a fundamentally discriminatory system. If Santa Monica should prevail, it would threaten the voting rights of 40 million Californians. Furthermore, it is unlikely Santa Monica will prevail as there is no established CVRA case law in which a public agency defendant has successfully prevailed on the merits. It would be a futile exercise that will only waste many more millions of taxpayer dollars.
Cal RCV would prefer a proportional method of voting, such as Proportional Ranked Choice Voting, which would provide the most equitable, representative, and durable solution to represent all the people of Santa Monica, but regardless of the remedy chosen, we must oppose all efforts to undermine the CVRA.
We urge you to drop the city’s appeal of Pico v. Santa Monica and find an acceptable compromise that will improve representation as soon as possible. To continue to fight to keep PAL in place is undemocratic and un‐American.
Sincerely,
Tom Charron and Jim Lindsay, Co‐founders, on behalf of the Executive Committee of the California Ranked Choice Voting Coalition
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Tony Huizar <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; David White
Subject: Public input for today's Closed Agenda Item 4.D. Santa Monica City Council Meeting 09/12/2023
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members, City Manager and City Staff,
Just a reminder as you meet on the agenda item regarding he CVRA...
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 11:12 AM Tony Huizar <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Council Members, City Manager and City Staff,
I urge you to unite the City of Santa Monica and drop the legal fight against the Voting Rights case. Millions of dollars that should have gone to improving the safety and infrastructure of Santa Moncia have been spent on attorney fees to reverse a legal case that has already been decided in a six-week trial, by the LA Superior Court.
Today you have been given a once in a lifetime opportunity to correct this grave injustice and make history by acting on behalf of the residents of Santa Moncia and the people of our United States by supporting over 20 years of progress that the CVRA has made in our state electoral system and its shared impact across the nation. We are residents of one of the most progressive cities in the country, are we not? Please take corrective measures and act on behalf of your constituents, the residents of Santa Moncia, who will not forget your role in improving safety and well being by investing our budget where it most matters, in our community.
Read or listen to our State Senator's opinion here.
Thank you for your time and service,
Tony Huizar
Life-long Santa Monica Resident and father to three past and present SMMUSD students ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Cris Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra
Subject: Item 4D: NO settlement!
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members:
As a Latina born in Santa Monica, I support the City's defense of the CA Voting Rights Act by defending against Pico Neighborhood Association and Maria Loya v. City of Santa Monica. Do NOT settle! The City is defending justice and diversity with a clear‐eyed appropriate understanding of the CVRA. The City is aiming to safeguard voices of Latinos and other ethnic and racial communities by not allowing a splinter group of Latinos to prejudice and confuse genuine concerns about how we could make our democratic voting practices stronger for all.
Our City’s leadership on civil rights depends on allowing the case to continue.
With respect,
Christine “Cris” Gutierrez
Santa Monica Resident
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: PNA90404 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Phil Brock; David White; Gleam Davis
Subject: Agenda Item 4-D
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Gleam Davis, Mayor Pro Tem Lana Negrete, City Councilors, City Manager David White.
Please settle the CVRA lawsuit, show some class in the face of defeat.
The residents of the Pico Neighborhood dont care if the City drags this lawsuit out another 7 years by your litigious behavior and actions to draw it out.
You have knowingly and forever harmed the Santa Monica Residents of color.
Stop this indignant charade that you care about Civil Rights your actions say otherwise.
Please save some money and settle this case.
Yours Sincerely Cris McLeod Resident of the Pico Neighborhood.
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023
ITEM 4.D.
October 10, 2023