1 David Yakobson
From: Cris Gutierrez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 3:37 PM
To: Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: Agenda Item 4B, 2/27 Council Mtg.
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
I have confidence that you will continue to defend the California Voting Rights Act by remaining steadfast and not settling the Pico Neighborhood Association and Maria Loya v. City of Santa Monica lawsuit.
The City needs to persist. I trust that my voice, representation and rights are best served by my City making the case that Santa Monica’s voting integrity is in concert with the CVRA.
Thank you.
With respect,
Ms.Christine “Cris” Gutierrez
Santa Monica Sunset Park Resident
Item 4-B
February 27, 2024
Item 4-B
February 27, 2024
2 David Yakobson
From: Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 12:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la Torre; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; David White; [email protected] Subject: 2/27/2024 CC Agenda Item 4B
EXTERNAL
Re: 2/27/2024 Santa Monica City Council Agenda Item 4B
Dear Mayor Brock, Vice Mayor Negrete, and City Councilmembers, Although an ultimate ruling on the CVRA case has not yet been determined, the City has continued to prevail in recent Court decisions and should continue to stay the course on this litigation.
The Supreme Court issued a ruling clarifying how a plaintiff would need to prove vote dilution under the California Voting Rights Act as well as certain other misconceptions of the law, namely that both racially polarized voting and vote dilution must be proven to demonstrate a violation of the CVRA. And after the Supreme Court remanded it to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled to remand the case back to the Superior court. Now, it is up to the Santa Monica City Council to ensure that the “totality of the facts and circumstances” of the City’s current at-large voting system are carefully examined at a new trial.
The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal (on two occasions) did not rule in favor of the plaintiffs and it appears that the City is on the verge of winning this case as the plaintiffs would not be able to prove either racially polarized voting nor vote dilution as defined under the CVRA.
The Fiscally Responsible Choice
As I noted in my letter to the Council on November 13, 2023, The most fiscally responsible decision is to stay the course. If the Council were to entertain a potential settlement at this time, there could be a potential financial liability of millions if not tens of millions of dollars at a time when our City’s fiscal health is still recovering. Any additional legal costs from continuing the case are marginal compared to the costs that have already been incurred and if the Court of Appeals’ initial ruling is any indication, the City may have a reasonable chance of potentially recovering at least some of the costs that we have incurred.
It is important to note that Section 14030 of the CVRA is a one-way attorney fee provision, which means that the prevailing plaintiff party is entitled to fees and costs, so long as the plaintiff is not the state or a political subdivision. There is no fee provision for prevailing defendants. Prevailing defendants do not recover costs unless the action was frivolous or the like. Although it has been depublished, in the Court of Appeal’s original opinion, the panel of three judges unanimously awarded costs to the City.
Councilmember de la Torre Should Recuse Himself from Closed Session Items Regarding the CVRA Case
Further, as I have noted in my letters and testimony regarding this item, I urge Councilmember de la Torre to recuse himself from item 4B due to an undeniable conflict of interest.
Prior to being elected to the City Council in 2020, Councilmember de la Torre served as the chair of the Pico Neighborhood Association, the co-plaintiff in the CVRA lawsuit filed against the city in 2016, and subsequently Item 4-B
February 27, 2024
Item 4-B
February 27, 2024
3 amended in 2017. The other co-plaintiff in the lawsuit is the Councilmember’s spouse. Pursuant to these facts, on January 26, 2021, the City Council voted to disqualify the then-newly elected Councilmember de la Torre from participating in or attempting to influence discussions or decisions relating to this litigation due to a finding of a common law conflict of interest.
After the Councilmember filed a lawsuit against the city for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and alleging a violation of the Brown Act in March 2021, there was a settlement between the City and the Councilmember in June 2022. There was no ultimate final ruling by the judge. In fact, the judge in the conflict of interest case denied issuing summary judgment to both the councilmember and the City.
On June 16th, 2022, in the last filing that the judge issued prior to the settlement on June 20th, 2022, he noted that an issue that had not been addressed was “the elephant in the room”- the City’s contention that the plaintiff’s attorney (Mr. Shenkman) “is a de facto attorney for (Councilmember) de la Torre” and it would be a conflict for him to participate in a vote to potentially award tens of millions of dollars in a settlement to his “de facto attorney.”
Next Steps after the Case is Resolved
When the CVRA case is resolved, if we wish to explore any potential changes to the process by which we elect our representatives, that decision should be made through an open, public process and ratified by the voters, and not through an opaque settlement decided in closed session behind closed doors. As we are a charter city, our form of government is for the citizens alone to decide with their voices at the ballot box.
Sincerely,
Natalya Zernitskaya
Natalya Zernitskaya (she/her)
[email protected]
Item 4-B
February 27, 2024
Item 4-B
February 27, 2024