SHENKMAN & HUGHES 28905 Wight Road
Malibu, California 90265
(310) 457-0970
ATTORNEYS MALIBU, CALIFORNIA [email protected]
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
June 20, 2026
Daritza Perez - City Clerk
City of Signal Hill
2175 Cherry Avenue
Signal Hill, CA 90755
Re: Violation of California Voting Rights Act
I write on behalf of Southwest Voter Registration Education Project and its members residing in the City of Signal Hill. The City of Signal Hill ("Signal Hill" or "City") relies upon an at-large election system for electing candidates to its governing board.
Moreover, voting within the City is racially polarized, resulting in minority vote dilution, and therefore Signal Hill's at-large elections violate the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 ("CVRA").
The CVRA disfavors the use of so-called "at-large" voting - an election method that permits voters of an entire jurisdiction to elect candidates to each open seat. See generally Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 660, 667 ("Sanchez").
For example, if the U.S. Congress were elected through a nationwide at-large election, rather than through typical single-member districts, each voter could cast up to 435 votes and vote for any candidate in the country, not just the candidates in the voter's district, and the 435 candidates receiving the most nationwide votes would be elected. At-large elections thus allow a bare majority of voters to control every seat, not just the seats in a particular district or a proportional majority of seats.
Voting rights advocates have targeted "at-large" election schemes for decades, because they often result in "vote dilution," or the impairment of minority groups' ability to elect their preferred candidates or influence the outcome of elections, which occurs when the electorate votes in a racially polarized manner. See Thornburg v.
Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 46 (1986) ("Gingles"). The U.S. Supreme Court "has long recognized that multi-member districts and at-large voting schemes may operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength" of minorities. Id. at 47; see also id. at 48, fn. 14 (at-large elections may also cause elected officials to "ignore [minority] interests without fear of political consequences"), citing Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S.
June 20, 2026
613, 623 (1982); White v. Register, 412 U.S. 755, 769 (1973). "IT]he majority, by virtue of its numerical superiority, will regularly defeat the choices of minority voters." Gingles, at 47. When racially polarized voting occurs, dividing the political unit into single-member districts, or some other appropriate remedy, may facilitate a minority group's ability to elect its preferred representatives. Rogers, at 616.
Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act ('FVRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1973, which Congress enacted in 1965 and amended in 1982, targets, among other things, at-large election schemes. Gingles at 37; see also Boyd & Markman, The 1982 Amendments to the Voting Rights Act: A Legislative History (1983) 40 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1347, 1402. Although enforcement of the FVRA was successful in many states, California was an exception. By enacting the CVRA, "[the Legislature intended to expand protections against vote dilution over those provided by the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965." Jauregui v. City of Palmdale (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4" 781, 808. Thus, while the CVRA is similar to the FVRA in several respects, it is also different in several key respects, as the Legislature sought to remedy what it considered "restrictive interpretations given to the federal act." Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 976 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 9, 2002, p. 2.
The California Legislature dispensed with the requirement in Gingles that a minority ru demonstrate thaniority distie" Sanchez at de0 la Pico Neighborho a constitute a "majority-minority district
Association v. City of Santa Monica (August 24, 2023) 15 Cal.5" 292, the California Supreme Court recently confirmed this commonsense reading of the CVRA. Also see Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 976 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 9, 2002, p. 3 ("Thus, this bill puts the voting rights horse (the discrimination issue) back where it sensibly belongs in front of the cart (what type of remedy is appropriate once racially polarized voting has been shown).") To establish a violation of the CVRA, a plaintiff must generally show that "racially polarized voting occurs in elections for members of the governing body of the political subdivision or in elections incorporating other electoral choices by the voters of the political subdivision." Elec. Code § 14028(a). The CVRA specifies the elections that are most probative: "elections in which at least one candidate is a member of a protected class or elections involving ballot measures, or other electoral choices that affect the rights and privileges of members of a protected class." Elec.
Code § 14028(a). The CVRA also makes clear that "[e]lections conducted prior to the filing of an action ... are more probative to establish the existence of racially polarized voting than elections conducted after the filing of the action." Id.
June 20, 2026
Factors other than "racially polarized voting" that are required to make out a claim under the FVRA - under the "totality of the circumstances" test - "are probative, but not necessary factors to establish a violation of the CVRA. Elec. Code § 14028(e).
These "other factors" include "the history of discrimination, the use of electoral devices or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the dilutive effects of at-large elections, denial of access to those processes determining which groups of candidates will receive financial or other support in a given election, the extent to which members of a protected class bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process, and the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns." Id.
Signal Hill's at-large system dilutes the ability of Latinos (a "protected class") - to elect candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of the City's council elections.
According to the U.S. Census, Signal Hill has a population of 11,855, with Latinos comprising approximately 37.4% of the City's population. Yet, Latino representation on Signal Hill's governing board has been non-existent. The contrast between the significant Latino proportion of the electorate and the absence of Latinos elected to the Signal Hill City Council over its entire 102-year history is outwardly disturbing and fundamentally hostile towards participation from members of this protected class.
In light of the City's underrepresentation of Latinos, it is no wonder why Latino residents do not frequently emerge as candidates. Opponents of fair, district-based elections may attempt to attribute the lack of candidates within the protected class to a lack of interest. On the contrary, the sparsity of Latino candidates reveals vote dilution. See Westwego Citizens for Better Government v. City of Westwego, 872 F. 2d 1201, 1208-1209, n. 9 (5th Cir. 1989).
Still, when Latino candidates have emerged, Signal Hill's elections reveal racially polarized voting. For example, in 2022, Salvador Hernandez received significant support from Latino voters, but their voice was drowned out by those of non-Hispanic white voters. The same was true when Robert Mendoza ran for Signal Hill City Council in 2017, and when Edward Villanueva ran in 2007 and again in 2009. In each instance, those elections evidence racially polarized voting, which, combined with the City's at-large election system, results in vote dilution.
That the City held its elections off-cycle prior to 2020 made the situation even worse.
While those off-cycle elections saw anemic voter turnout, usually around just 10%, the turnout was generally much lower among Latino voters, as is known to be true in June 20, 2026
off-cycle elections throughout California. It was only when the Legislature passed the California Voter Participation Act, and thus it had no choice, that Signal Hill finally consolidated its elections with the statewide general elections.
As you may be aware, in 2012, we sued the City of Palmdale for violating the CVRA.
After an eight-day trial, we prevailed. After spending millions of dollars, a district- based remedy was ultimately imposed upon the Palmdale City Council, with districts that combine all incumbents into one of the four districts. Since then, we have similarly prevailed in a series of CVRA trials - against the cities of Highland and Santa Monica, and the Ramona Unified School District.
Given the racially polarized voting in elections in Signal Hill and resulting vote silverin ve arge me crisy to vis, oily change reside-lage system our dieting. we will be forced to seek judicial relief. Please advise us no later than August 10, 2026 as to whether you would like to discuss a voluntary change to your current at- large system.
We look forward to your response.
Very truly yours,
Kevin I. Shenkman