The California Supreme Court has ordered an appellate panel to reexamine its decision that an activist group failed to show Santa Monica's at-large voting system saps Latino voting power, saying the lower court did not undertake a "searching" evaluation of the issue.
The Aug. 24 High Court ruling was authored by Associate Justice Kelli Evans, with concurrence from Associate Justices Goodwin Liu, Leondra Kruger, Carol Corrigan, Joshua Groban, Martin Jenkins and Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero. The ruling was a win for the Pico Neighborhood Association in its action against the city of Santa Monica.
In 2016 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Pico and registered voter Maria Loya sued the city, alleging the city's at-large election arrangement hindered the election of Latino-favored candidates to Santa Monica's seven-member city council. Pico cited the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA) in its suit. Pico said at that time only one Latino had been elected to the council in the past 75 years, but the city said in the 2020 race, three Latino candidates won; Pico did not accept this, disputing the ethnicity of the three candidates.
Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos agreed with Pico, finding Latino voters were too few and dispersed to enjoy a majority through the at-large system, or as the CVRA terms it, their voting strength was "diluted." Palazuelos commanded the city to promptly hold a special election using a seven-district map.
California Second District Appellate Court reversed Palazuelos' ruling, concluding there was no evidence Latino voting potential was weakened.
State Supreme Court Justice Evans directed the appeals panel to take another look at the meaning of "dilution" and see if their decision should stand.
Evans noted the CVRA allows for cumulative voting, limited voting and ranked choice voting as remedies for at-large ballots that may impair voting by certain "protected" racial groups. The CVRA "bars the use of an at-large method of election if that method dilutes a protected class’s ability to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election," according to Evans.
Evans said the appeals court needs to revisit the "dilution" element of the CVRA, because Pico must demonstrate Latino voters would, under another voting structure, have a genuine opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. In Evans' view, the appellate panel misapprehended the CVRA and did not properly perform this analysis.
As part of this reevaluation, the appellate justices must determine whether Latinos vote as a cohesive unit, while other voters cast ballots as a bloc to beat Latino candidates, and whether at-large elections water down Latino power at the polls.
Evans pointed out Santa Monica contended there could be dangerous consequences to the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause, if courts draw race-based electoral districts. However, Evans countered state law requires districts be contiguous and maintain the intergrity of "any local neighborhood or local community of interest" and encourages districts be mapped out along “natural and artificial barriers” and with “geographical compactness.”
Evans observed, "The City does not explain how or why districts drawn in accordance with the above criteria would run afoul of the Constitution."
Pico Neighborhood Association has been represented by: Kevin I. Shenkman, Mary R. Hughes and Andrea A. Alarcon, of Shenkman & Hughes, of Malibu; Robert Rubin, of Law Office of Robert Rubin, of San Francisco; and Morris J. Baller, Laura L. Ho, Anne P. Bellows and Ginger L. Grimes, of Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, of Oakland.
Pico has also been represented by: R. Rex Parris and Ellery S. Gordon, of Parris Law Firm, of Lancaster; Milton C. Grimes, of Law Offices of Milton C. Grimes, of Los Angeles; and Paul Hoffman and John Washington, of Schonbrun, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman, which is based in the Los Angeles area.
Santa Monica was defended by city attorneys Lane Dilg and George Cardona, as well as by Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Kahn A. Scolnick, Marcellus A. McRae, Tiaunia N. Henry and Daniel R. Adler, of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, of Los Angeles.
Friend-of-the-court arguments in support of Pico were submitted by: Asian Law Alliance; Asian Americans Advancing Justice; FairVote; and numerous individuals.
Arguments supporting Santa Monica were submitted by: League of Women Voters of Santa Monica; Alliance of Santa Monica Latino and Black Voters; Human Relations Council Santa Monica Bay Area; Community for Excellent Public Schools; Santa Monica Transparency Project; League of California Cities; California Special Districts Association; and several individuals.