A California appeals court has tossed a Santa Monica voting rights case back to a lower court that previously ruled Latino residents’ ability to elect their preferred candidates was hampered by the city’s at-large City Council elections.
The state’s Second District Court of Appeal issued its decision on Feb. 9, making the case of Pico Neighborhood Association et al. v. City of Santa Monica a kind of political hot potato in the state’s judicial system.
The issue has been in litigation since 2016. A trial court found that the city’s system of at-large voting diluted Latino residents' ability to elect their favored candidates to the seven-member City Council when compared to other election methods. Later, the Second District appeals court disagreed, concluding that allowing Latinos and other residents to vote in individual districts would not lead to more Latino influence in local elections.
In an August 2023 decision, the state Supreme Court reversed the appeals court, saying the Second District court had misconstrued the meaning of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001. Latinos would not have to constitute a majority of the population of a future City Council district to expand their voting power, the high court decided in an opinion that remanded the case back to the Second District.
“What is required to establish ‘dilution’ of a protected class’s ‘ability … to elect candidates of its choice’ … is proof that, under some lawful alternative electoral system, the protected class would have the potential, on its own or with the help of crossover voters, to elect its preferred candidate,” the California Supreme Court said last year.
Santa Monica City Council members often win their seats with pluralities of the vote, the high court pointed out.
Earlier this month, the appeals court kicked the case back to a Los Angeles Superior Court.
“The high court did not review the constitutional issue, nor did it reinstate the trial court’s judgment on the (California Voting Rights) Act,” the appeals court said in its most recent decision.
The attorney representing the plaintiffs, Kevin Shenkman, expressed optimism about his clients prevailing in the litigation.
“I think the remand to the trial court will ultimately prove to be a small delay in the inevitable outcome,” Shenkman said in an email to the Southern California Record. “The L.A. Superior Court's 2019 decision is exceptionally detailed and addresses every aspect of the standard for vote dilution announced by the California Supreme Court in its 2023 decision.”
he Malibu attorney has a long history of bringing lawsuits against municipal governments that focus on voting rights issues. The state’s 2001 Voting Rights Act calls on cities to switch out their at-large voting systems for district elections when minorities’ voting power is found to be diluted – and the law allows private attorneys to gain legal fees from those local government entities that defend their systems and lose. Published reporters have indicated Shenkman and a small group of other lawyers have collected at least $15 million in fees from cities and school districts targeted by litigation under the CVRA in the past decade.
The city’s current at-large election system continues to negatively affect Santa Monica’s Latino voters and violates the California Voting Rights Act, he said.
“The only question that remains is whether the Santa Monica City Council will eventually hold true to their professed progressive ideals by acknowledging that fact, before the courts leave them no other option,” Shenkman said.
The city of Santa Monica did not respond to a request for comment on the latest ruling. It’s unclear why the appeals court waited seven months before sending the issue back to the lower court.
“The case is remanded to the Los Angeles Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme court’s guidance,” the Second District court said on Feb. 9.