California Supreme Court poised to resolve key voting rights case

The California Supreme Court is months away from resolving a multiyear legal saga over Santa Monica’s election system. The case, Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica, centers on whether the city’s at-large election system dilutes the voting power of Latino voters. The plaintiffs allege that the current system is a violation of the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) and that the city should move to district-based elections.

The League of California Cities earlier filed an amicus brief in support of the city, urging the court to provide a clear standard for cities to follow. The court heard oral arguments at the end of June and is expected to issue an opinion by the end of September.

Case background

The CVRA prohibits local at-large election systems that prevent minority voters from electing candidates of their choice or influencing an election. In the Pico case, plaintiffs demonstrated that Latino voters could obtain 30% voting power in one district using district voting as opposed to 14% under the current system.

The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered the city to switch to by-district elections. The court noted that although Latino voters generally prefer Latino candidates, only one Latino had been elected to the city council since 1946.

The city appealed, arguing the trial court misapplied the CVRA’s legal standard. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling, determining that vote dilution requires evidence that changing a voting system is likely to make a difference in election results. The court noted that 30% is not enough to elect someone to the city council using either election system.

The California Supreme Court granted a review of the case and ordered a briefing on what a plaintiff must prove to establish vote dilution. The plaintiffs argued that vote dilution is established by proof of racially polarized voting alone or in combination with historical, socioeconomic, and political factors. Therefore, one would only need to show that a different electoral system would give minority voters the ability to elect their preferred candidates or influence election outcomes.

The city argued a plaintiff must prove a legally significant pattern of racially polarized voting and demonstrate minority voters would have a greater opportunity to elect candidates of their choice under a different electoral system.

Cal Cities’ arguments 

Cal Cities and the California Special Districts Association (CSDA) filed an amicus brief observing that both election methods can provide for effective and democratic local governance that supports the CVRA. The brief provided several reasons why cities may prefer a particular election method.

The brief urged the court to provide a clear, administrable standard that allows cities to choose the election system that best fits their community without fear of unjustified litigation, noting that many cities have already switched to district elections out of fear of threatened litigation. The brief also highlighted the impact to cities if the court adopts the plaintiffs’ standard for vote dilution, stating that smaller cities may have difficulty attracting candidates and achieving competitive races. 

The Supreme Court now has 90 days to issue an opinion.

Derek P. Cole with Cole Huber LLC authored the Cal Cities and CSDA amicus brief.