Voting rights bill raises liability concerns for cities

By Johnnie Piña, legislative advocate (governance)

Lawmakers are weighing an overhaul of the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) that could expose cities to a new wave of election-related litigation — including cities that have already transitioned to district-based elections in compliance with existing law. Specifically, SB 1164 (Cervantes) eliminates the “safe harbor” protections for cities with district-based elections.

SB 1164 is in response to recent federal court decisions that narrowed the scope of the federal Voting Rights Act. While Cal Cities supports the goal of ensuring equitable access to the democratic process, the bill takes a broad approach that introduces uncertainty and creates new legal risks for cities.

What would SB 1164 do?

SB 1164 replaces the existing CVRA framework with a significantly broader statute that applies to virtually any “election policy or practice.” This would include district maps, polling locations, voter outreach programs, and other routine aspects of election administration.

The bill also creates new legal standards for voter suppression and vote dilution, which would expand the scope of CVRA violation claims. However, the measure does not clearly define these concepts. The absence of objective benchmarks may make it difficult for cities to determine whether their practices meet legal requirements.

Without clear standards, compliance may only be tested through litigation. This effectively shifts decision-making from local governments to the courts, increasing uncertainty in how election policies are designed and implemented.

Why should cities worry?

One of the most significant concerns for cities is the elimination of meaningful safe harbor protections. Cities that have already transitioned from at-large to district-based elections — often at considerable cost — could face fresh legal challenges under the new framework.

Jurisdictions could face repeated legal scrutiny of their district maps, including pressure to revise them multiple times within short periods, potentially before and after each decennial census. This could create instability in local election systems and complicate long-term planning.

SB 1164 also expands who can bring legal claims and allows lawsuits to be filed outside the affected jurisdiction. This could also increase both the volume and complexity of litigation.

Another challenge is the bill’s approach to dispute resolution. The bill weakens pre-litigation notice requirements and allows lawsuits to proceed without warning. In fact, the bill exempts the Attorney General from providing notice altogether. As a result, cities may face litigation without a meaningful opportunity to address alleged issues voluntarily.

Taken together, these provisions could significantly increase the frequency, cost, and complexity of election-related litigation for local governments across California — and reduce money for critical public services.

What can cities do?

Cal Cities is actively engaging with the bill’s author and stakeholders to address these concerns while supporting the goal of protecting voting rights. Cal Cities has an opposed unless amended position on the bill and will be issuing an action alert soon. Cities should communicate with their legislators about how SB 1164 could impact their city.