California Supreme Court ruling leaves voting rights lawsuit unresolved

A recent ruling by the California Supreme Court provided little clarity on a long-running legal battle over Santa Monica’s election system. The case centers on whether the city’s at-large election system dilutes the voting power of Latino voters. The plaintiffs argue that the city should adopt district-based voting.

The Supreme Court held that a lower court failed to properly evaluate the plaintiffs’ claim that Santa Monica’s election system violated the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA). The Supreme Court provided a more nuanced test and sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

The League of California Cities had urged the Supreme Court to adopt clear guidelines so that cities could evaluate their election system without fear of unjustified litigation. Despite the overall disappointing and unclear result, there are a couple of helpful takeaways for cities.

Case background

In the initial 2016 lawsuit, a trial court agreed with the plaintiffs and ordered Santa Monica to switch to a district-based election system. The city appealed the decision, and the Court of Appeal reversed it. The Court of Appeal concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove unlawful vote dilution. 

The plaintiffs showed a potential increase in Latino voting power from 14% under the at-large system to 30% in one district under the district-based system. However, the Court of Appeal concluded this was not unlawful vote dilution. It reasoned that 30% is not enough to change the outcome of an election: The CVRA only prohibits at-large election systems if they “impair the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election.” 

The California Supreme Court reviewed the case to resolve what a plaintiff must prove to establish unlawful vote dilution.

What did the Supreme Court say?

The Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s reasoning. The Supreme Court pointed out that local elections are nonpartisan and that candidates can win with only a plurality — not a majority — of votes. It also noted that the CVRA was passed to make it easier to challenge at-large election systems using state law as opposed to federal law. Thus, a plaintiff does not need to prove that the protected class would make up a majority or near-majority of a district to establish unlawful vote dilution. 

Rather, to prove that an at-large elections system impairs the ability of a protected minority "to elect candidates of its choice," a plaintiff must show that "under some 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."

In assessing whether a plaintiff has met this standard, courts must review the facts and circumstances as a whole, “including the characteristics of the specific locality, its electoral history, and an intensely local appraisal of the design and impact” of the contested election system and potential alternative systems. The Supreme Court also encouraged courts to “consider the experiences of other similar jurisdictions that use alternative electoral systems.”

What does this ruling say or not say about CVRA violations?

The Supreme Court’s opinion does lay out the standard for reviewing claims of unlawful dilution of a protected minority group’s ability to “elect candidates of its choice.” However, the standard is fact-based and complex. Since the lawsuit is ongoing, it remains uncertain what evidence might persuade a court that a city’s at-large elections system has led to unlawful voter dilution.

Moreover, the ruling left a significant question unanswered. The Court stated that it was not deciding “the scope of the ability-to-influence prong” in this case. Therefore, it is unclear what might give rise to a successful claim that an at-large elections system unlawfully dilutes the ability of a protected minority group to “influence the outcome of an election” as opposed to “electing candidates of its choice.”  

Despite this lack of clarity, the opinion did provide a couple of tangible takeaways. The Court rejected the suggestion that a CVRA violation could be proven simply by showing that racially polarized voting was occurring. The Court held that a plaintiff must prove vote dilution and racially polarized voting to establish a violation of the CVRA.

“Racially polarized voting” means that there is a marked difference between the electoral choices of voters in a protected class versus the choices of the rest of the electorate.

The Supreme Court further noted that a plaintiff must show that the incremental gain in a protected class’s ability to elect its candidate of choice in such districts would not be offset by a loss of the class’s potential to elect its candidates of choice elsewhere in the locality. Santa Monica has suggested that moving to district elections might leave Latinos with less voting power. The Supreme Court’s conclusion on this point suggests that the city could still prevail in the case if they can make that showing.

It is unknown how long it will take for the Court of Appeal to decide the case. Cal Cities will report on significant developments and may consider filing additional amicus briefs if appropriate. City leaders with questions about the ruling should consult their city attorney.