Title
Adopt a Resolution to Adopt Process and Timeline for Transition to District-Based Election System and Redistricting Pursuant to California Elections Code sec. 10010.
Staffreport
SUMMARY
A letter received by the City alleged violations of the California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”) due to racially polarized voting that disenfranchises Asian American voters (“Letter”). Further correspondence with the law firm that submitted the Letter demanded the City convert from its existing at-large election system to a district-based election system for City Council races.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution demonstrating the City’s intention to transition to a district-based election system as well as a proposed process and timeline for both the City’s conversion of its election method and its redistricting protocol.
BACKGROUND
On November 21, 2024, the City received a demand letter from the firm Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho on behalf of Robert Bulatao (“Claimant”), a resident and unsuccessful candidate for the District 6 City Council in the City’s November 2024 election. Claimant alleges the City’s current election system produces racially polarized voting, resulting in vote dilution. Claimant’s letter does not include any statistical data to substantiate these claims, but Claimant proposes that the City transition from its existing at-large election system to a district-based election system. The City Council is currently analyzing the claims.
Under Section 225 the City’s Charter, City Councilmembers are elected under an at-large election system, which allows voters from the entire City to choose each of the six (6) Councilmembers. In the past, the City Council has raised the issue of amending City Charter Section 225 to a district-based election system. Under the proposed district-based election system, the City’s voters would be limited to electing one Councilmember from the district in which they reside, whereby the Councilmember also resides in that district.
Legal Analysis
The Federal Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965 to protect the rights of Americans of all races to vote. The CVRA, which was signed into law in 2001, is intended to expand the protections provided by Federal law by making it easier for plaintiffs to prevail in lawsuits against public entities that utilize at-large elections for electing members to their governing bodies. The CVRA provides a private right of action to members of a protected class where an at-large election system "impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election..." Elec. Code §§ 14027, 14032.
To prevail on a CVRA challenge, the Claimant must prove not only the existence of racially polarized voting, but that such voting scheme results in vote dilution. “Racially polarized voting” (“RPV”) is established when there is a difference in the choice of candidates preferred by voters in a protected class, and in the choice of candidates preferred by the rest of the electorate. This requires a statistical analysis. Vote dilution is established when, under some lawful alternative election system, the minority group would have the potential, on its own or with the help of crossover voters, to elect its preferred candidate. This can be shown through a “searching evaluation of the totality of the facts and circumstances.”
Should a Claimant prevail under CVRA litigation, courts have traditionally employed a mandate that the public agency transition to a district-based election system as the remedy for the CVRA violation. However, recent case law has clarified that courts may employ other alternatives without requiring a public agency to transition. This includes, but is not limited to, implementation of cumulative voting, limited voting, and ranked-choice voting.
The City must also consider concurrent timelines in accordance with the redistricting process, including any requirements for the City to finalize and submit new district maps to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters.
Financial Impacts
There are costs associated with the redistricting process. For example, there will be significant time and effort needed to administer the transition process, including costs incurred from hosting public meetings and soliciting public input for the redistricting process. The City may also need to hold a special election to bring the charter amendment for voter approval. Lastly, the City may need to hire a demographer to assist with drawing the new districts. The estimated cost of a demographer is between $30,000-$50,000.
ATTACHMENT
Attachment A: Resolution (District-Based Election System)
o Ex A1: Timeline