California Voting Rights Act

The California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA) expands on the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, making it easier for minority groups in California to prove that their votes are being diluted in "at-large" elections.^[1] In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court established conditions that must be met to prove that minorities are being disenfranchised; the CVRA eliminated one of these requirements. Unlike the federal Voting Rights Act, the CVRA does not require plaintiffs to demonstrate a specific geographic district where a minority is concentrated enough to establish a majority. This makes it easier for minority voters to sue local governments and eliminate at-large elections.^[2] The Act was signed into law on 9 July 2002.^[1]

In 2007, the California Supreme Court ruled the act constitutional in Sanchez v. City of Modesto.^[3] The city claimed that the act was unconstitutional because it inherently favored people of color; the court concluded that the act was not racist in nature and returned the case to the trial court.^[3]

Critics of the act argue that it inappropriately makes race a predominant factor in elections and that it does not make sense to eliminate the requirement to establish a geographic district where there is a minority concentration.^[2] Advocates argue that at-large elections allow bloc voting that effectively keeps minorities out of office.^[4]

Establishment of the Act

Seal of California

The bill was introduced to the California State Senate by Democratic Senator Richard Polanco.^[5] The bill was endorsed by both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.^[6] The bill passed on the Senate floor with a vote of 22 to 13, and passed on the assembly floor with a vote of 47 to 25.^[6] The bill was signed into law by Governor Gray Davis on July 9, 2002.^[1]

Impact

Overview

Primarily, the CVRA makes it easier for minority groups to sue governments that use at-large elections on the grounds that they dilute the strength of minority votes.^[7] The CVRA also requires the government to pay all legal and court fees for the plaintiff should the plaintiff win; this includes cases in which the government chooses to settle before a verdict is reached.^[6] By 2009, three cases had been successfully brought against local governments; all three resulted in the elimination of at-large elections (and the drawing of district lines). A total of $4.3 million has been paid to compensate attorney's fees.^[8]

Directional Sign for Voting Location in California

Proponents

Supporters of the CVRA championed how much easier it made it for minority groups to dismantle at-large elections; minorities no longer had to prove that a specific minority candidate lost due to racially polarized voting, they only had to prove racially polarized voting existed.^[9] Luis Artega, Executive Director of the Latino Issues Forum, supported the bill and claimed, "We have long been aware that at-large elections in a racially polarized electorate effectively work to dilute Latino voice and influence".^[10] While the law has in practice served the Latino population, it applies to all ethnic minorities as well as the LGBT community.^[11] Regardless of whether racially polarized voting exists, some argue that at-large elections allow a majority voice to control the entire populace and therefore prefer elections by district.^[12] It is important that when district lines are drawn with purpose using census data to ensure that minority votes are not further fractured and diluted.^[4]

Adversaries

Critics of the CVRA argue that the act makes race a predominant factor in elections and that eliminating at-large elections does not make sense if a minority cannot occupy and establish a majority in a specific geographic area.^[2] John McDermott, defense attorney for the city of Modesto in their case under the CVRA, claimed that the CVRA is a radical departure from the federal Voting Rights Act; he argued that at-large elections can be threatened under the law even if there is no proof that a minority group either suffered a disadvantage or would benefit from districts.^[7] Others say the law is unnecessary, arguing that the number of minorities holding office was on the rise before the act passed and that the law is being used to "shake down" local governments.^[8] General supporters of at-large elections say they encourage candidates to encompass many view points and represent diverse groups.^[12]

Another criticism arose from the section of the act maintaining that if a government loses or settles they are required to pay the attorney's fees of the plaintiffs. The law was crafted by Joaquin Avila, recipient in 1996 of the John D. and Kathrine T. MacArthur Foundation Fellowship (also known as the "Genius Award), former President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund where he launched his lifelong commitment to voting rights as a staff attorney in 1974, and law professor at several law schools including the University of Texas, University of California-Berkeley, UCLA, and concluding his teaching career at Seattle University School of Law where he was founder and Executive Director of the National Voting Rights Advocacy Initiative. See Correction on Attribution of Quote in Press Release Issued on California Voting Rights Act, Office of California State Senator Alex Padilla, October 24, 2014; Proclamation of California Legislature commending Joaquin G. Avila, February 3, 2014.

Court cases

Sanchez v. City of Modesto

In 2004, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights filed a suit under the CVRA against the City of Modesto on behalf of three Latino residents. The committee claimed that racially polarized voting was keeping Latinos out of office; the city had had only one Latino council member since 1911 even though the Latino population exceeded 25 percent.^[7] The County Superior Court Judge, Roger Beauchesne, sided with the city and declared the law unconstitutional.^[9] Beauchesne said the law showed preference to minorities without requiring them to demonstrate need and ruled that the requirement for the city to pay attorney's fees was an unconstitutional gift of money.^[7] The case was appealed to the 5th District Court of Appeals who struck down the initial ruling, siding with the law.^[13] The city appealed the case to the California Supreme Court, claiming that the law allowed reverse racism and constituted unconstitutional affirmative action.^[13] The state Supreme Court refused to hear the case and sent it case back to trial court.^[14]

The case ended in settlement after the city voted on a ballot measure to use district voting by 2009. Although the city settled, they were still responsible for paying $3 million in fees for the defendants' lawyers.^[14]

California Counties and Court of Appeals Map

Gomez v. Hanford Joint Union School District

In July 2003, the school district of Hanford was sued by Latino voters (backed by civil rights organizations) under the CVRA; the suit claimed that racially polarized voting had negatively affected the ability of Latinos to assume office (there had not been a Latino on the districts board of trustees in 20 years, despite a population that was 38 percent Latino).^[12] The city chose to settle and agreed to use by district voting for the board of trustees.^[15] It was the first case to be settled under the CVRA.^[16] Although the case never went to trial, the district had to pay $110,000 in attorney's fees to the plaintiffs as a part of the settlement.^[15]

Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights v. Madera Unified School District

In August 2008 the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights filed suit against the Madera Unified School District on behalf of three Latino residents.^[17] The plaintiffs pointed out that while 82 percent of students in Madera were Latino, only one out of seven board members was Latino.^[18] The city, instead of going to trial, agreed to draw district lines. The district spokesman, Jake Bragonier, said the decision to avoid trial was a "business decision"(referring to the possibility of having to pay attorney's fees).^[18]

The Committee also asked the court to throw out the previous November's elections; Judge James Oakley ruled against the school board and threw out the November election results.^[18] This ruling meant that the school district was officially the losing party and was required to pay the $1.2 million in attorney's fees to the plaintiffs,^[17] although a Superior Court judge later reduced the amount by 85% to $162,500.^[19] This was the first case under the CVRA that was decided by a judge, not a settlement.^[17]

References