Ruling Clarifies Requirements for District-Based Voting, Reaffirms Protections for Minority Voters
By Dolores Quintana
In a ruling that has significant implications for California’s voting rights law, the state’s Supreme Court delivered a decision on Thursday that serves to reaffirm certain protections in the law, but how long those protections will remain isn’t clear.
The case in question, initiated by the Pico Neighborhood Association and others in 2016, alleged that Santa Monica’s at-large voting system for city council elections violated the California Voting Rights Act by diminishing the voting influence of the Latino community, which constituted 14% of the city’s voting-age population at the time. Rather than electing council members citywide, the plaintiffs sought a shift to district-based voting, where voters in each district would choose their representative.
A trial court issued the first decision, and the court ruled for the Pico Association. The court’s ruling ordered the city to transition to district-based voting. However, in July 2020, the decision was reversed in a state appeals court.
On August 24, California’s Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling, asserting that the appeals court had made an error by “misconstruing” the California Voting Rights Act. The ruling, written by Justice Kelli Evans, who wrote on behalf of the court, clarified that plaintiffs need only establish racially polarized voting in an at-large system and are not required to demonstrate that minority voters would constitute a majority or near-majority in a hypothetical district.
The Pico Neighborhood Association expressed their perspective, stating, “The at-large election system in Santa Monica has marginalized the Pico Neighborhood and its diverse residents for far too long.”
While U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California supported the association, the League of California Cities and the Special Districts Association, along with a coalition including the League of Women Voters of Santa Monica and the Alliance of Santa Monica Latino and Black Voters, filed briefs in support of the city. They argued that Santa Monica had made significant strides in ensuring voting power for Latino and Black voters under the at-large system.
The case has not been completely settled since the next step is for the case to go to the appeals court. Santa Monica’s statement on the ruling said briefly, “The City is reviewing the Supreme Court’s opinion and working to assess the path forward.”
The association urged city officials to “settle the case quickly” and avoid expending taxpayer resources on additional litigation, suggesting that these funds would be better directed toward addressing the city’s public safety and community service needs.
The 2001 State Voting Rights Act granted minority groups increased capacity to challenge at-large elections that might undermine their voting influence. According to the League of California Cities, at least 185 cities and nearly 400 other jurisdictions in California have shifted to district-based elections.
