In a 20-minute public hearing two weeks ago, the La Palma City Council unanimously approved a resolution declaring its intention to “transition from at-large to by-district elections” rather than risk a costly lawsuit.
Six weeks before, La Palma – like hundreds of other jurisdictions before it – received a letter claiming that its current citywide election method violates the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) by diluting minority voices. In its meeting Tuesday, May 3, the council reviewed next steps, which include a series of public hearings for residents to consider sample district maps.
La Palma’s approach unfolded quite differently from the way the same issue has been handled in Cypress, which now could face two lawsuits stemming from its own CVRA demand letter.
Last September, Cypress received a missive from Kevin Shenkman, the same attorney pushing La Palma and many other political districts to go to precincts. Although about one-third of Cypress’ 50,000 residents are Asian, Shenkman wrote, the city does not have an Asian American on the council.
In a similar letter to La Palma, Shenkman pointed out that Latinos comprise 20% of around 16,000 residents, “yet, since 2013, the city’s governing board has been devoid of Latinos.”
Contrasting La Palma’s prompt response, the Cypress City Council met eight times in closed session to discuss the letter before calling a public meeting. That meeting was announced on Christmas Eve and held Dec. 27.
Then Cypress veered even further away from the course that has been taken by the vast majority of jurisdictions confronted with claims of voting rights discrimination. Rather than hire a demographer to create proposed precinct maps, the council voted to pay a consultant $40,000 to organize workshops and solicit public opinion.
Next, after hosting several spottily attended forums – at which officials did not express their thoughts – the council used a closed session meeting to reach a decision, voting 4-1 on March 14 to reject the demand letter. City Attorney Fred Galante announced the surprise decision even before the city released results of a survey conducted by its consultant.
Exactly one month later, open government watchdog Californians Aware sent Cypress yet another demand letter, this one promising legal action unless the Council does a re-vote in public view.
“Such discussions and action must take place in open session to ensure that the public has a meaningful opportunity to participate in the decision-making process,” wrote Shaila Nathu, a lawyer for CalAware.
Nathu stated that the council “incorrectly relied on the definition of ‘pending litigation’” to vote in closed session, rendering the decision invalid.
But 12 days afterward, the City Council doubled down, voting again in closed session – this time, 3-1 to reject CalAware’s assertions. Councilwoman Frances Marquez registered the lone “no” vote, and Mayor Paulo Morales was absent.
“It’s democracy 101,” Nathu said in an interview. “Public meetings exist so that we get to hear what our elected representatives are thinking and how they arrive at their decisions. Anything that affects the community should be discussed in open session. The inappropriate use of closed session opens the door for elected officials to avoid public scrutiny.”
Additionally, CalAware made a public records request of all of the Council’s communications and documents related to the CVRA claim. “Since these discussions were held in private, we don’t know what we don’t know,” Nathu said.
Nathu noted that “the council can simply go back and vote however it wants to vote in open session in order to comply with the Brown Act.”
Otherwise, she said, “We will have no recourse but to pursue legal action.”
Meanwhile, Shenkman also has vowed to file a lawsuit against Cypress.
That’s exactly the outcome that La Palma officials sought to avoid. Though the council “strongly disagrees” with any allegation that it violated voting rights, La Palma City Manager wrote in an email, converting to district-style voting was the financially prudent choice.
“The reality of having to wage a legal battle with the public’s money to disprove the allegations led to the reluctant decision to… move toward district-based elections,” McNamara wrote.
Several La Palma residents who spoke prior to the Council’s vote last month agreed that the city should not roll the dice. “I’m concerned what it would cost the city and taxpayers if we were to fight this,” one man said.
In a presentation prior to the Council’s vote, La Palma City Attorney Ajit Thind spelled out just how expensive such a fight could be, pointing to Anaheim and Whittier as examples. Those cities, Thind said, “settled for around $1 million each and still had to go by-district.”
Santa Monica, he added, “is still in litigation and has spent countless millions.”
Hundreds of California jurisdictions have switched to district elections due to the CVRA, Thind said, counting “at least 230 school districts, 34 community college districts, 110 cites, one county board of supervisors and 35 water districts.”
Cypress Mayor Morales said those particular statistics are not necessarily relevant to his city.
“I don’t know the breakdown of La Palma’s demographics,” he said. “What is their financial situation? Do they have the money to argue against the (CVRA violation) claim? I don’t know any of that. Their decision was their decision.
“It isn’t so simple as, ‘Look at the cites that lost,’” Morales added. “I don’t know each and every circumstance of those cities. When we spoke to a demographer, we were told, ‘Look at your layout. You don’t have that issue.’”
Cypress officials have declined to make public the demographer’s report. “It was given in closed session,” Morales said. “It is not information we can openly discuss or provide.”
When asked if the city might repeat its vote on the issue of at-large elections vs. district-style elections during a public meeting, Morales suggested that isn’t off the table.
“Is (a public vote) something we could do, should do, or might do? Maybe so. The reality is, we did not violate the law,” he said.
“But anything is possible.”
