Pico Neighborhood Association appeals verdict in voting rights case

On Jan. 18, the city of Santa Monica appealed a tentative California Superior Court decision to replace the current at-large city council and SMMUSD board election system with a district-based election system. The lawsuit by the Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) et al. against the city of Santa Monica alleged that the at-large election system discriminated against Latinx groups, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution and consequently violating the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA). The CVRA, enacted in 2001, is supposed to make it easier for plaintiffs to challenge supposedly discriminatory voting practices under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment that states that all individuals are protected by the laws of the state. Although the California Superior Court initially ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, dictating that at-large elections would be constrained, the city of Santa Monica appealed and ultimately nullified the ruling that would require district-based elections until further deliberation. The Santa Monica City Charter dictates that members of the Santa Monica City Council and the governing board of the SMMUSD will be elected at large, meaning that residents from anywhere in the city can run to be elected to serve on the board of their choice. If passed, the district-based voting system would require that the position of each city council or SMMUSD board member be filled by someone from one of seven different neighborhood zones. The PNA argue that racially polarized voting has resulted in concentrated board member residency, suppressing the voice of ethnic minorities. Furthermore, the PNA argued that without elected officials from Latinx neighborhoods, officials would be unable to represent the Latinx community of Santa Monica. Voting expert Dr. Kousser’s analysis of Latinx candidates was used as evidence to prove that Latinx citizens held little political sway in Santa Monica. Kousser testified that Latinx voters cohesively supported Latinx candidates in five of seven elections between 1994 and 2016 but only in one of those elections did a Latinx candidate barely prevail, finishing fourth in a four-seat city council race. However, the city believes the PNA’s claims lack merit in the following three ways presented at trial: Santa Monica’s minority demographics contrast those of other cities that have litigated CVRA lawsuits,  the city has a history of electing people of color, including Latinx individuals and that the at-large system resulted in Latinx-preferred candidates winning upwards of 70 percent in city council races and 80 percent of elections for the SMMUSD governing board between 2002 and 2016. As of Jan. 25, the city has submitted objections to the PNA’s proposed explanation for the California Superior Court’s tentative decision and are requesting that the court look to Santa Monica’s 2018 election results as further proof that the current election system is suitable, according to the Santa Monica government’s website.