1. The Yakima case is interesting. Under current law, 3 city council members are elected at large, while 4 members represent districts. The district members are nominated in a non-partisan Top 2 primary by voters in their district, but the general election is citywide.

   Thus it is similar to the Tucson system, except that it is nonpartisan. The district court found that the at-large election of all members denied Hispanic persons the right to vote.

   The proposed districts have large differences in number of potential voters (citizens over voting age), even though there total populations are similar. Thus you have the same issue as in the Texas case that the SCOTUS has taken up – what is the fundamental principle behind “one man, one vote”? Is it based on the bedrock of the Constitution, or on the quagmire of SCOTUS opinions over the past half century.

   In its intervention, the USDOJ asserted that in the 9th Circuit, total population must be equalized. Yet the 5th Circuit has said that the governing body may choose. So there may in fact be a conflict between appeals court decisions. But in Yakima, the federal judge rejected the solution proposed by the city which asserted that it was an attempt to balance equalization of voters and equalization of population.

2. If a city has a charter, the city council may not change the method of electing the city council. The people may change the charter. In fact, in Yakima, a charter amendment had been proposed to switch to district elections, which the voters rejected. That rejection was then used as evidence of the discriminatory effect of at-large elections.

   The Yakima city council was left to litigating, and then proposing a remedy that the federal judiciary might impose on the city.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.