On October 15, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear City of Modesto v Sanchez, 07-88. This had been an attempt by the City of Modesto to have the California Voting Rights Act declared to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The California Voting Rights Act forces cities to use district elections when the evidence shows that the at-large system makes it almost impossible for substantial racial and ethnic minorities to elect anyone from their own group.
I would agree at-large elections using the plurality voting method does make it hard for minorities to elect a candidate of choice. However, several municipalities involved in at-large voting lawsuits have addressed the problem by using proportional voting methods such as cumulative, limited, or choice voting, instead of separating the area into new districts.
This whole idea that just because a certain ethnic
group has not been represented on a City Council is
PREPOSTEROUS. This law totally ignores any reason why
no ethnics are elected. One, just because a group is
counted as 25% in the census, it ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT
mean that the eligible voters are 25%. Within the
State of California over 20% of the residents are
foreign born many of whom are not yet eligible for
citizenship if they are even INTERESTED in trying to
acquire it when they become eligible. Second, in many
cases these groups are less interested in the local
charity work that would get them noticed in the city.
Third, there is the matter of the cost of campaigning.
Many of these people run for office severely hampered
in what they can raise & spend in a campaign. Spending
the most money doesn’t guarantee getting elected it
does, however, make it a lot easier. Four, this idea
is very un-American in that it WRONGLY pre-supposes
that people should be elected under a quota system
without regard as to whether or not they are truly
competent for the position at that time. Five, this
is also a matter of the State telling a city that you
can run your elections any way you want just so long
as the people WE want get elected. Six, carving up a
city every 10 years would encourage rampant gerry-
mandering. In many cities, ethnic populations do not
live in compact delineated neighborhoods anymore. It
would just be another excuse for the State Courts to
interfere in local government. Seven, just who is to
decide just which ethnic or racial minorities are to
be coddled by this system. Remember, in 2000 the
Census foolishly decided that people did have have
to state a single racial classification anymore. So,
I would contend that they are nothing as far as this
issue of which ethnic/racial group they belong to.
Eight, what about the people from Latin America who
are fully European ancestry? They are not mixed with
the pre-Columbian Indians & so should be counted as
white and not Hispanic! Which would reduce the percent
age of Hispanic people ENTITLED to the own council
member. Nine, most politicians that have been forced
to resign due to corruption came from “VERY” safe
districts which this would create a great deal more
of in California. Ten, I would appreciate comments
from other readers as to the viability and/or errors
in my arguements against this law.
A *democratic* legislative body exists ONLY because ALL of the electors – voters can NOT assemble in person and vote on all issues.
The district stuff will produce one more minority rule regime –
a plurality of the votes in a bare majority of the districts is about 25 percent minority rule.
Remedy- Proportional Representation
Party Seats = Party Votes x Total Seats / Total Votes
THUS – ANY group of voters equal to Total Votes / Total Seats should elect a legislator.
Much too difficult for the math MORONS in the various governments (especially the courts) to understand.