California Supreme Court Delivers Setback to Cities That Want At-Large City Council Elections

On August 24, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion in Pico Neighborhood Association v City of Santa Monica, S263972. The decision interprets the California Voting Rights Act to require cities with racially polarized voting to avoid using at-large elections for city council, even if the affected racial or ethnic minority is not big enough to constitute a majority in any proposed district. In this case the plaintiffs, who are Latinos, want district elections, even though they are unable to produce a plan in which Latinos would be a majority in any district. Their proposal has one district that is 30% Latino. The opinion says the California law, which was passed in 2001, guarantees such racial or ethnic minorities a district that enhances their ability to elect a candidate of their choice, even if they wouldn’t have a majority and would need votes from other ethnic groups.


Comments

California Supreme Court Delivers Setback to Cities That Want At-Large City Council Elections — 14 Comments

  1. COURTS – BRAIN DEAD ABOUT G MATH 000001 SINCE 1962-1964 —-

    1/2 OR LESS VOTES X 1/2 RIGGED G DISTS = 1/4 OR LESS CONTROL

    SUPER- WORSE PRIMARY EXTREMISTS MATH.

    BOTH AT LARGE AND SMD DENY 49.99 PCT MINORITIES ANY REAL REPRESENTATION.

    USA CONST 4-4 RFG AND 14-1 EPC SUBVERTED.

    TOO MANY TOTALLY CORRUPT PARTY HACK SO-CALLED LAWYERS TO COUNT.


    P-A-T

  2. Sounds like the state should butt out of city business. And why should Latinos get districts and not, say, SUV drivers or people over the age of 50 or pet owners etc?

  3. Why the assumption that Latinos and Anglos have different political interests? Do people over 6 ft tall have different political interests than those under?

  4. WILL TRUMP DISPLACE ALL WATER IN LAKE MICHIGAN AT THE ELEPHANT 2024 CONVENTION IN WISC ???

  5. WILL AZ EVER REALIZE THAT IF THE SKY HAS BEEN FALLING FOR OVER 6,000 YEARS THINGS ARE PROBABLY NOT AS BAD AS HE MAKES OUT???

  6. KILLERS/ENSLAVERS BEFORE 1776 DID NOT HAVE WMD AND HIGH TECH —-

    NUKES / BIOWAR / LASER EXACT LOCATION WEAPONS / ETC.

    MAIN THING STOPPING A BARBARIAN ATTACK BY RUSSIA/CHINA/ETC KILLERS/ENSLAVERS —

    WESTERN NUKE SUBS DEEP IN OCEANS = CERTAIN DOOM FOR THE BARBARIANS

  7. WE’VE HAD WMD AND HIGH TECH FOR DECADES. THE SKY IS STILL ABOVE US. RUSSIA AND CHINA DON’T WANT EVERYONE TO DIE ANYMORE THAN WE DO, AND THERE ARE NO GOOD GUYS ON THE WORLD STAGE. THERE’S NO MONOPOLY ON NUKE SUBS IN OCEANS EITHER.

  8. They would be wiser to push for alternative elections systems, such as cumulative voting or single transferable voting, etc. If organized, the voters would have a better chance of electing someone they want no matter where in the district one lives.

  9. I think Richard Winger misinterpreted the decision. The Supreme Court ordered remand to the Court of Appeals to determine whether methods other than single member districts could mitigate the “dilution” of minority voters influence. The Court of Appeals had found that a single-member district would not have eliminated any dilution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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