The Transformation of California’s City Council Election Systems

Written by Pieter Van Wingerden ’24
with assistance from Nikhil Agarwal ’24, Daniela Corona ’23, Samuel Johnson-Saeger ’26

Background

City councils govern California’s 482 incorporated cities. Before the passage of the 2002 California Voting Rights Act (CVRA), only 29 city councils used a by-district election system (where council members are elected from different geographic areas in the city). Back then, most California cities utilized an at-large election system, where council members were elected to represent the entire city rather than specific districts. Today, 203 cities use by-district elections in the state (42.1%), and 275 cities (57.1%) still use at-large elections, a tectonic shift over the past two decades.

The California Voting Rights Act (CVRA)

Introduced by Democratic Senator Richard Polanco and supported by the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union, the bill was signed by Governor Gray Davis in July 2002. Although the bill was suspended after a superior court ruled that the CVRA was unconstitutional, a 2006 appeals court ruling restored the law. The CVRA builds on the Voting Rights Act of 1965, providing statewide protections to California voters. Under the CVRA, jurisdictions (city, county, utility district, etc.) can be sued if their voting system is found to disenfranchise or impair “the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election.”^[1]

CVRA was introduced to promote by-district elections to encourage the election of “under-represented” candidates such as Latinos and Asian-Americans. Racial and ethnic minorities have found it easier to sue local governments under the CVRA because it provides Californians with even stronger voting protections than the federal Voting Rights Act. For example, CVRA prohibits voting regulations that impair the ability of minority populations to “influence” elections, whereas the federal VRA only prohibits systems that prevent minority populations from “electing” candidates of their choosing. By prohibiting attempts to “influence” elections, CVRA has made it easier for individuals to sue California cities with at-large election systems. Moreover, CVRA lowers the plaintiff’s burden compared to the federal VRA, only requiring them to provide evidence of racially polarized voting rather than conditions amounting to barriers for minority voters to elect candidates of their choosing.

When a California city faces a lawsuit alleging a CVRA violation, they almost always transition voluntarily to by-district elections, given that no jurisdiction has successfully defended their case in court. The city of Palmdale represents the worst-case scenario a city can face in light of a CVRA violation. In 2012, a group of Palmdale citizens sued the city, alleging that its at-large elections disenfranchised minority voters. Although the city made numerous appeals, the courts repeatedly ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. As a result, Palmdale paid $4.5 million in legal fees and was forced to switch to BD elections. Councilmember Fred Thompson, the first African-American Palmdale council member, called the move “unnecessary and dangerous.” “I’m in office in spite of, not because of, the lawsuit,” Thompson said.^[2]

Interestingly, one of the few, if not the only, exceptions to the trend of cities either voluntarily transitioning or settling with plaintiffs is the city of Santa Monica, which has been embroiled in a years-long legal battle costing upwards of $8 million. The city of Santa Monica was first sued in 2016 by the Pico Neighborhood Association and Advocates for Malibu Public Schools. Although the Los Angeles Superior Court originally ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeal later overturned the decision in July 2020.^[3] As of this writing, the case has reached the California Supreme Court and awaits a decision. Santa Monica’s arguments are interesting regardless of how the case turns out. Throughout the city’s legal battles, it has maintained that the Santa Monica city council has previously elected minority candidates to the city council, including two Latino council members, and that the “candidates preferred by Latino voters won at least 60% of the time” on at least seven occasions.

Transitioning to By-District Elections

Rose Institute analysis suggests that by-district elections generally increase minority representation at the local level. For example, a previous Rose Institute white paper found that “the move to by-district elections has increased the number of Latinos elected to city councils, but that change has been driven by significant gains in a few cities.” Our latest analysis does not consider the benefits or drawbacks of at-large or by-district voting systems. Instead, we want to document the changes to California’s voting geography. As of 2022, 203 cities use by-district elections (42.1%), and 275 cities (57.1%) use at-large elections. CVRA-related legislation is a relatively new concept and makes it easier for protected classes to prove voter disenfranchisement. Therefore, our analysis confirms that many jurisdictions voluntarily transition to by-district elections. Moving forward, our analysis could focus on the role demographic differences play in whether a city has transitioned to by-district elections.

^[1] https://www.ndcresearch.com/voting-rights-act-demographic-analysis/

^[2] https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-palmdale-elections-lawsuit-20150506-story.html

^[3] https://www.santamonica.gov/election-litigation-pna-v-santa-monica-faq