I find it interesting / outrageous that the CA voting rights act only applies to local governments that use at-large methods for filling seats and that single winner districts seems to be the preferred remedy. It’s like people have never heard of proportional representation systems.

It bothers me that the act only applies to at-large elections and not to single-winner districted election methods. Both classes of methods are capable of impairing “the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election”. A well-designed multi-winner election method (eg. a proportional representation method or a method like asset voting) should be *BETTER* then districted approaches in this regard.

I’m not a lawyer either, but I’ve looked at some case law on home rule charters. Two points.

(1) The trend over time has been to narrow the range of subjects that are of “local concern” and in which charters can trump state law.

(2) Election law has, in general, been an exception to (1). But I think the courts will treat this as a civil rights issue rather than an election law issue. Voting rights are clearly a matter of “statewide concern” rather than “local concern”.

I don’t think there’s any question that the legislature thought the VRA would allow the courts to invalidate charter provisions.

No Court has yet decided whether Modesto is actually in violation of CA VRA.

If the US Supremes turn down the case or rule against Modesto, the case then goes back to Superior Court for the debate on whether Modesto is actually in violation of CA VRA.

Q2. CA VRA passed the Assembly on June 20, 2002, the State Senate on June 24, 2002, and was signed into law July 9, 2002.

Q3. The Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights sued Modesto under the provisions of the CA VRA. The timing results from the Lawyer’s Committee lawsuit, and is not controlled by the City.

Q4. Modesto won in Superior Court, lost in the State Appeals Court, and the State Supreme Court declined to hear the case (my guess is they did so because they knew it would get appealed to the US Supreme Court regardless of the State Supreme Court’s ruling, and the debate at this point centers on provisions of the US, not the CA, Constitution).

Q5. As a practical matter, CA VRA eliminates the compactness and ‘totality of circumstances’ “tests” set up by the Federal Voting Rights Act to identify violations. Under Federal law, jurisdictions must fail those tests, along with tests for polarized voting that results in losses for minority-favored candidates, to be found in violation.

Under CA VRA, there is only one test: if you have polarized voting and the minority-preferred candidate loses, the jurisdiction is in violation.

So yes, I think it is safe to say that there are potentially significant numbers of currently at-large cities, school districts, and special districts that may be vulnerable to a lawsuit under CA VRA.

Q6 This is an excellent question that has not been answered yet. I suspect that the Courts may be able to force charter cities to put a district question on the ballot. But if the voters turn it down, I do not know if the Courts will then be able to force the jurisdiction into districts anyways. That’s likely to be a whole different law battle.

More info on CA VRA:
http://www.ndcresearch.com/vra_info.html

(Disclosure: I am a consultant to the Modesto Charter Review Committee, but I do not have any involvement in the lawsuit. Also, I am not a lawyer.)

Modesto is a charter city, but that doesn’t have a lot to do with this case. General law cities are also subject to the California VRA and, conversely, charter status can’t exempt you from it.

Q2: When was the California Voting Rights Act passed?

The California VRA was signed into law in 2002. See Elections Code Sections 14025-14028 for the text.

Q3: Is Modesto asking for this hearing NOW because this year, this Sanchez person sued Modesto for some kind of voting discrimination?

Sanchez, et. al. filed suit against the city in June 2004, alleging that the city’s at-large council elections discriminate against minorities in violation of the state VRA.

Q4: Has Modesto already exhausted its appeals through the California State Court system?

Yes. Modesto won in county superior court, then lost in the state appeals court. The state Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court.

Is this their final shot at preserving the voting system that their voters prefer?

Maybe. If the law is upheld, I suspect that the original trial court would get involved again in determining a remedy, but I’m not sure how that works. I’m not sure whether the facts of this case (as opposed to the validity of the statute) have been fully adjudicated.

Q5: What are the potential ramifications for the other cities in California that wish to maintain the present winner-take-all citywide election setup?

The potential ramifications are pretty important. There are hundreds of at-large city councils in California and the number of them with voting rights issues is going to increase over time. Just as important, a number of other states have or are considering VRA’s like California’s.

Q6: Will Charter cities be safe in protecting their current voting system if this appeal either fails or is not reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court?

Generally, no. State laws can and do preempt city and county charters in some areas, and votings rights is clearly one of them.