Defense attorneys accuses a plaintiffs’ witness of cherry-picking elections results

LOS ANGELES -- A plaintiffs' demographics expert in a bench trial about minority representation on the Santa Monica City Council was accused Friday by defense attorneys of cherry-picking past election results to support a by-district voting method.

The expert is a witness in a rare trial over the California Voting Rights Act, in which the Pico Neighborhood Association alleged that Santa Monica's at-large voting makeup results in a lack of minority representation.

The racial demographics of the neighborhood took center stage at the beginning of last week's trial, with plaintiffs' attorneys arguing that Hispanic and African-American populations are "significant" in the area but without representation of those races on the city council.

Defense attorneys, led by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, countered by saying one-seventh of the city council is Latino, including Councilman Tony Vazquez, a former mayor.

On Friday, the defense sought to pick apart three election years -- 1994, 2004 and 2016 -- that plaintiffs' demographics expert David Ely cited in which Pico's Latino-preferred candidate did well.

Gibson Dunn partner Kahn A. Scolnick asked why Ely didn't include years 1996, 2002, 2008 and 2012 in his declaration.

Ely said he didn't include the information "because there wasn't a minority-preferred candidate that did sufficiently well."

Scolnick singled out Vazquez, who by Ely's own analysis won citywide in 2012 but lost in the Pico district.

Ely responded by saying, "I don't think you can characterize it that way. It is not who won or lost, it is how the voters supported them."

On redirect, Ely said he was not trying to skew results or that race was a predominant factor in his delineations. Some districts happen to have more Latinos than others, he testified.

"Race was certainly a consideration. By necessity, I have to consider race but the districts were drawn to reflect communities of interest, and well recognized geographic areas," he said. Pico Neighborhood Association et al. v. City of Santa Monica, BC616804 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed April 12, 2016).

By Ely's delineations, the Pico neighborhood would include 45 percent whites, 30 percent Latinos, 12 percent Asians and 10 percent African-Americans.

Scolnick read from Ely's deposition, in which he said, "Not everyone would benefit from having district elections. There is going to be some districts in which Latinos are less concentrated."

Attorneys on both sides clashed over Ely's expertise, which includes analyzing socioeconomic characters in voter behavior. Under questioning by Scolnick, Ely said much of what he does as a demographer overlaps with what a political scientist does. The defense told Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos that he could not call himself a political scientist and read from a deposition where Ely clarified the two.

"You're not expressing any opinion whether white bloc voting usually defeats minority-preferred candidates in Santa Monica," said Scolnick.

"No, I am not testifying about that," said Ely.

"And you're not expressing intent on whether Santa Monica's intent was racially discriminatory?"

"No," said Ely.

Before the trial broke for the day, plaintiffs' attorney Milton C. Grimes of the Law Offices of Milton C. Grimes sought to simplify the issue on redirect.

"In this instance here in Santa Monica, are districts preferable to at-large elections in terms of creating greater opportunities for Latinos?"

The defense objected, saying it didn't ask that question under cross-examination.

After the judge sustained the objection, Grimes began to re-frame it but stopped short.

The trial, expected to last up to six weeks, continues Monday.