Witness defends his poll’s bias in voter rights trial

LOS ANGELES -- The plaintiffs presented a pollster's testimony Monday to prove Santa Monica voters preferred changing from at-large to by-district elections, and a defense attorney countered with a cross-examination that had the witness acknowledging his poll was biased.

The voting rights lawsuit against the city claims its at-large voting system results in racially polarized voting, in which a candidate allegedly preferred by Latino voters loses to the choice of the electorate at large.

According to the suit, since the adoption of Santa Monica's at-large voting system over 60 years ago, only one Latino has been elected to the city council, and none from its heavily Latino-populated Pico neighborhood.

However, the city argues several Latinos have been elected to the city council, including two current members, one of them a former mayor. During cross-examination last week, one of the plaintiff's chief witnesses acknowledged the Pico neighborhood is mostly white, rather than majority Latino.

During cross-examination of the pollster on Monday, defense attorney Michele Maryott, a Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP partner, elicited testimony that his poll questions were meant to persuade those surveyed to support the plaintiffs' point of view.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the California Voting Rights Act and Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution. Pico Neighborhood Association et. al. v. City of Santa Monica, BC616804 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed April 12, 2016).

Jonathan Brown, a political pollster with Sextant Strategies & Research, testified that he asked registered city voters about the perception of their political figures' ethnicity and changing to a by-district structure.

He said his poll found 54 percent of the voters he surveyed supported changing to a by-district method. Thirty percent opposed it and 16 percent had no opinion, according to the poll, he said.

R. Rex Parris, one of the plaintiff's attorneys representing a Latina candidate who lost a council election, asked if Brown found anything unusual about those results.

The witness answered that the public is usually reluctant to change the status quo "so to find many in support of change was somewhat surprising to me."

He testified that the more those polled were told about reasons why at-large voting should be changed, the margin for support of the change increased by a third.

"They like the idea on its face before hearing anything, and the more the issue is communicated, the more support increases," said Brown.

During cross examination, Maryott pointed to one of the poll's questions, which said, "Some who want to change to by-district voting say the current citywide elections dilute the voices of minority voters."

"You didn't think there was any biases in that?" Maryott asked Brown.

"These are portrayed as reasons why people would support a change or oppose a change. They are by their nature intended to be persuasive," said Brown.

Brown said the poll did not disclose it was conducted at the request of lawyers suing the city or that it would be used for a lawsuit. If he did, no one would have taken the poll, he said.

At one point, Maryott asked if Brown was attempting to persuade and shape public opinion, to which he responded, "Yes."

Brown was the second of nearly 30 potential plaintiff witnesses set to be called in the bench trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Only a couple of similar cases have made their way to trial. Most municipalities have decided to settle lawsuits by making changes to their voting system.

In 2015, the city of Palmdale settled a lawsuit following a three-year court battle. In that city, nearly 75 percent of the population was comprised of minorities, but candidates of color rarely won council seats. In Santa Monica, Latinos make up 13 percent of the population.