Santa Monica trial has diverging views of California Voting Rights Act

LOS ANGELES -- Attorneys in a rare bench trial over minority voting power are presenting two different views of the California Voting Rights Act.

Plaintiff's attorneys representing the city's Pico Neighborhood Association say Santa Monica breached the 2001 law by not replacing its at-large election system with a by-district approach.

The result has been 72 years of racially polarized voting and a lack of Latino candidates winning city council seats, according to testimony from a social historian, a voting expert, and a failed Latina candidate the plaintiffs put on the stand. Pico Neighborhood Association et. al. v. City of Santa Monicav., BC616804 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed April 12, 2016).

The plaintiff, represented by Kevin Shenkman, R. Rex Parris, and Milton C. Grimes, contend the voting rights act is aimed at promoting minority candidates, while the defense says it is meant to insure minority voters can express their choices.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP defense attorneys, framing the argument as being about Latino-preferred candidates, said Latino votes have not been discriminated against in Santa Monica.

SHENKMAN

Since 2002, 77 percent of Latino-preferred candidates have won seats on the city council, and 86 percent have won seats on other city governing boards," according to defense court documents.

Only one candidate with a Latino surname has been elected to the city council in 72 years of at-large elections, the plaintiff said. That candidate, Tony Vazquez, went on to become the city's mayor. A plaintiff's witness said the 1994 election was an example of racially polarized voting because Vazquez, an incumbent, lost.

The defense said the act requires plaintiffs to show voter dilution and in this case the plaintiff is only showing racially polarized voting.

The act focuses on voter preferences, not candidate ethnicity, and therefore is designed to protect voters, not candidates, according to the defense.

"Nothing in the statute, including the snippets of Section 14028 on which plaintiffs' theory of liability rests, suggests that a minority group's candidates of choice must themselves be members of that minority group, or that minority electoral defeat is irrelevant," according to the defense court documents.

About 13.6 percent of the city's voting population is Latino, the court has heard. The Pico neighborhood, a majority white neighborhood, has the largest concentration of Latinos in the city. Voters twice have rejected district elections, in 1975 and 2002, the defense said.

Six days of testimony from Morgan Kousser, the plaintiff's main witness, has centered on racially polarized voting.

Gibson Dunn attorney Marcellus McRae questioned Kousser about African-Americans who in 1946 voted in favor of changing the city's charter.

"You wouldn't suggest that people of color did that because they thought it would dilute minority voting power, are you?" McRae asked Kousser.

"All I am saying is they were aware of the changes. I am not saying they did it in order to dilute minority political power, but if they were aware that it would then they were acting with discriminatory intent," Kousser said.

McRae also brought up a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case in which the court ruled the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors gerrymandered districts to minimize Latino voter strength. Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F. 2d 763.

McRae asked Kousser if that was a case showing how districting can lead to voter dilution.

"It's a bit more complicated," Kousser said. "It's one of the ways you can have discrimination in an election system."