Defense’s main witness rebuts key plaintiffs’ witness in voting system trial

LOS ANGELES -- The defense's main witness in the bench trial over Santa Monica's election system said Wednesday there was no discriminatory intent behind the city's switch to at-large voting -- a direct rebuttal to a key plaintiffs' witness.

Allan Lichtman, an outspoken American University history professor best known for predicting the outcome of presidential elections, has been called by city defense counsel Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP to rebut claims made by plaintiffs' witness Morgan Kousser.

Kousser has testified that Santa Monica installed at-large elections in 1946 in order to reduce minority voting power. For the next 72 years, the at-large system yielded racially polarized voting, in which Latino-preferred candidates have routinely lost to candidates preferred by whites, he testified.

Lichtman, however, said a move to an at-large system actually gave better representation to minorities.

"Changes in 1946 were beneficial in expanding minorities' opportunities," said Lichtman during the trial's sixth week.

Lichtman said the system expanded the city council from three to seven seats, was endorsed by prominent black and white civil rights advocates at the time and went unopposed by minority groups.

He and Kousser have known each other for years, even testifying on the same side of a previous voting discrimination case. Lichtman has testified mostly for plaintiffs in similar cases, including the Southern Poverty Law Center and NAACP, but said he could not find that the at-large system discriminated against Latinos in Santa Monica.

The plaintiffs want Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos to mandate a switch to by-district elections.

Under questioning by Gibson Dunn partner Kahn Scolnick, Lichtman went over key dates in Santa Monica when a move to district elections was proposed.

Lichtman said two minority city council members and a Latino seeking election were opposed to a switch to districts in 1975. Voters ultimately rejected a ballot measure that would have switched to a district method.

In 1992, Lichtman said, the city council and charter review commission voted against putting districts on the ballot.

"There was no district that was proposed that in my view gave Latinos the ability to elect candidates of their choice. We have also not seen an analysis of the effect of that plan on other minorities, Asian-Americans and African-Americans," said Lichtman.

"It would have had a very adverse effect on African-Americans and Latinos," he added.

Lichtman's testimony was repeatedly punctured by arguments over plaintiffs' objections that he was expressing opinions that weren't addressed in his deposition.

The lawsuit is being brought on behalf of the Pico Neighborhood Association, which says it represents minority residents of the white-majority area where Latinos are concentrated. The association claims Latinos are underrepresented on the city council.

Plaintiffs' attorneys include Kevin Shenkman of Shenkman & Hughes and R. Rex Parris, who previously went to trial against the city of Palmdale on similar grounds.

That trial ended with Palmdale having to switch to districts and pay $4.5 million-plus interest in attorney fees. Pico Neighborhood Association et al. v. City of Santa Monica, BC616804 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed April 12, 2016).