Sworn frenemies square off at Santa Monica voter trial

LOS ANGELES -- Testifying in trial after trial, often saying each other is wrong, hasn't harmed the relationship between two voting experts. One of them testified for the defense Thursday, as he tried to demolish his colleague's evidence for the plaintiffs.

In his second day of testimony, Alan Lichtman, the defense's main witness in the trial over Santa Monica's election system, disagreed with plaintiffs' witness Morgan Kousser that at-large voting for the city council inherently diminishes minorities' chances of electing their candidates of choice.

The plaintiffs want Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos to order the city to adopt a system that has voters choosing council members in different districts, rather than for the city as a whole.

"It's not an easy thing to make the claim that district voting provides the ability of the people to elect candidates of their choice," said Lichtman, an American University history professor best known for accurately predicting presidential elections for decades, including the last one.

Lichtman's testimony directly rebutted that of the plaintiffs' expert, Morgan Kousser, who had said Santa Monica installed at-large elections in 1946 to reduce minority voting power.

Even though they offer conflicting testimony, Lichtman and Kousser have testified in multiple voting rights trials together, spanning 40 years. During cross examination, Lichtman was asked if they used to be friends.

"We're still friends," he replied.

According to the plaintiffs, represented by Shenkman & Hughes and Parris Law, the at-large voting system was designed to prevent Latinos or other non-white voters in Santa Monica from electing their candidates to the city council. Pico Neighborhood Association et al. v. City of Santa Monica, BC616804 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed April 12, 2016).

During defense examination, Lichtman picked apart Kousser's statements by critiquing in detail his interpretation of a report conducted by 15 commission members who investigated the at-large voting system. Kousser said the commission concluded at-large voting was discriminatory.

Lichtman said most of the commissioners found the at-large voting system should be replaced by a single transferable voting system, and not necessarily because they thought it was discriminatory toward Latinos.

"One of the commissioners said that STV would provide much better representation for any minority group, be it ecological voters, political minorities or however you define minority," said Lichtman. He also testified that replacing the at-large voting system with either district or single transferable voting would not necessarily benefit Latino voters.

"There are issues that bear upon the success rate of minorities, not just under districts but under single transferable votes as well," Lichtman said. "If the minority group spreads its vote out and doesn't concentrate on one candidate, then single transferable votes won't help either."

Defense attorney Kahn Scolnick, partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pointed out that between 1975 and 1992, the city changed municipal election days to coincide with presidential elections, thus better accommodating traditionally lower voter turnout populations.

"This was extremely beneficial to minorities," Lichtman said.