Judge rules Santa Monica’s at-large voting system illegal

A judge has tentatively ruled the city of Santa Monica's election system is illegal because it violated the California Voting Rights Act, the 2001 state law intended to protect minority voting power.

Following a six-week bench trial, the short ruling issued Tuesday by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos said the city violated the act and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment but did not lay out any reasoning.

A hearing is set for Dec. 7 in which plaintiffs are expected to ask the judge to order the city to switch from an at-large system to seven voting districts.

Kevin Shenkman, who represented the Pico Neighborhood Association and failed city council candidate Maria Loya in the lawsuit, said the ruling was "a victory for Latino residents of Santa Monica but particularly the residents of the Pico neighborhood that got the short end of the sticks for decades."

In a statement, Theodore Boutrous of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, who represented Santa Monica, said the city plans to appeal.

BOUTROS

"We are disappointed that it contains no reasoning in support of the court's decision, which we believe is based on an unjustified adoption of the plaintiffs' misguided and unsupported view of the law," Boutrous' said in the statement. "In accordance with the court's order, we will file briefing on the issue of remedies. Once the court's ruling is final, we plan to appeal, which will allow the California Court of Appeal to address the significant legal issues of first impression posed by this case."

The plaintiffs alleged that since Santa Monica's at-large system was adopted 72 years ago, only one Latin surnamed candidate has been elected to the city council. Their main trial witness was social historian Morgan Kousser, who testified racially polarized voting occurred with discriminatory intent during elections between 1994 and 2016.

The city's defense attorneys throughout the trial argued racially polarized voting was not significant. They said one-seventh of the city council is Latino even though Latinos make up only 13 percent of the city's voting population. A shift to district elections would not enhance Latino voting power but instead dilute Latino votes, the defense said.

It added that since 2002, Latino-preferred candidates, including white candidates, won 73 percent of the time.

PARRIS

Shenkman said in many of those elections the Latino candidates were the primary choice of Latino voters but still lost out to the white-preferred candidates.

No municipality has defeated a Voting Rights Act challenge, but Santa Monica mounted the biggest defense yet. A plaintiffs' attorney speculated the city spent about $10 million on Gibson Dunn attorneys to vigorously defend the lawsuit over a 2 1/2 years. Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica, BC616804 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed April 12, 2016).

"When it's the taxpayers' money, it is really easy to spend tens of millions of dollars on a Hail Mary just so you can stay in office," said R. Rex Parris, who also litigated the case for the plaintiffs.

According to the law, the Voting Rights Act is violated only if an at-large election "impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election, as a result of the dilution or abridgment of the rights of voters who are members of a protected class."

PALAZUELOS

Gibson Dunn attorneys at trial included Marcellus McRae, Michele Maryott and Kahn Scolnick.

Shenkman, who was a summer associate at Gibson Dunn in 2001, did not get an offer to come back to work for the firm but decided against working for a large firm.

"In some ways, it's come full circle," he said.