Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica

Los Angeles County

Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos

Plaintiffs' Lawyers: Kevin I. Shenkman, Shenkman & Hughes, R. Rex Parris, Parris Law Firm, Milton C. Grimes, The Law Offices of Milton C. Grimes

Defense Lawyers: Theodore J. Boutrous, Marcellus A. McRae, Kahn A. Scolnick, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

One quote has stuck with Kevin I. Shenkman, the attorney who fundamentally changed the way the city of Santa Monica elects its leadership.

"Political power is never given away," he said. "You have to take it."

That was said by voting rights advocate Joaquin Avila, an architect of the 2001 California Voting Rights Act, a law Shenkman has been putting to the test by suing municipalities up and down the state claiming their at-large voting systems discriminate against minorities.

"That's what these cases are about," said Shenkman, an ex-boxer who litigated the case with R. Rex Parris of the Parris Law Firm as well as Milton C. Grimes. "I think this is all about ceding power," he said.

And recently the law met its biggest opponent yet: the liberal bastion of Santa Monica. Shenkman, who tried the case over six weeks last summer, represented the city's Latino-centric Pico neighborhood, arguing the system kept Latinos from electing a Latino-surnamed candidate of their choice. In the 72 years since the at-large system was instituted, only one Latino candidate has since been elected to the council, Shenkman said. The city, however, argued two candidates have been elected, counting one who did not have a Latino surname. Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica, BC616804 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed April 12, 2006).

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos ruled in November that the city violated the California Voting Rights Act as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The city's defense counsel -- Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Marcellus A. McRae and Kahn A. Scolnick of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP-- settled on a theory that said Latino-preferred candidates, including white ones, won 73 percent of the time dating back to 2002.

In many of those elections, the primary choice of Latino voters were Latino candidates, but they still lost out to the white-preferred candidates, according to Shenkman.

Gibson Dunn declined to comment on the ruling. Previously, Boutrous said the firm planned to appeal the ruling once it is made official. He said the appellate court would be dealing with "issues of first impression."

Shenkman's main witness was social historian Morgan Kousser, who testified that racially polarized voting, or when the choice of one minority group is superseded by a majority group, occurred with discriminatory intent during elections between 1994 and 2016.

Gibson Dunn called to the stand Allan Lichtman, best known for successfully predicting the outcome of presidential elections. He testified the city's voting system was not installed with discriminatory intent and was in fact put in place to benefit minorities.

The case also had a bit of a personal element for Shenkman, who was a summer associate for Gibson Dunn 18 years ago. He never got an offer to come back, but that's OK with him. He long ago realized that a career at a large law firm was not his path.

-- Justin Kloczko