Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022.03.01 Agenda Packet - Regular Meeting.pdfAgenda #: 5.1 Meeting Date: March 1, 2022 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ABOUT COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST AND OTHER LOCAL FACTORS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHEN DRAWING DISTRICT MAPS. STRATEGIC GOAL: Open, Engaged & Responsive Government RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing and receive public input on district boundaries. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Significant staff time will be required to transition to district-based elections and to administer the process including the need for at least five public hearings. Transitioning to district-based elections also involves the services of a demographer. Additionally, the City will be required to reimburse the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project for its documented costs, up to $30,000. However, such expenses would likely be significantly lower than the costs of litigating the threatened lawsuit if district-based elections are not approved. BACKGROUND: Since incorporation in 1989, registered voters in Diamond Bar have elected City Council members using an “at-large” system in which all members are elected by all registered voters to provide city-wide representation. In 2001, the state legislature approved the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA), modifying burden of proof requirements contained in the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 to make it easier for plaintiffs to challenge at- large voting systems. The CVRA prohibits an agency from using at-large elections if it impairs the ability of a protected class, as defined, to elect candidates of its choice or otherwise influence the outcome of an election. The CVRA includes the imposition of district-based elections by a court as a remedy to violations of the Act, and requires the government agency to pay all legal and court fees should the plaintiff prevail in court. 5.1 Packet Pg. 62 Demand to Convert to District Elections In a letter received January 13, 2022, Mr. Kevin Shenkman, counsel representing the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (SVREP), alleges that the City’s at- large elections system violates the CVRA because it results in racially polarized voting that dilutes the impact of Latino voters. The letter demands that Diamond Bar voluntarily change its at-large system for electing City Council members to a district-based system to avoid litigation. Mr. Shenkman has sent similar demand letters to cities, school districts and special districts across the state and has successfully sued governmental agencies under similar allegations. The majority of agencies receiving the letter have avoided litigation by voluntarily transitioning from at-large to district-based elections citing the cost of legal defense and potential liability for significant attorney’s fees and settlement costs if the City’s legal defense is unsuccessful. ANALYSIS: The CVRA Imposes Significant Costs of Litigating The CVRA, codified as Elections Code sections 14025 et seq., became law on January 1, 2003. The declared purpose of the CVRA is to prevent the disenfranchisement of protected classes, which are broadly defined to include members of a race, color, or language minority group. Any voter who resides in a city and is a member of a protected class may file a lawsuit for a violation of the CVRA. To succeed, the plaintiff must only show that, as a result of an at-large election, “racially polarized voting” has occurred. Racially polarized voting” means there is a difference between the choice of candidates preferred by voters in a protected class and candidates preferred by voters in the remainder of the voting population. If the plaintiff prevails in litigation, the CVRA allows for the recovery of significant attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees. On the other hand, even if the city that is sued prevails in the lawsuit, it cannot recover either attorneys’ fees or costs. In addition, the CVRA provides that if a court finds that a violation of the CVRA has occurred, the court shall implement appropriate remedies, including the imposition of district-based elections, that are tailored to remedy the violation. The remedy can include the imposition of district maps for the City. The CVRA “Safe Harbor” On September 28, 2016, the Governor signed into law AB 350, which enacted Elections Code section 10010. That legislation established a “safe harbor” from CVRA litigation for cities. Once a city receives a demand letter, it has a period of protection from litigation to assess its situation, and then to proceed with the transition to district-based elections. In Diamond Bar’s case, the initial CVRA safe harbor period of protection ran until February 27, 2022. But because the City Council adopted Resolution 2022-10 stating its intention to transition to district-based elections on February 17, 2022, then a CVRA 5.1 Packet Pg. 63 lawsuit could not be filed for an additional 90-day period, or until May 18, 2022. And under AB 350, the City’s liability would be capped at $30,000 if it utilizes the safe harbor provisions and subsequently adopts an ordinance establishing district-based elections by May 18, 2022. Setting District Boundaries Prior to adopting an ordinance establishing district-based elections, the City Council is required to establish district boundaries and the sequencing of district elections. California Elections Code section 10010 sets forth the City Council public hearing process for establishing district boundaries and the sequencing of district elections. This process requires a series of noticed public hearings during which the public has a right to provide input on proposed district boundaries. Specifically, the City must hold at least two “clean slate” hearings at which the public can provide input on district boundaries before any maps are prepared. Thereafter, the City must hold at least two more public hearings to consider draft maps. Finally, the City must hold a public hearing at which the map is adopted and the sequencing of district elections is established. The map and sequencing would be approved by City ordinance. The purpose of the first two public hearings is to inform the public about the districting process and to hear from the community on what factors should be taken into consideration while creating district boundaries. The public is requested to provide input regarding communities of interest and other local factors that should be considered while drafting district maps. A “community of interest” is a “contiguous population that shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation.” These may include a neighborhood or group that would benefit from being in the same district because of shared interests, views, cultures, histories, languages, and values and whose boundaries can be identified on a map. Possible community features include, but are not limited to: Shared interests in schools, housing, community safety, transit, health conditions, land use, environmental conditions, and/or other issues. Common social and civic networks, including churches, mosques, temples, home-owner associations, and community centers, and shared use of community spaces, like parks and shopping centers. Racial and ethnic compositions, cultural identities, and households that predominantly speak a language other than English. Similar socio-economic status, including but not limited to income, home ownership, and education levels. Shared political boundary lines from other jurisdictions, such as school districts, community college districts, and water districts. In creating the district boundaries, the City must ensure compliance with the following federal and state mandated criteria: 5.1 Packet Pg. 64 Federal Laws: 1. Each council district shall contain a nearly equal population (based on total population of residents as determined by the most recent Federal decennial Census and adjusted by the State to reassign incarcerated persons to the last known place of residence); and 2. Each council district shall be drawn in a manner that complies with the Federal Voting Rights Act. No council district shall be drawn with race as the predominate factor in violation of the principles established by the United States Supreme Court in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), and its progeny. California Criteria for Cities (to the extent practicable and in the following order of priority): 1. Geographically contiguous (areas that meet only at the points of adjoining corners are not contiguous. Areas that are separated by water and not connected by a bridge, tunnel, or ferry service are not contiguous). 2. Undivided neighborhoods and "communities of interest" (Socio-economic geographic areas that should be kept together for purposes of its effective and fair representation). 3. Easily identifiable boundaries. 4. Compact (do not bypass one group of people to get to a more distant group of people). 5. Prohibited: “Shall not favor or discriminate against a political party.” Other Traditional Districting Principles: 1. Respect voters' choices / continuity in office. 2. Future population growth. Adopting an Ordinance Transitioning to District-Based Elections Transitioning to district-based elections is effectuated by the City Council enacting an ordinance pursuant to Government Code section 34886, provided that the ordinance includes a declaration that it is being adopted to further the purposes of the CVRA. Under this method, the City Council would need to determine whether it wants to have a mayor elected at-large, with the remaining seats chosen through a district-based election process (with four, six, or eight voting districts). If the City Council chooses not to have a mayor elected at-large, it has the option of establishing five, seven, or nine voting districts. (Govt. Code 34871). These decisions will be made by the City Council based on information from the public hearings, and other appropriate considerations at its future meetings. Community Engagement To encourage public participation in the first hearing, this meeting has been publicly noticed and public education and engagement materials have been posted on the City 5.1 Packet Pg. 65 website and social media channels. A series of public workshops is planned to encourage resident participation in the process and collect testimony. Next Steps A second public hearing of this nature will be held March 15, 2022. The public input compiled from both public hearings and any other public correspondence received between will be used by the consultant to draft initial district maps. It is expected that the public hearing to discuss the proposed maps will be held April 5, 2022. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney has reviewed and approved this report. PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: 5.1 Packet Pg. 66