The California Voting Rights Act- Penalizing Public Entities Where No Injury Exists

Public agencies using at-large methods of election are vulnerable to legal attack under the California Voting Rights Act ("CVRA").  The CVRA prohibits at-large elections that impair the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or influence the outcome of an election.  The stated intent of the law is to protect minority voters from vote dilution, but the effect of the law is that any public agency using an at-large method of election can be sued and forced to pay substantial fees to plaintiffs' attorneys, whether or not vote dilution actually exists.  In fact, out of the more than 20 cities and school districts sued under the CVRA, only one escaped without having to pay plaintiffs' attorney's fees.  Here is a good summary of some problems with the law.

I was a trial attorney for the City of Palmdale in the only CVRA case tried to judgment, Jauregui v. Palmdale.  The appeal on the merits of that case had been fully briefed and the parties were awaiting a hearing date when a settlement was reached last week, wherein Palmdale agreed to pay $4.5 million to plaintiff's attorneys, and change its election structure from at-large to districts.  The outcome is unfortunate for all public agencies in California, because the law remains vague and imposes severe punishment without having to show injury to plaintiffs.  There is a real need for change at the legislative level, otherwise school districts and cities will remain easy targets for plaintiffs' attorneys who seek massive attorney's fees awards (paid for by taxpayers) while pretending to seek racial justice.