m20190221 - signed.pdf
1 February 21, 2019
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRURAY 21, 2019
A special meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Davis at 5:30 p.m., on
Thursday, February 21, 2019, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street.
Roll Call: Present: Mayor Gleam Davis
Mayor Pro Tem Terry O’Day
Councilmember Sue Himmelrich
Councilmember Ana M. Jara
Councilmember Kevin McKeown
Councilmember Greg Morena
Councilmember Ted Winterer
Also Present: City Manager Rick Cole
City Attorney Lane Dilg
City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE/PLEDGE
On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:30 p.m., with all
members present. Councilmember Winterer led the assemblage in the
Pledge of Allegiance.
CLOSED SESSIONS
Members of the public Cris Mclead, Denise Barton, Linda Lancaster, Kevin
Shenkman (time donated by Steve Lancaster), Joel Koury (time donated by
Yolanda Lewis), Tricia Crane, Taffy Patton, Lucky Basseri, Janet
McLaughlin, Armen Melkonians, Elaine Golden-Gealer, Stanley Epstein,
Jerry Rubin, Maryanne LaGuardia, Zina Josephs, Robert Gomez, Maria
Loya, Myla Reson, and Peter Borresen commented on closed sessions.
On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 6:07 p.m., to consider
closed sessions and returned at 7:04 p.m., with all members present, to
report the following:
1.A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation –
Litigation has been initiated formally pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(d)(1): Pico Neighborhood Association and Maria Loya
v. City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC
616804
The City Attorney reported the following:
2 February 21, 2019
This litigation began in April 2016, when the Pico Neighborhood
Association, Advocates for Malibu Public Schools, and community
member Maria Loya filed a complaint in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court.
Advocates for Malibu Public Schools later withdrew from the lawsuit, and
an amended complaint was filed in February 2017. The amended
complaint challenged the legality of Santa Monica’s at-large election
system for the City Council, which was adopted by the voters in 1946 as
part of the City Charter.
In the over two years since the lawsuit was filed, the parties have engaged
in extensive briefing, pretrial proceedings, and a seven-week trial.
On February 15, 2019, the trial judge adopted the proposed judgment
submitted by the plaintiffs and issued that as its final judgment. The
judgment:
(a) holds that Santa Monica’s at-large elections for City Council seats
violate the California Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection
Clause of the California Constitution;
(b) enjoins the City of Santa Monica from holding future at-large
elections for City Council seats;
(c) orders that future elections for City Council seats be district-based,
in accordance with a seven-district map drawn by the plaintiffs’
expert and adopted by the court;
(d) orders the City to hold an election on July 2, 2019, for all seven
City Council seats using this seven-district map;
(e) prohibits any person not elected in such a district election from
sitting on the City Council after August 15, 2019; and
(f) holds that plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees
and costs, to be paid by the City.
During the course of the litigation, the City has contested many of the legal
and factual positions taken by the plaintiffs and ultimately adopted by the
trial court. The City’s objections are well documented in public filings
available on the City’s website. They include the following:
With respect to the California Voting Rights Act, the City has
argued that the plaintiffs failed to prove that past elections
demonstrate racially polarized voting in Santa Monica and failed to
3 February 21, 2019
prove that the City’s at-large election system dilutes Latino voting
power.
o At trial, the City presented evidence to demonstrate that
between 2002 and 2016, candidates preferred by Latino
voters won at least 70% of the time in Santa Monica City
Council races and over 80% of the time in at-large elections
that plaintiffs claimed involved “racially polarized” voting
for the school district, community college, and rent control
boards. Under the at-large system, Latinos, who make up
13.6% of Santa Monica voters, have held at least one out of
seven (14%) of the City’s Council seats since 2012 and at
the time of trial held four out of 19 (21%) of the City’s other
at-large elected positions on the school district, community
college, and rent control boards.
o The City also contended that plaintiffs failed to show that a
move to districts would generate better outcomes for Santa
Monica’s Latino voters. At trial, the City demonstrated that
it is impossible to draw a district in Santa Monica with a
voting population that is more than 30 percent Latino and
that no court adjudicating a vote-dilution claim has ever
ordered the creation of districts where the citizen-voting-age
population of the relevant minority group in the purported
remedial district would be this low. In Santa Monica,
approximately two-thirds of Latino voters live outside the
proposed Pico district. In a seven-district system, most of
these Latino voters would reside in districts with
overwhelmingly white majorities and be prevented from
organizing together across neighborhoods, as they can in the
current at-large system. Further, paintiffs did not dispute that
district-based elections would dilute the voting strength of
African-American and Asian-American voters in Santa
Monica.
With respect to the claim of intentional discrimination, the City
presented evidence at trial to show that the transformation of the
City’s electoral system in 1946 benefited minority voters and
garnered the vocal support of leaders of color within the
community. The City also contends that claims of intentional
discrimination with respect to the 1992 Charter Review
Commission proceedings rest on a single statement by a single
Councilmember that has been selected from lengthy recordings and
significantly misinterpreted. The City also contends that the
evidence failed to show that any alternative method of election
would have enhanced Latino voting power at any time since 1946.
4 February 21, 2019
Finally, the City has argued that the trial court’s adoption of the
seven-district map drawn by plaintiffs’ expert disregards the
democratic process required by California’s Election Code for
drawing district lines.
The trial court rejected these arguments by adopting (with a few minor
changes) the proposed statement of decision and proposed judgment drafted
by plaintiffs’ counsel. As stated in prior filings, the City contends that in
doing so the trial court left unresolved a number of significant legal issues
and that its rulings on both the CVRA and Equal Protection claims cannot
be supported by the facts.
Having reviewed the court’s orders and consulted with outside counsel, and
for the reasons set forth in closed session, the City Attorney’s Office
recommends filing an appeal in this case in order to seek appellate review
of the many contested legal and factual issues that remain and that have
never previously been addressed by the California Courts of Appeal.
The City Attorney further clarified that, as further stated in publicly filed
papers, it is the City’s position that the filing of an appeal should
automatically stay (or hold in abeyance) the trial court’s orders pending
review by the court of appeal. Should an automatic stay not be entered, the
City’s attorneys would seek a discretionary stay in order to avoid the time,
expense, and uncertainty of initiating a new district-based election process
that might be halted mid-course by a decision from the court of appeal.
The City Attorney further clarified two issues that arose in public
comment:
First, the investment in this case has already been made developing
the record at the pretrial and trial stage. By contrast, an appeal
involves drafting legal briefs and a 30-minute oral argument.
Second, were the City not to file an appeal in this action, the court’s
judgment would take effect in full, including the imposition of the
seven-district map drawn and the order that the City pay the
plaintiffs’ attorneys fees.
Thus, to restate, having reviewed the court’s orders and consulted with
outside counsel, and for the reasons set forth in closed session, the City
Attorney’s Office now recommends that Council approve the filing of an
appeal in this case.
5 February 21, 2019
Motion by Councilmember McKeown, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem
O’Day, to filing an appeal in this case. The motion was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Morena, Himmelrich, McKeown, Winterer,
Jara, Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, Mayor Davis
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 7:13 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Denise Anderson-Warren Gleam Davis
City Clerk Mayor
Gleam Davis (Feb 28, 2019)
Gleam Davis