[EL] equal numbers of VOTERS, rather than residents

Tue May 17 05:23:28 PDT 2011

David,

On its face, the Compton provision probably doesn't violate one person, one
vote regardless of the method of populating those residency districts
(whether by total population, VAP, CVAP, registered voters, or some other
way).  The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that use of residency districts in
at-large elections typically complies with one person, one vote because the
officials who are elected must be accountable to all of the voters in the
jurisdiction, not just the voters in their residency district.  See Dallas
County v. Reese, 421 U.S. 477, 479-80 (1975) (per curiam); Fortson v.
Dorsey, 379 U.S. 433, 438 (1965).    

I say "probably doesn't" because the Court identified circumstances in which
population disparities between residency districts would violate federal
law.  For example, a residency district plan does not satisfy one person,
one vote if there is evidence that the effect of the plan is "'to minimize
or cancel out the voting strength of racial or political elements of the
voting population.'"  Reese, 421 U.S. at 480 (quoting Dusch v. Davis, 387
U.S. 112, 117 (1967)).  Where that occurs, the use of residency districts
also might violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.  In addition, the
California Voting Rights Act makes it easier to challenge at-large elections
in local jurisdictions in the state where the plaintiffs are able to
establish racially polarized voting.  

The link you provided indicates that Compton's method of electing its city
council members is already the subject of a challenge under the California
Voting Rights Act.  Based upon the information in the link, the method of
election is ripe for a challenge.  The plaintiffs have alleged that the
method of election has the effect of diluting the ability of Latino voters
to elect their candidates of choice.  

Regards,

Jim Tucker

  _____  

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of David A.
Holtzman
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 3:34 AM
To: [EL]
Subject: Re: [EL] equal numbers of VOTERS, rather than residents

Hello Again [EL],

I just noticed that the "equal numbers of voters" provision can only go into
effect when the city population exceeds 100,000 and the number of districts
goes from four to six.  So it's probably not ripe for challenge.

For now, "The City Council may change the boundaries of the four districts
into which the City is divided by ordinance adopted by at least four
affirmative votes whenever, in the opinion of the City Council, such is
necessary to better equalize the population among the respective districts."
Compton Charter, Sec. 502.  (The City Council has five members, four elected
from districts plus the Mayor.)

It may be of interest that when the number of districts goes from four to
six, an incumbent protection provision will govern the drawing of the new
districts.  They must be drawn so "that each Councilman then in office will
reside within the district bearing the number of the district from which he
was elected and District 5 and District 6 shall not include the residence of
any of the members of the Council. . . ."  Compton Charter, Sec. 500.

  -dh

On 5/17/2011 12:13 AM, David A. Holtzman wrote: 

Hello [EL],

The LA Times printed an op-ed yesterday blaming the at-large election method
used in Compton, California, for keeping Latinos off an all-black city
council.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0516-newton-column-comp
ton-20110516,0,828852.column 

Compton's is a strange election method, to be sure: council members are
elected FROM districts.  "FROM districts" means that each winner must live
in a particular district, while the voting is at-large.  As the op-ed writer
(a Times editor) noted, that "means all voters can vote in all races."  This
is different from "BY" districts, which means that voters only vote in
contests to represent the districts they live in.

This is almost as bad as a having a legislature consisting of "numbered
seats" -- where every individual office is elected at-large.  At least
electing from districts guarantees some geographic diversity of residence.

Anyway, I had a look at the Compton City Charter, and one thing stood out:
the districts must be drawn to have nearly-equal numbers of VOTERS, rather
than residents.  Is that legal?

(Districts "shall comprise as nearly as practicable equal numbers of voters
as determined by records of the registration of voters of Los Angeles County
on file with the Registrar of Voters of said County . . . ."  Charter of the
City of Compton, Sec. 500.)

   - David Holtzman, President
     LWV of Los Angeles

-- 
David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
david at holtzmanlaw.com 

Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be
confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an
intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to an
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error
and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this
email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email in error,
please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
david at holtzmanlaw.com 

Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be
confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an
intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to an
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error
and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this
email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email in error,
please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110517/2b745bc5/attachment.html>