[EL] equal numbers of VOTERS, rather than residents

Tue May 17 05:54:01 PDT 2011

To underscore Jim's analysis, there are some very large and seemingly
politically motivated disparities in population of residency districts. A
few years ago, we dealt with a small California school district where the
urban core had one residency district and the much less populated areas
outside the urban core had a total of four residency districts. So while
voters in  the urban core had the voting strength to elect all five members
of the school district, four of five winners were guaranteed to live
elsewhere. Without a legal dimension, this was deemed as likely to withstand
challenge by various authorities we checked, although Jim's cite to the
Reese case suggests that there at least could possibly have been a credible
challenge mounted.

Rob

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:23 AM, James Tucker <jttarizona at aol.com> wrote:

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

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"

Rob Richie
Executive Director

FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
www.fairvote.org  <http://www.fairvote.org> rr at fairvote.org
(301) 270-4616

Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider  a gift
to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's  CFC number is
10132.) Thank you!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110517/cad06d51/attachment.html>