[EL] Palmdale California VRA case (Fredric Woocher)

[Fredric Woocher]

Not to get too deep into the weeds here on the charter city issue, but neither of the cases cited in this brief passage support the conclusion that a state statute like the CVRA (no matter how well-intentioned) can override a charter city's choice regarding the "manner in which, the method by which, [or] the times at which" the city's municipal officers are elected pursuant to article XI, section 5, subdivision (b), of the California Constitution.  Edelstein did not reach the issue at all because it found no conflict between the state and local laws.  And Johnson v. Bradley discussed the framework for analyzing the potential conflict between state and local laws under article XI, section 5, subdivision (a) - the more general "home rule" provision under which a state law can indeed supersede a conflicting local law if the state law is narrowly tailored to address an overriding statewide concern.  At issue in Johnson v. Bradley was the validity of the City of Los Angeles's public financing provision, which arguably conflicted with a state law banning the use of public funds for candidate elections.  The Supreme Court was not convinced that the campaign financing provision dealt with the "manner in which" the city's officers were elected pursuant to subdivision (b), but said that it did not have to reach the issue because it found the city's law prevailed over the state law even under the more general - and harder to satisfy - test under subdivision (a).

I don't think anyone could seriously contend that the choice of an at-large vs. by-district election scheme does not deal with the "manner" or "method" by which Palmdale's city councilmembers are elected, triggering the analysis under subdivision (b) rather than subdivision (a) of article XI, section 5.  And under that analysis, as the California Supreme Court in Johnson v. Bradley confirmed, the local law automatically prevails over the state statute, without regard to whether the state law is narrowly tailored to address a statewide (or even Constitutional) concern.  And I suspect that you will see a clearer exposition of this principle from Marguerite Leoni and Christopher Skinnell in their briefs to the appellate court on behalf of the City of Palmdale (whom they now represent in this litigation) than in the brief passage from their 2003 article cited by David below.

Fredric D. Woocher
Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90024
fwoocher at strumwooch.com<mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
(310) 576-1233
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of David Ely
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:52 AM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Palmdale California VRA case (Fredric Woocher)

The issue of Charter Cities rights have been raised in a number of cases as well as in analysis of the CVRA.  Below is an excerpt from an article by Marguerite Leoni and Christopher Skinnell to the Ca League of Cities in 2003 which does a good job of explaining why Charter Cities are covered.

It is true that a charter can provide for a form of government or electoral process for a city that is different from the general law. A charter city, however, remains subject to the California Constitution and would be prohibited from adopting or maintaining a discriminatory electoral system or electoral practices that violate the equal protection clause or the right to vote. See Canaan v. Abdelnour, 40 Cal.3d 703 (1985), overruled on other grounds by Edelstein v. City & County of San Francisco, 29 Cal.4th 164, 183 (2002); Rees v. Layton, 6 Cal.App.3d 815 (1970). Furthermore, California courts have recognized that state statutes can override city charters if they are narrowly tailored to address an issue of statewide concern, even in the core areas of charter city control like election administration. Edelstein, 29 Cal.4th at 172-174; Johnson v. Bradley, 4 Cal.4th 389, 398-400 (1992). The CVRA expressly provides that it is intended to implement the guarantees of Section 7 of Article I (Equal Protection) and Section 2 of Article II (Right to Vote) of the California Constitution, which are themselves regarded as matters of statewide concern. See Cawdrey v. City of Redondo Beach, 15 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1226 (1993). http://www.cacities.org/UploadedFiles/LeagueInternet/f7/f736ba74-086a-4f5d-beb7-853d898691d8.pdf

They go on to discuss a possible argument that the CVRA is not narrowly tailored, but all of the courts that have looked at these cases so far have accepted that it is.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131205/3c3b6569/attachment.html>