[EL] Palmdale California VRA case (Fredric Woocher)

Thu Dec 5 11:45:03 PST 2013

It also seems to me, for reasons given in Abby's email, that federal 
courts might be interested if Palmdale or another city launched a 
race-based equal protection claim against the CVRA on the basis that it 
imposes a race-based solution which could not survive strict scrutiny.

On 12/5/2013 11:35 AM, Fredric Woocher wrote:
>
> 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.4^th 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.4^th 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131205/cf841fd9/attachment.html>