[EL] Registrar's Restriction on CVRA Districting Remedies

[Scott Rafferty]

Contra Costa has four cities and two school districts that have received
California Voting Rights Act demand letters since Nov. 2017.  As many of
you know, the jurisdiction can usually enjoy a stay of litigation if it
prepares single-member districts with 135 days.  All of these cases
anticipated that the safe-harbor process would complete by July 5, which is
the deadline to submit boundary changes for the Nov. 2018 election.   I am
the attorney for the prospective plaintiffs in three of the cities and one
of the school districts.

Last November, without notice to plaintiff's counsel, our registrar wrote
the city clerks that "many cities and districts" had received letters from
Shenkman and Hughes.   He "all changes have a domino effect throughout the
county....  Attempting to implement changes in 2018... will jeopardize the
integrity of other contests. [Changes to voting systems and databases]
cannot be done unless approved district boundaries are provided to us by
2/1/18....  Cities insisting on changes in 2018 must consider as part of
that decision the possibility that the city will have to conduct the
election themselves..."

Based on the registrar's intervention, two cities adopted resolutions
specifying that the remedy would not begin until 2020.   When Concord went
to hearing, however, the public and a majority of the council appeared to
favor implementation in 2018.

Yesterday, the registrar agreed to implement CVRA districting remedies if
they follow precinct lines.  In Martinez (where I am not the attorney),
there are two pairs of incumbents who are each in the same precincts, so
this would automatically place them in the same districts (although they
are so close this could occur anyway).  The registrar presents Martinez
Public Map #2 as "evidence that it is possible to draw boundaries and
respect precinct lines at the same time" and observes that it would save
116.5 staff hours compared to one of Doug Johnson's plans.  This map
creates a 76% white district that has 41% of the population of one of the
other districts.  The four less-white districts vary in population and have
very similar minority profiles, so there is no minority influence
district.   One district includes 4 of the 5 incumbents.

The registrar's new position replaces the clear 2/1 deadline with a
discretionary veto power if a map requires any precinct to be altered.
"Cities choosing to have 'custom' lines are free to do so...  However, it
is uncertain whether the [registrar] will be able to implement such changes
in time for the 2018 November election."   I am concerned that any
uncertainty defeats the integrity of the public input and board decision
processes set forth by the statute.   Delaying the election two years would
reverse whatever consideration (positive or negative) there had been to
synchronizing incumbent's terms with the election in their respective
districts.

I am sure there are strong opinions on the suggestion that CVRA remedies
follow precinct lines.   I am particularly interested in off-line thoughts
about the prospects and strategy of a writ petition involving the
registrar, as well as any opinions on the jurisdictions' safe harbor and
potential liability if they conduct an at-large election in November.


Scott Rafferty
1913 Whitecliff Ct
Walnut Creek CA 94596
 mobile 202-380-5525
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180130/ea5d070d/attachment.html>