title
ARTICLE II THE POLITICAL (ELECTION) DISTRICTS
recommended
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the committee discuss and consider the charter amendments presented, and having done so recommend the desired amendments to the City Council.
The revisions recommended by staff are quite limited, with the intent being to address the potential legal infirmaties in the charter while leaving the basic electoral structure in place. The reason for this recommendation is that changes, other than the minimum required to address the potential legal concerns, represent a political choice that is most properly left to the Council to address.
body
Charter Review Advisory Commission Recommendation
The current Charter language is included with this report as a reference (Attachment A). The revisions recommended by the Charter Review Advisory Commission are contained in Attachment B.
Council Districts and Redistricting
CRAC’s main recommendations include redistributing the current six council districts to nine districts, and replacing the City Clerk with an Advisory Commission to determine the boundaries of the districts.
City Council Election Process
CRAC also recommends moving from an at-large voting structure for council members to a district voting structure. Therefore, only those who reside within the district would be able to vote for the council member. CRAC approved an argument for district voting (Attachment C).
Mayor Election & Role
CRAC’s proposal recommends the Mayor be elected by the members of the City Council and should only hold the office for two years. Also, the proposal includes deleting language regarding the Mayor’s full time status.
Staff’s Recommendation
For the reasons discussed in more detail below, the existing charter provisions addressed herein may invite a challenge under the California Voting Rights Act (Elections Code section 14025, et seq.; the “State Act”). Staff’s proposed recommendations can be found in Attachment D.
The City Council Election Process.
The City Charter, in Article VI and Article VII, sets out a process for the election of members of the City Council. The process can best be described as a “combined” system. What the term “combined” means in this context is that the system blends elements of both a “by district” and “at large” process.
In a typical “by district” process, candidates are nominated from each district and in turn are elected solely by the voters in that district. In an “at large” system, candidates are nominated from anywhere within the city and elected by the voters of the entire city.
The City’s system is a hybrid, where each candidate is nominated from within the district from where he or she resides, but is elected at large.
The City’s current election process came in to being following the passage of Measure C in 1986. Measure C (among other changes) reduced the number of districts from nine to six, put in place the current two-step system for the election of City Council members (described above), and provided for the election of the Mayor at large.
Measure C was challenged under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (the “Federal Act”) in the case of Badillo v. City of Stockton, 956 F.2d 884 (1992). While the court acknowledged that Measure C contained several “devices” that have the potential to cause dilution of minority voting strength, the plaintiffs had nonetheless failed to meet their burden because they had failed to provide sufficient evidence that there existed a cohesive minority voting block in Stockton that was not able to elect candidates of their choice due to racially polarized voting.
The California Voting Rights Act
The State Act was signed in to law in 2002. The State Act makes it far easier for opponents to challenge local jurisdictions that have an “at large” electoral system, since the challengers need not establish all of the elements of liability required under the Federal Act. An “at large” system is one that does not provide for election of members strictly by district.
As discussed above, the Charter has an at-large component that may render it vulnerable to challenge under the State Act. While there is obviously more to a voting rights challenge than just the at-large component, its presence allows an opponent to take advantage of the much lower hurdles presented by a challenge under the State Act.
The Redistricting Process
Pursuant to Article II, section 200 of the charter the City Clerk is responsible for redrawing the City Council districts following each decennial census. The process, as it currently stands, is somewhat mechanical and the rough shape of each district is tightly controlled.
While having such a rigid system is convenient and helps to reduce political controversy, it also provides no means to ensure that the boundaries drawn comply with state and federal law as relates to the potential to dilute minority voting strength.
Without the necessary flexibility being built in to the process, the City Clerk may at some time be faced with the Hobson’s choice of whether to strictly comply with the charter or to stray from strict compliance in order to make the adjustments called for in state or federal law.
Council Districts and Mayor Position Status
The staff recommendation did not include a change in the number of members or to the Mayor’s status. The staff recommendation would maintain a 7 member Council with the Mayor maintaining full-time status.
Attachment A - Current Charter Language
Attachment B - CRAC’s Proposed Recommendation
Attachment C - CRAC’s Argument for District Voting
Attachment D - Staff’s Proposed Charter Revisions