Loading...
2012/07/11ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OF JULY 11, 2012 The Anaheim City Council Special Meeting of July 11, 2012 was called to order at 4:10 P.M. in the Chambers of Anaheim City Hall located at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. PRESENT: Mayor Tom Tait and Council Members Gail Eastman, Lord Galloway, Kris Murray and Harry Sidhu STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Bob Wingenroth, City Attorney Cristina Talley, and City Clerk Linda Andal ADDITIONS /DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None Council recessed to closed session for the following item: CLOSED SESSION: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code) Name of Case: Moreno et al. v. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 2012- 00579998 At 5:04 Council session was reconvened Invocation: Senior Chaplain Bryan Crow, Anaheim Police Department Flag Salute: Council Member Gail Eastman WORKSHOP California Voting Rights Act and Redistricting (CVRA) Mayor Tait introduced the workshop indicating a panel of experts on the federal and California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) were invited by the Council to provide an opportunity for Council and the community to learn about at large and district -based elections. Douglas Johnson, President of National Demographics Corporation, moderated the forum, announcing the panel would provide general information only, with no data specific to the city of Anaheim, and would then take questions from the City Council and the public. He then introduced the panel members: Robert Rubin, a key advocate in the adoption of the CVRA with a 33 -year career in civil rights, who successfully resolved the first six cases filed under the CVRA resulting in the conversion of electoral systems of city councils and school boards from at -large to single- member districts; Dr. Peter Morrison, leading demographer with the Rand Corporation for many years and now a consultant on demographics analysis for tracking socioeconomic trends relating to public policy; Mr. Jose Paz, City of Compton legal counsel defended the city from a CVRA lawsuit where the city ultimately adopted districts; and Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2012 Page 2 of 10 Councilwoman Darcy Kuenzi from the city of Menifee who was a member of Council during the implementation of districts. Mr. Rubin remarked that at -large electoral systems referenced voters of an entire jurisdiction electing members to a governing body and district -based elections referred to electing members to a governing body in which a candidate and voters resided in a geographic district. The issue with at -large elections was that it had been used to dilute minority votes. For example, he explained, with a municipal population consisting of 60 percent Caucasians and 40 percent Latinos, if the majority voted as a bloc, sixty percent would win over 40 percent every time. For each of those council seats, the white majority could elect the candidates of their choice. In a districting system, assuming there was the same population breakdown; two districts could be drawn to reflect a majority of Latinos and three districts with a majority of white voters. In this example, two of the districts with a majority of Latinos could elect the candidates of their choice. had long been used to dilute minority votes using the example if with a population comprised of He emphasized districting was about the ability of the community to elect candidates of its choice, not about whites representing whites or blacks representing blacks. Mr. Rubin indicated voting rights advocates were able to persuade the California legislature to enact the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) which had now been in effect for over 10 years, patterned after the federal law enacted in 1965 with the principal exception being the federal law required a district to have 51 percent or more minority residents while the California law allowed for the establishment of liability when there were only influence districts. This meant although the minority community might not make up the majority itself, if there was a black/brown coalition (for example), they could make up a district recognized under California law. He added California law promoted coalition building in a way that the federal law did not and although influence districts were not prohibited under federal law, they were not appreciated. District elections, he pointed out, in addition to promoting good government principles, brought government closer to the people. Voters had easier access to elected officials in a district system and it also promoted the candidacy of less affluent, often times minority candidates who could afford to run under that system. There were other alternatives to at -large elections; i.e., special elections, single transfer of vote, and main choice voting such as in San Francisco with candidates ranked in order by voters. Similar to main choice, he reported, cumulative voting promoted minority communities when districts would not work and the minority voters could elect a candidate of their choice. Mr. Jose Paz, Compton Deputy City Attorney, had defended the city of Compton against a lawsuit claiming a violation of the CVRA relating to Latino voters being unable to elect a candidate of their choice; he provided the city's population was at 100,000. Mr. Paz remarked the CVRA talked about the need to prove racially polarized voting, and also spoke to the question of impairment of the ability to protect the vote or the inability to influence a particular political outcome. The court of appeals wanted to understand exactly what the plaintiff had to prove to avail. He added because litigation took place in the context of a particular relationship, inevitably issues of ethnicity arose. Compton was founded as a predominantly white community and in the 50's and 60's, the African American community rose to power. More recently there was an influx in the Latino community and today, Compton was predominantly Latino although the percentage of registered voters in the city was still principally African American, a situation he pointed that that was probably true in many other cities. Compton's council members were all African Americans; however, a couple of members had some Latino heritage. He added one Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2012 Page 3 of 10 of Compton's recently elected councilwomen had a grandmother indigenous to Spain and within the context of the litigation, the city was told the council did not have an elected Latino official. Part of the difficulty encountered with the statute, was that despite the fact the city was ready to identify Latinos on the basis of surname, it was not prepared to acknowledge that Councilwoman Zorita was a Latino and they relied on the fact that she was not self- identified as an Hispanic. He added that if you look at what the statute recommended, not what it said, then you attempt to determine whether or not particular ethnic groups were represented. According to the census bureau's definition, Mr. Paz remarked, if a person was descended from Latinos, they were considered Latinos. Because Council Member Zorita had a Spanish grandmother, the city's presumption was that she was Spanish; however, the city was told no because she did not self- identify, thus she was not a Latina. That problem, he added, had one side arguing one thing and the other side arguing a different thing and the courts did not determine what jurisdictions should consider. Apart from that, he explained, and because the city of Compton was a charter city, a fundamental question had never been addressed which was whether or not the CVRA applied in its full affect to elections conducted by the city as a charter city enjoyed a substantial amount of latitude in the way it conducted full elections. He indicated Compton argued that because it was a charter city and because CVRA did not rise to the level of a constitutional provision that it might not apply to the city. He added the trial court was unmoved by that argument and Compton looked to the court of appeals on other arguments. Compton historically had low voter turnouts and analyses conducted by the plaintiffs' attorneys on the city's elections determined a minority group tended to vote differently from the majority ethnic group. Latinos said they were unable to vote into office a candidate of their choice. He remarked looking past the statistics and at the raw number of voters that came to the polls, the inability to elect a candidate could have been a likely function of the low voter turnout. In council's experience, the voter turnout was on the order of less than 10 percent and yet, he pointed out, these conclusions were being drawn about the validity of Compton's electoral system. In October, Compton received a demand letter stating that after having certain election analyses, plaintiff's counsel was convinced Compton was in conflict with CVRA and gave the city ten days in which to either change the election system or be sued. Changing the election system in 10 days was not possible since it had to go to a vote of the people, as a charter city. The letter was followed shortly by an attempt to preclude the April election from going forward which was the election in which Councilwoman Zorita took office, followed by protracted litigation in which every member of the council except the mayor was deposed. The plaintiffs explored how resources for the city were allocated among different festivities, whether more was apportioned to Martin Luther King Day versus the Caesar Chavez celebration, whether the Parks and Recreation Department earmarked more funds to soccer leagues than to baseball or basketball groups as well as intrusive questions regarding heritage and ethnicity of other city employees. And as a practical matter, he added, the cost of litigation was an important consideration for the city. Ultimately, he explained, Compton entered into a settlement and put the decision to a vote of the people. The voter turnout was slightly higher than other elections with the vote to change the at -large system to a district system prevailing. Mr. Rubin responded he was aware of the practical implications for the law and took pride on working with jurisdictions before being forced into litigation as a last resort. He added this law had been on the books since 2001 and any litigation was the result of jurisdictions noncompliance to comply with the law. Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2012 Page 4 of 10 Mr. Douglas interjected that one point mentioned in the press was the Santa Ana model in which there were districts in which council members resided, but were elected at large. He wondered if that was protection from any potential litigation under CVRA violations. Mr. Rubin responded residency districts were just another form of at -large elections and did not solve the underlying problem and would be in violation of the law if the minorities that were excluded constituted more than 50 percent of a jurisdiction's population. Mr. Paz answered that in several of Compton's elections, even though a Latino candidate did not prevail and in some instances did not run, there were occasions when the candidate of choice in the Latino community was actually the candidate that prevailed, which he pointed out, was part of the trouble when the analysis took place in the context of this type of lawsuit. The ethnic minority group and the ethnic majority group may have voted differently but in many of those elections, they voted in conformity with each other as in the example of Proposition 187, the immigration initiative, which passed overwhelmingly and was voted similarly within the Compton African American community and Latino community. The difficulty with the analysis that took place was determining the electoral outcomes to say they voted differently and therefore the city had racially polarized voting. Dr. Peter Morrison of Peter E. Morrison and Associates was introduced, a retired leading demographer from Rand Corporation in 2005, he had been the founding director of the Rand Population Research Center, earned his degree in Sociology from Dartmouth and a PhD in Sociology /Demography from Brown University. He also constructed or evaluated numerous proposed redistricting plans throughout California and also made presentations on demographic aspects of redistricting to members of the staff of the U.S. House of Representatives, the subcommittee on the census to the County Counsels of California, and the California and National League of Cities. Mr. Morrison would discuss the pros and cons of at -large versus districting selections including how each option could negatively or positively impact minority voting strengths. Dr. Morrison remarked Hispanic numbers had grown steadily throughout the United States, especially in California and that growth manifested in different ways in different communities. There were various ways to give voice to minority electorates and strategies for one or another group, whether they were Latinos, African Americans, or Asian Americans, and to translate their growing numbers over time into an effective political presence. He reported there were basically two alternative election systems, an at -large system in which you have a number of council members and every eligible voter in the community had an opportunity to vote on who got elected or the district system in which it was recognized that some groups were more heavily concentrated residentially forming neighborhoods for cultural reasons. He added there were different patterns of spatial settlement in California with Asian Americans tending to spread evenly over a community in general and Latinos tending to concentrate in certain parts of a community. In a district election, if a group was concentrated in a particular area, a district boundary was drawn where that group was heavily concentrated, and in that area, he explained, that group would be a majority of the total population. It could also be a majority of the population of the group eligible to vote or even a majority of voters who registered and turned out. In that one district, that group was enabled to determine who was elected and they could elect their candidate of choice, whoever that may be. Dr. Morrison stated both federal VRA and CVRA emphasized using single member districts in order to undo the injustices that had been inherited from the past; in the first case with African Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2012 Page 5 of 10 Americans in the southeast and currently when a particular group was deemed to be disenfranchised. A key long -term consideration that stood out when comparing these two methods was that each method could be used as a strategy for empowering one's group if the demographics were favorable to it and if it was used in the appropriate way. A long -term consideration here, he further explained, was with an at -large system in which everyone voted together and considered issues that were community -wide concerns. By dividing territory into districts, an "us first" mentality was encouraged and while that may be the best way to go forward, some of the cohesiveness in the community could be lost. He pointed out that in very small cities, there was a reluctance to change to district -based elections for this reason, as the feeling was that the city was one community. For a large city, these kinds of convergent interests could arise dependent on the composition of the population. Dr. Morrison stated he had seen Latinos convert their numerical presence in a city into a political force under both an at -large and district system. He had seen it occur in an at -large system where in combination with increasing numbers of Latinos there was a degree of political mobilization on the part of the Latino community that recognized they were a majority population which would increase in the future. The same methodology could apply to African Americans as well and sometimes that political force took the form that the group may not be a majority but was recognized as the largest plurality group in the city and attention should be paid to them. One of the long -term considerations, Dr. Morrison remarked, was the demography of a community. For example, he indicated there could be a growing community with an influx of Latinos, many of them immigrants, many non - citizens and while these numbers would afford the group possibilities, it would also set limits. Many of those Latinos could be under the age of 18 and many could be non - citizens and the numbers could therefore be deceptive. He cautioned about drawing a district around the heaviest Spanish concentration because there may not be as many voting eligible Latinos as in other parts of the city, where there may be second generation Latinos who were now being relegated to other districts and would have their votes submerged into a non - Hispanic population. He pointed out this was why it was important to have someone analyze the demography and assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of each jurisdiction. Some of the advantages of having an at -large election system, he pointed out, were lower election costs, giving voice to community -wide interests, each voter choosing all of the council members and each council member answering to all residents and lastly, not having to go through a politically difficult redistricting process. For election by district, the advantages were that it was easier and less costly to run for office, it would give greater voice to local area interest and could foster increased minority representation. Darcy Kuenzi, City of Menifee, was introduced. She was elected to a four year term in 2008 to Menifee, one of the four newest cities in California, a 50 square mile city with a population of 80,000. Ms. Kuenzi worked for Riverside County Supervisor Marian Ashley as policy advisor for 11 years and would share her background and experience as a councilmember that struggled with the issue of at -large vs. redistricting and ultimately voted on by Menifee residents several times. Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2012 Page 6 of 10 Ms. Kuenzi reported that in 2008, with the first city election, the ballot measured required asking residents how they wanted to conduct future elections for council members. There were several questions on the ballot: what do you want to call the city, do you want to be a city, and how do you want to elect your future council members, followed by a list of 23 candidates, for five council positions. Residents were split on whether to vote at large or by district elections for their council members. Ms. Kuenzi added that other cities which incorporated before Menifee faced the same requirement; some chose district elections and then held a later election asking their voters to again qualify at large or by district. Subsequently she advised, cities ended up choosing at -large elections. She remarked it was a complicated question and each city must determine what it was trying to accomplish by this choice. In some cases, it reflected legal purposes, in some it was because the city was directed to ask the question and in other cases it was because residents circulated a petition because they wanted that form of government. After Menifee's initial election in 2008, it was found that residents did not understand the differences in the two choices offered. A blue ribbon panel consisting of nine residents studied the issue and reported back to council on how to proceed as a new city. There was a consultant hired to facilitate the panel and to establish principles of what they were trying to accomplish. The highest priority principle identified was to create a council with a citywide focus, followed by economic growth and development, insuring fair representation, providing for efficient and equitable allocation of resources, encouraging long -term growth, making every vote count, increasing the city's influence in the region, and promoting a broad range of candidates. As a council member, Ms. Kuenzi remarked, she wanted to know what the residents wanted, how they wanted to be governed, did they want a citywide focus or separate representation, and were they concerned with not having access to their officials or preferred one person to contact as in a district form of government? Those questions, she commented, could only be determined by the community and its council members. For Menifee, it was a philosophical question as there was a strong group of voters that said even though the initial election voted for districts by a small margin, the will of the people should be honored. Others remarked that most voters did not understand what government by districts meant, and the council was divided and torn politically. Ultimately another ballot moved forward and today Menifee had four districts and a separately elected mayor. She added district elections had changed council's decision - making process as constituents were only accountable to one segment of the population. She added government provided basic general services to every resident in the city, and the allocation of resources by district was important. Staff now had to try to balance the needs of the political will that was now divided into five separate areas and she could see how it would impact budget decisions over the long -term as there might be a district that was more affluent than others with many resources who felt they deserved more of those resources than a less affluent district. Mayor Tait asked how Compton's litigation was resolved. Mr. Paz responded that plaintiff's counsel was told Compton was a charter city and would not stipulate to enter into a judgment by court order. Compton requested to put the issue on the ballot in June and if it did not pass to put it on the ballot in November to get the electorate involved in voting. Voting by district passed in June by a substantial majority, he stated. Council Member Murray asked what the core differences were between the federal VRA and the California Act. She also asked whether under CVRA, were all the methods outlined during this presentation available for cities such as the residency district. Mr. Rubin responded the residency district was susceptible to legal challenge because they had the potential for diluting Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2012 Page 7 of 10 minority votes. If there was a finding of liability that the voters voted in a racially polarized manner which defeated the candidates of choice in a minority community, the community was entitled to a remedy and the court could order an alternative system to the existing at -large system which was typically a district system. If it was determined there was no racially polarized voting, then the at -large system would be acceptable. In recent years, he added, there was a move to go to modified at- large systems such as cumulative voting, in which five votes could be voted in any manner. A voter could vote five times for one candidate. The reason that system was acceptable was for a displaced population, in which a district could not be drawn to create a minority district geographically. He added rank choice voting could be an acceptable form as well. As to the core differences between the federal and California voting rights act, there were three pre- conditions to be established under federal law with 8 -10 factors that would also have to be considered including whether the community had candidates that won or lost. Those three pre- conditions was to show that the minority community voted cohesively, that the majority of the community voted in a manner similarly as a racial bloc, and that the racially polarized voting diluted the voting power of the minority community. Under state law, he explained, the minority community did not need to demonstrate they could establish a minority district; it was enough that they establish an influence district (less than 50 percent) or a coalition district (40/15 percent). Mr. Rubin added that districts reflected segregated housing and in coalition districts there were two groups working together which did not require racial isolation. With no further discussion between the panel and council, Mayor Tait opened public comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Seferino Garcia, formerly with Soledad Action Organization, supported district voting for Anaheim, remarking Latinos had been disenfranchised for several years. He inquired if charter cities were subject to the voting rights act with the response given that the outcome was in contention as in at least two instances, the argument for charter cities had been accepted. Thomas Holquin, resident, urged council to go forward with redistricting as it would equitably provide for good representation in the city. He suggested adding additional council member seats for the districting system and retaining the at -large system for the mayoral seat. Following a question relating to the existing litigation by Mr. Holquin, City Attorney Cristina Talley cautioned council on discussing pending litigation or questions specifically addressing Anaheim. William Fitzgerald, Anaheim Home, recommended expanding the council from five to seven members and to enact an ordinance placing a small admission tax on entry to Disneyland. Mitchell Caldwell remarked that in 1977 Latinos were nominated and placed on boards and commissions for the city and established a Noches de Gracias (Night of Thanks) when that occurred. He was offended that the basis of the current suit against the city was racist, stating Anaheim was not and had never been racist. Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2012 Page 8 of 10 Bradley Daniels, Colony District, was also offended by racist remarks emphasizing that each member of this council had done good works citywide and districting would take away that small town community sentiment. Maria Guzman, central district, supported districting stating representatives should reflect the population of a city and districting could have the ability to distribute economic resources throughout the city. Arturo Cabrillo, supported districting to allow for a closer relationship with leaders that represented the community, to provide geographic fairness and diversity and also for an effective focus on the needs of the entire community. Catherine Smith, resident, remarked she lived in a county island and had no representation at the local level and asked how was the formula for drawing districts applied. Mr. Rubin responded districts were drawn in terms of population; the city would be divided into more or less equally populated geographical pieces adjusting for freeways or rivers. The statute referred to equal population in each district. John Santoianni, supported district elections. He inquired if the voters approved districts in Anaheim, would that apply to the school boards as well. The answer given was each entity would hold a different election and any change in Anaheim's electoral system must be approved by the voters required as a charter city. Craig Ferrell, resident, supported at -large elections, remarking there had never been a council in Anaheim that made decisions on prejudicial cultural issues. Maria Rivera, resident, supported district elections, as they would provide a city leader that would pay more attention to a community who were trying to effect changes for the better and make it easier to achieve those goals. Erica Sanchez, supported district elections as most council members did not understand the needs of low income residents, and a district - elected leader would understand and be more accessible to the community. Marisol Ramirez, student, remarked she had been raised in poverty in a predominantly Latino community and the city council of Anaheim had never reflected the look of her neighborhood. Changing to a district election system would insure less affluent neighborhoods counted. Mr. Haywood, resident, was undecided, but expressed his main concern was the loss of opportunity to vote for the overall composition of the council to insure it was comprised of individuals who could work together for solutions to citywide issues. Elaine Nunez, Islamic Shore Council of Southern California and west Anaheim resident, remarked there was a federation of over 70 mosques, two based in Anaheim, and several in neighboring cities whose congregation lived and worked in Anaheim. Those residents, she added, lacked services and representation in Anaheim and for those reasons, she supported districting. Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2012 Page 9 of 10 Ms. Rivera, resident, offered examples of how low- income residents lacked the ability to work towards positive changes in their community and believed that districting would allow residents of every area of the city to be well represented and have a voice that could be heard. Martin Lopez, resident, strongly supported district elections as he had witnessed the disparity of resources for his community. Creating districts would increase representation, responsiveness, and provide an opportunity to run for office making it less costly to run a campaign. Antonia, resident, stated she had recently graduated from CSULB but was undocumented and therefore could not vote. She felt strongly that districting would help her community and even though she could not vote, she could involve the community on the issue. Maria Sagrias, resident, remarked her west Anaheim neighborhood felt excluded and needed fair representation which was why she fully supported districting. Stephanie LaCruz, Anaheim High school alumni, stated she had never seen a presentation in her community and supported district elections as her right to have just representation. Christopher Sanchez, North Orange County Community District, remarked that during his term, he had the privilege of redistricting the communities into by- trustee election areas and that information and process was available to any interested party. Dan Hernandez, resident, expressed his support of a district system to bring about a more diverse council makeup. Elaine Procco, resident, remarked she had seen the mayor and council persons involved in all parts of the community and with neighborhood councils in place and various contacts available in every aspect of city government, every community had an opportunity to pose a question or concern. Adriana, resident of Magnolia /Ball community, was a strong supporter of district based elections, stating her community lacked many resources and needed a greater diversity of elected officials that mirrored her neighborhood. Concepcion Rodriguez remarked she was asking for representation, not for a handout, and she felt the current council was too divided. Keith Olsen, resident, remarked Congress was a prime example of a non - functioning district based electoral system and he would rather have five council members accountable to him, rather than one, adding that geography did not determine leadership, character did. An unidentified individual remarked while the current makeup of the council may reside in Anaheim Hills, historically the city had diverse elected officials from areas across Anaheim and supported the at -large system. Maria del Rosales, resident, supported district elections and the opportunity to have a representative who would understand the reality of people living together in small spaces and to listen to concerns. Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2012 Page 10 of 10 Alejandra, community organizer and resident, stated government should mirror the community and the lawsuit was a civil rights issue that should be addressed for the future of the city. An unidentified speaker remarked that the voting system had to change now. Report on Closed Session Action: None Council Communications: Each of the council members thanked the panel for sharing their knowledge with the community recommending any related materials be available for residents to review as well as information from the workshop. Council Member Galloway remarked there had been several comments, in print and orally, emphasizing there was no Latino representation on the Anaheim City Council, an erroneous assumption as her father was 100 percent Latino. Mayor Tait closed the workshop, thanking the panel and the public for their insightful questions and comments on a complicated issue. ADJOURNMENT: With no other business to conduct, Mayor Tait adjourned the meeting at 7:51 P.M. Re a ully submitted, Linda N. Andal, CIVIC City Clerk