CAC 20121213_Presentation_CityofVistaPRESENTATION BY WAYNE DERNETZ
SE THE - 0 -- if
ON ELECTIONS AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
December 13, 2012
In the summer of 2003, the population of the City of Vista numbered just
116U
anniversary. Vista, at the time, was a general law city with a directly elected
mayor and four councilmembers elected at-large. According to the 2000 Census,
forty percent of the population identified themselves as ethnic Latino. In all of its
, ,1 0-year history, and in spite of its large minority ethnic population, no Latino had
ever been elected to the City Council.
Over the years, several Latino residents had participated on various City
commissions; a few had run for City Council, but none had been successful. Local
and regional newspapers commented on the absence of Latino candidates in
In that summer of 2003, the City of Vista received a letter from the U.S.
possible violation of Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 2
contains a general prohibition on voting discrimination, enforced through federal
court litigation. A 1982 amendment to Section 2 prohibited any voting practice or
procedure that has a discriminatory result.
The news came as a shock to the community. The first question asked by
City officials and residents alike was, "Why?" On the assumption that a person or
discrimination, the initial reaction was anger and denial. It took a while and some
persuasion to dispel the notion that the investigation was the product of some
anonymous complaint, and to convince the Mayor and City Council that violations
MEMM
Proving discriminatory intent had nothing to do with finding that a violation
IMINTI IM III III, Ii 111 1 1 IIIIN XMIRTNU =*- •
registration rolls, voting patterns in prior elections, and demographics. That
mattered was not the City's intent, but the ethnicity, citizenship, and age of the
City's residents in each voting precinct.
The necessary element for a violation was simply a finding that there
existed within the City a single voting precinct in which a majority of minority
persons, in this case ethnic Latinos, were eligible to vote. If that finding could be
made, the DoJ would file an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief
2
requiring Vista to abandon its at-large method of electing council members and
establish electoral council districts, with at least one district containing a majority
of ethnic minority voters.
Not to keep you in suspense, let me cut to the chase. In response to the
notice of investigation from the DoJ, Vista hired an attorney specializing in voting
community demographics and voting patterns. The City contacted the DoJ,
promised them full cooperation with the investigation, and informed them it
Additionally, the City Council formed an ad hoc Citizens Advisory Committee to
investigate ways of, "promoting the full participation of all ethnic and racial
0- M-IRITIM
As a result of its independent study, Vista was able to establish the critical
demographic that there was no voting precinct within the community in which
there was a majority of ethnic minority potential voters. It found, instead, that
the Latino population of the City — those who were eligible to vote, that is U.S.
citizens who were 18 or older — were well-dispersed throughout the community.
Those findings were presented to the DoJ and, after a period of review, the
investigation was dropped. Vista avoided a finding of violation of the federal [a
through a demographic analysis of its voter-eligible citizenry.
There are several reasons peculiar to Vista that account for the
struck down the majority-minority rule under Section 2.
IM pill =1�1�111 11� 11111 Moplill 1 11 Ing
14032) does not rely on the same majority-minority voting district test as did the
federal law, In other words, Vita's experience does not provide any comfort to
the California Voting Rights Act.
The California law, as has been discussed, is much more stringent and its
remedies are more specific. Section 14027 of the California Voting Rights Act is
key. It states:
W
protected class [in Section 14028].
III pill IIIIIII II I 111� III 1 111111 111 1111 111 111111
(or ethnically) polarized voting occurs in an election for members of the governing
lqjillIlijjll�i 1111111111, 11 :111 111111��1111� 11
election in which at least one candidate is a member of protected class, as
determined by an analysis of voting behavior. A relevant fact that may be used to
demonstrate racially polarized voting, "is the extent to which candidates who are
members of a protected class and who are preferred by voters of the protected
class ... have been elected to the governing body. . . .' And, specifically, "the
fact that members of a protected class are not geographically compact or
I =1
ke a factor in determining an appropriate remedy." And finally, "Proof of an
intent on the part of the voters or elected officials to discriminate against a
protected class is not required."
However, Vista"s experience may provide other useful assistance to
Anaheim. Vista's Citizens Advisory Committee, formed by the City Council
residents, They were tasked to explore and recommend ways in which
5
voter participation by ethnic and racial minorities in the community could
be enhanced. They were told to report back by December, 2003. In that
percentage of eligible Latino voters in the community were registered to
I I SERUM I I I I I
Council recommended the establishment of a "'Community Outreach
Committee," to promote voter registration and voter participation among
the Latino community.
The Outreach Committee, consisting of seven members of whom
six were ethnic Latino long-term residents, was established in March,
September, 2004, the Outreach Committee concluded their report which
recommended that the at-large method of electing council members be
retained by the City, along with the at-large election of the mayor, but
that the City should undertake specific programs to educate Latino voters
and to encourage their participation in the municipal elections.
employee from the Latino community to undertake voter education and
participation training. Working closely with Latino leadership throughout
the community, the City staff developed and implemented a number of
IRTFIREIRRI iiiiiiiiiiiiii I M
lill I 111111113il , ; 11 1; 1
discuss current City issues and to allow local residents to voice their
concerns. The City Council backed these efforts with renewed interest in
providing enhanced law enforcement services, recreation, park and other
public improvements within the Latin® neighborhoods.
This approach paid off. In the very next municipal election, the
City's first Latino council member, a candidate who had run unsuccessfully
in three prior elections, was elected at-large. A few years later, a second
Latino council member was elected.
Clearly, the experience of facing Department of Justice investigation, and
the accompanying negative publicity, awakened the community from its lethargy
and apathy. As a result of the City's efforts, not only did voter registration among
the eligible Latino residents increase, but so did their participation rate in the
municipal elections. And, one would like to believe, non-Latino voters had found
a new tolerance for candidates of a different ethnic background. It is this part of
the Vista experience that I think would benefit Anaheim, regardless of the
outcome of the current legal challenge.
in Anaheim, two things stand out. First, the voter participation rate was a very
low 45%, compared to the overall voter turnout in Orange County of 67.3%. One
11 1111��Ijriip:�i
votes cast for city council candidates (136,379) by the number of open seats, in
this case two. The result (68,1,90) approximates the number of actual voters
voting in the municipal election. Then divide this number by the total number of
registered voters to determine the voter participation rate, which in this case was
45.0%.
111111111ilpill
ballot" election races in a presidential or gubernatorial election, a 45%
participation rate should be a matter of concern. It indicates that fewer than half
the registered voters in Anaheim are participating in the municipal city council
The second notable factor about the recent election results is the number
III Wil 1� I 11� I III �11 ��� I I III I �W ;�I�IIIJII
IIIII] IRIII I IF 11111 11111111111! illime,
l ilIIIIIIIII q
were elected, the next three candidates in order of the number of votes received
a r t , M
a large plurality of more than 25% between second and third place, compared to
the slight margin of difference between the first and second place candidates of
only 3.4%.
And when the total votes cast for all five Latino candidates are added
together, the total number of votes received by them is less than the total
difference in total votes cast for Latino and non-Latino candidates is nearly 8,000
votes; In other words, the four non-Latino candidates received 12.4% more votes
in total than the five Latino candidates.
It is not clear what to make of these apparent disparities in voter
participation between Latino and non-Latino candidates. But in a community in
which of 53% of the population is Latino, it is certain to draw attention, All other
things being equal, one would expect a different result. Any of several reasons
Alternatively, Latino candidates may actually prefer voting for non-Latino
determined, nor can appropriate remedies be identified. In any case, these low
voter participation rates in Anaheim's municipal elections, and the disparity in
voting results for Latino and non-Latino candidates, are indicators of some
problems between the city government and its residents.
It would serve Anaheim's interest to undertake its own investigation of the
likely causes for these voting anomalies. This can be accomplished by comparing
Census tract data for ethnicity and race, age and citizenship, to precinct voter
registration records, as was done in Vista. When considering whether district
elections would be more beneficial for the community than the present at-large
elections, you need to know more than just the ratio of the ethnic minority
minorities who are qualified to vote by citizenship and age.
10
Simply changing from at-large elections to by district elections is not a
panacea. If significant and chronically low rates of Latino voting participation are
found to exist, the mere establishment of voting by district may not solve the
problem. But outreach programs, such as those undertaken in Vista, can improve
; I ll I Ill liilli;�ll�p
a.
winning elections, even with an at-large electoral system.
Take, for example, the City of Chula Vista, near San Diego, This city of
11211 � ir 1110111 �Pi mill Pill 11 �ilill' I I
I FITIN 111111 17-M "T I �': U... I W 4 111 ;=nl I I I I I
Anaheim. Traditionally, Chula Vista's mayor and city council members all are
elected at-large. Yet two of the four council members currently serving are
Latino. A significant difference between Chula Vista and Anaheim municipal
elections is the voter participation rate. In the November, 2012 municipal
election, Chula Vista's voter participation rate was over 60% compared to the 45%
participation rate in Anaheim. By the way, at the November 6. 2012 election,
Chula Vista voters approved a charter amendment changing from at-large
elections to elections by district by 2016.
11
So, here are some takeaway points I would offer. First, under the California
I I! a � M PT rMT&TATITSWIT, I f W-1 I i I � � � I i I 1 1 :
Latino and non-Latino candidates, there is a distinct possibility that Anaheim may
be required to abandon its at-large city council elections in favor of a by-district
voting system for electing its city council members.
Second, merely changing from at-large to by-district elections does not
guarantee that Latino candidates will be elected if there are very low voting
M 0
Third, regardless of whether the at-large method of electing council
members is preserved, or the by-district. method is imposed, undertaking an
analysis of the likely causes of low voter participation in Anaheim would enable
the City and the community to work together toward addressing these concerns
in meaningful and effective ways. Such an approach will benefit both the City and
the community.
12