Statement on Tentative CVRA Decision
November 13, 2018
SANTA MONICA, Calif. – “We received today the court’s tentative ruling. We are disappointed that it contains no reasoning in support of the court’s decision, which we believe is based on an unjustified adoption of the plaintiffs’ misguided and unsupported view of the law. In accordance with the court’s order, we will file briefing on the issue of remedies. Once the court’s ruling is final, we plan to appeal, which will allow the California Court of Appeal to address the significant legal issues of
- Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The City believes that continuing to fight the lawsuit is appropriate for a number of reasons, including:
First, as the closing briefs make clear, the trial
Second, as the closing briefs also make clear, a shift to districts will not meaningfully enhance Latino voting power or Latino political representation. It is impossible to draw a district in which Latino voters would form a majority. Under the districting scheme proposed by plaintiffs, Latinos would constitute only 30% of the voters in the most highly Latino district. In this proposed district, the evidence at trial showed that most Latino-preferred (and Latino) candidates would have fared no better than they did at-large. At the same time, concentrating Latino voters within a single district would leave Latino voters outside that district (the majority of Latino voters in Santa Monica) submerged in overwhelmingly white districts.
Third, Santa Monica voters have chosen the current at-large system for reasons that make sense. Santa Monica voters have twice rejected proposals to move to district-based elections, in 1975 and 2002. A district system may work well in larger cities like Los Angeles, but dividing up Santa Monica’s 8.3-square-mile community would pit neighborhood against neighborhood, encouraging legislative
Court’s Tentative Ruling – Tentative ruling by the court.