Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutShenkman & Hughes Letter Re: Violation of California Voting (2) •�����Ti�cro CITY 0 F ,o:A_ "`� 94 ✓°F= HUNTINGTON BEACH \ • `6eVi TV GP�ioQl, Relea et Date:JenniMarchfer r7Y202 Public Affairs Manager- (714) 352-1690 I City of Huntington Beach Issues Response Defending Voter Rights Today, Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael Gates sent the attached letter to Kevin I. Shenkman of Shenkman & Hughes located in Malibu, California. The attached letter is in response to correspondence received by the City on January 25, 2024 from Mr. Shenkman alleging that the City's current form of elections disenfranchises Latino voters. Further, Mr. Shenkman threatens to sue the City if it does not convert its form of elections from at-large to by-district. In the City's response, the City Attorney made clear that pursuant to City Council direction, the City will not convert to by-district elections and will aggressively defend itself from any threats or lawsuits. The City's letter clearly details the facts showing that the City's at-large elections are not racially polarizing, and Latino candidates are very successful in Huntington Beach. According to the City's analysis, a by-district form of elections would not provide any additional benefit to the Latino population in the City, nor would it assist Latino candidates in ensuring added success. On the contrary, a by-district system would demonstrably cripple the impact an individual voter has on citywide policy and input. This change would reduce a voter's ability to vote for all seven Council Members in elections every two years, to voting for one Council Member in elections every four years. While other cities may be converting to by-district elections in the face of threats like these from attorney Kevin I. Shenkman, the Huntington Beach City Council is set to defend the City's current system that provides all voters, Latinos alike, the right to vote for every elected official in every election. Huntington Beach Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark, a Latina herself, stated, "this is nothing more than another fight from an outsider who seeks to fundamentally change Huntington Beach. Like our fights on housing with the State, we will continue to fight aggressively to preserve our way of life in Huntington Beach, including preserving our form of elections. I am 100% Latina and I won in a landslide in 2022 because I worked hard during my campaign. I can tell you having met with thousands of voters, the community in Huntington Beach is gracious, generous, and my ethnicity was never an issue. Huntington Beach is proud, I know, to have its first Latina Mayor and I am proud to be Mayor. Huntington Beach is under these attacks because frankly, we do things right and we are the best City to live in. We care about our community, we will fight to protect them, and we will not roll over to mandates from outsiders." Attachment: 2024 Letter Shenkman ## media aasurfcity-hb.orq I 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA 92648 I www.huntingtonbeachca.gov Nadin S.Said CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Sr.Deputy City Attorney /G\\*** f' Charles"Connor"Hyland * * `� OFFICE Sr.Deputy City Attorney 5 r }' Nick Papajohn I _�?' Sr.Deputy City Attorney Z a ,\, \� ^. of the Peggy Z.Huang CITY ATTORNEY Sr.Deputy City Attorney /j‘ Is! \t‘ ` Lauren L.Rose Deputy City Attorney 2000 Main Street,4th Floor Derek G.Bredefeld Michael E. Gates Huntington Beach,California 92648 Deputy City Attorney Direct:(714)536 5555 Steven F.Pomeroy City AttorneyCommunity Prosecutor Paige Cavendish Community Prosecutor March 7,2024 Kevin I. Shenkman Shenkman&Hughes 28905 Wight Road Malibu, CA 90265 kshenkman@shenkmanhughes.com Re: City's Response to January 25, 2024,Shenkman Letter re California Voting Rights Act Mr. Shenkman: This letter serves as a response to your letter dated January 25, 2024, demanding the City of Huntington Beach ("City") change its at-large form of electing Council Members to a by-district election system. As you know, this is not our first encounter. You sent a similar letter on April 5, 2017, demanding that the City change its at-large system to a by-district system. You know that your April 5, 2017, letter("First Letter")was met with a stern response from the City and a refusal to capitulate to your demands. Seven years later,you're making the same demand —identical to the last. Since your January 25, 2024, letter ("Second Letter") is essentially a copy of your First Letter, my May 18,2017,Response Letter to you is relevant today. First,unlike the other cities you have intimidated,the City of Huntington Beach's Charter is unique, clear, and contains precisely the express authority that the California Constitution provides for in local control over elections. City Charter: Section 103: "The City shall have the power to make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to such restrictions and limitations as may be provided in this Charter or in the Constitution of the State of California." Re: City's Response: Violation of California Voting Rights Act March 7,2024 Page 2 Section 104:"The general grant of power to the City under this Charter shall be construed broadly in favor of the City. The specific provisions enumerated in this Charter are intended to be and shall be interpreted as limitations upon the general grant of power and shall be construed narrowly..." Section 300:"The elective officers of the City shall consist of a City Council of seven members, a City Clerk, a City Treasurer and a City Attorney, all to be elected from the City at large at the times and in the manner provided in this Charter and who shall serve for terms of four years and until their respective successors qualify..."(emphasis added) California Constitution,Article XI: Section 5(b):."It shall be competent in all city charters to provide, in addition to those provisions allowable by this Constitution,and by the laws of the State for: (1)the constitution,regulation, and government of the city police force(2)subgovernment in all or part of a city (3) conduct of city elections and..." (emphasis added) In addition, your knowledge of the City is wrong. Your Second Letter makes the same unsupported contentions that the City's elections somehow creates a"racially polarized" voting scheme that disenfranchises "Latino"voters. You suggest that the City's at-large system dilutes the ability of Latinos,a"protected class,"to elect candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of City elections. As you will see, the facts do not support your contentions. In fact, Latino candidates are incredibly successful in the City of Huntington Beach and have been elected to City Council at-large. Here are just a few facts that,upon reading your Second Letter,seem to have been lost. • In 2018, Council Member,Devin Dwyer,was elected with 33,593 votes. He is half Latino. • In 2020, Mayor Pro Tern,Tito Ortiz,was elected to City Council with 42,246 votes. He is 100%Latino. • In 2020, candidate, Gracey Van Der Mark, while not elected,placed 4th overall out of fifteen candidates with 23,365 votes. She is 100%Latina. • In 2020,candidate,Oscar Rodriguez,while not elected,placed 5th overall out of fifteen candidates with 21,696 votes. He is 100%Latino. • In 2022,Mayor,Gracey Van Der Mark,was elected to City Council with 33,833 votes. Again, 100%Latina. Re: - City's Response: Violation of California Voting Rights Act March 7, 2024 Page 3 ■ In 2022, candidate, Oscar Rodriguez, while not elected, placed 8th overall out of eighteen candidates with 18,602 votes. Oscar Rodriguez was specifically mentioned in your Second Letter as having been"heavily favored by Latino voters but lost..." A demographics/elections review shows the opposite, i.e., that Mr. Rodriguez was not "heavily favored"in Latino majority precincts in 2022. Mr.Rodriguez placed 4th or higher in only,two precincts where there is a Latino majority. In the other four precincts where there is a Latino majority, Mr. Rodriguez placed 7th in two of those precincts and placed 8th in the other two —not materially different from his 8th place finish in the overall vote tally. Clearly,if your hypothesis is correct, Mr. Rodriguez would have ranked among the top four vote-getters in all Latino majority precincts. A review shows the opposite, that Latinos in Huntington Beach preferred other candidates over Mr. Rodriguez. In addition,there are also clear variations in results between a Gubernatorial Election cycle and a Presidential Election cycle—as the turnout in the City tends to fluctuate anywhere from 50%of election participation by registered voters(usually in the Gubernatorial cycle) to nearly 85% participation by registered voters (usually in the Presidential cycle). Moreover, there are clear variations among Council candidates in their campaigns. Some campaigns reach tens of thousands of voters, while others only reach thousands. Some candidates raise money and send mass mailers,other campaigns do not. For example, Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark, as seen in the Attachments, ran a robust campaign in 2022 boasting over 110"meet and greet"campaign events—meeting face-to- face with thousands of voters. She also displayed over 100 large 4'x8'full-color campaign signs throughout the City in public view--and her large signs included a photo of her face. She also sent out multiple direct-mail pieces to over 50,000 voters, she was on slates, she distributed thousands and thousands of"walk cards" directly to homes, and more. All of Mayor Van Der Mark's campaign materials included her color photo. See Attachments. Mayor Van Der Mark was neither hidden nor covert about her Latina identity. She placed her image on every piece of her campaign materials,and she met with thousands of voters face-to-face on the campaign trail. Voters in the City saw her Latina identity everywhere. And,the Huntington Beach community voted for her in 2022 overwhelmingly. Tito Ortiz had a similar campaign in 2020 and saw similar results. Mr. Rodriguez,on the other hand, did not have nearly the robust campaign that Mayor Van Der Mark or Mr. Ortiz had, yet still placed at an impressive better than top 40% of the list of candidates in each of his elections. Re: City's Response: Violation of California Voting Rights Act March 7,2024 Page 4 In fact, in 2020, out of fifteen candidates in all, an impressive three Of the top five City Council candidates were Latino, i.e., Tito Ortiz, Gracey Van Der Mark, and Oscar Rodriguez. (See attached 2020 Election Results Tally.) Contrary to your 19.7%assertion,only 13%of eligible voters are of our Latino community — the vast majority of which (77% to be precise), do not live within a particularly concentrated area of the City — so modifying the City's method of electing Council Members such as going to election districts for instance, would be of no import or consequence. When reviewing demographic and historical voter information, the data reveals that the City of Huntington Beach has, unlike perhaps other cities, a fairly even racial "mix" across the City, such that no one racial group is I disproportionately disadvantaged in the election process. The demographics of the City of Huntington Beach is unlike all the other cities you have threatened to sue or filed suit against. In this City, only one census tract has more than a 40%Latino share as of the 2020 Census. As I alluded to above, four census tracts have a Latino share of 29.4% or more, with total Latino residents at 6,364 (3.2%) of the City population. Combined,the five census tracts have a Latino populationiof 11,615,which is 5.6%of the City population. Nearly three quarters(70.6%)of the Latino population lives in census tracts that are less than 30%Latino. Moreover,voting trends are similar between the City as a whole and the six precincts(five census tracts) with the largest Latino population shares. In each precinct, there is a correlation coefficient with the overall City vote ranking of the I candidates that is statistically significant at the 99% confidence level. In other words; there is plenty of evidence to refute any claim of racial block voting in Huntington Beach. More pointedly, this is evidence of the absence of voter dilution in the City. The City Attorney continues to disagree with your conclusions of law and your Second Letter again fails to state what relief your clients seek. By the way,Mr,Victor Valladeras, who you hold out to represent,has never run for City Council and has no experience with the claims that you make. With the support of the Mayor and City Council,we are prepared to vigorously defend any lawsuit brought by your clients. To be clear,the City is prepared to mount a defense using all available resources to affirm by the highest courts that the California Voting Rights Act ("CVRA")is unconstitutional as applied to the City of Huntington Beach. While this letter is not intended to reveal the City's defense strategy or provide all the legal theories the City has explored (and will continue to explore) and will advance if sued,the Re: City's Response: Violation of California Voting Rights Act March 7, 2024 Page 5 two recent California Court of Appeal cases and California Supreme Court case analyzing the CVRA that you cited are instructive and support the City's position. The case you cited,Jauregui v. City of Palmdale,provided some guidance with regard to the applicability of the CVRA to Charter Cities;the City of Pahndale case is not dispositive with regard to Huntington Beach. For example,notwithstanding recent amendments made to the Elections.Code, one of the factors left unaddressed by the Court of Appeal is the applicability of the CVRA to Charter Cities when the City has expressly adopted its voting scheme in its Charter as is the case in the City of Huntington Beach(see concurring opinion of Justice Mosk). In addition, the Court of Appeal made several references to the underlying facts of the case, that were not issues on appeal, and it appears the Court of Appeal would have considered these issues had they been further litigated. One such issue was the Superior Court's exclusion of certain evidence that may have been telling regarding whether there was in fact racially polarized voting. In addition to the "Home Rule" doctrine, the City of Palmdale case, did not present or resolve a number of other constitutional issues and therefore these are left unresolved by California or Federal courts. For example, the CVRA improperly places a clearly legislative process, i.e., determining a voting scheme for a jurisdiction, into the hands of the judiciary. The"Separation of Powers"doctrine, crucial to the Federal, State, and Local governance, is unconstitutionally disregarded by the CVRA. "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judicial in the same hands,whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."(James Madison,Federalist No. 51, 1788;among other authorities). It is the legislative branch of government that makes the law,including determining voting schemes and creating districts by determining through the legislative process district boundaries.The Courts on the other hand are tasked with interpreting and enforcing laws, not creating new laws(i.e.,how Charter Cities conduct elections) by judicial fiat. As you know,prior to Jauregui v. City of Palmdale,the California Court of Appeal decided a leading case with regard to the constitutionality of the CVRA;Sanchez v. City of Modesto. Notably and very importantly,the Court of Appeal in City of Modesto provided a road map to cities seeking to challenge the CVRA. The Court of Appeal specifically instructed(cities like Huntington Beach) that "[A]city may, however, use similar arguments to attempt to show as-applied invalidity later if liability is proven and a specific application or remedy is considered that warrants the attempt. For example, if the court entertains a remedy that uses race, such as a district-based election system in which race is a factor in establishing Re: City's Response: Violation of California Voting Rights Act March 7,2024 Page 6 district boundaries, defendants may again assert the weighty constitutional issues they have raised here."(Sanchez v. City of Modesto, (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 660, 665.) Most recently, in Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica (2023) 15 Cal.5th 292,the California Supreme Court did confirm that a minority group did not have to demonstrate that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a "majority-minority district" to establish vote dilution under the CVRA. (Id. at 320.) However, the Court goes on to conclude that in order "[t]o replace at-large with district elections under a dilution theory, a successful plaintiff must show not merely that the protected class would have a real electoral opportunity in one or more hypothetical districts, but also that the incremental gain in the class's ability to elect its candidate of choice in such districts would not be offset by a loss of the class's potential to elect its candidates of choke elsewhere in the locality...fuJnless the plaintiff can demonstrate a net gain in the protected class's potential to elect candidates under the alternative system, it has not shown the at-large method of election `impairs' the ability of the protected class to elect its preferred candidates."(Id. at 322, emphasis added.) As discussed in this letter, the City's minority populations are widely dispersed in such a way geographically that any attempt to form districts will undoubtedly weaken the ability of those minority populations to elect candidates of their choice City-wide. To be clear, the facts on this issue in our City supports,and agrees with,these legal cases. The facts do not support your allegations. You would not prevail at trial. Notwithstanding the City of Huntington Beach's other strong arguments, there are a host of issues alluded to by the Court of Appeal in the City of Modesto case with regard to the constitutionality of the CVRA. Among such issues is the reverse discrimination at work if the CVRA is applied to the City of Huntington Beach. This kind of reverse discrimination implicates Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions. For example,the U.S. Constitution forbids race-based remedies unless they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling government interests. Requiring the City to eliminate its current election system for race-based reasons,even though the change would fail to produce any notable increase in Latinos'potential to elect candidates of their choice, would be unconstitutional. Additionally,a certain class cannot displace any classification of voters, including the First Amendment rights of free speech. Any lawsuit against the City of Huntington Beach will draw a Cross-Complaint by the City against Plaintiff with possible anti-SLAPP ramifications. Finally,with regard to issues we are raising in this letter,the issue of Federal Preemption of the CVRA by the Federal Voters Rights Act provisions remains unresolved. Re: City's Response: Violation of California Voting Rights Act March 7,2024 Page 7 We also note that the imposition of mandated programs such as set forth in the CVRA, appears to be a State-imposed mandate, which the State must reimburse cities cost otherwise such a mandate amounts to an unconstitutional and impermissible "Unfunded State Mandate." If a lawsuit is filed, the City of Huntington Beach plans to immediately seek reimbursement from the State for any and all costs associated with any studies, implementation and legal fees, etc., required by the City. The City will encourage other California cities to seek similar reimbursement from the State as well. If your claim is to advance the interests of the Latino voters in our community, you need to ask yourself and discuss with your clients, is it better that our Latino community have 13% influence over the election of seven Council Members in an at-large system, or is it better they have up to (at most) 23% influence over a single Council Member (as hypothetically determined) in a district-by-district system. Based upon the demographics in the City and historical voting patterns,many in our Latino community may decide for themselves that they would rather influence all seven elections of Council Members, rather than have an-attorney like yourself effect a change in the system such that the voices in our Latino community are diminished,restricted, or taken away, and relegated to a mere 23% influence of a single Council Member. By the way, 23%does not guarantee the election of any particular candidate from any particular racial group. Your agenda as it relates to Huntington Beach does not have the best interest of our Latino community,or any racial group in mind. If that was your design and motivation,you would see that the at-large system in Huntington Beach is more meritorious as it offers more of a voice, with more influence, to the "class" of our Latino voters you claim to represent. Additionally, recent election history across California for those municipalities that have switched to by-district elections has proven that by-district elections have the opposite of the intended effect and further diminish minority representation and support. Moreover, your Second Letter alleges that "elections for other offices," such as the Huntington Beach Union High School District (the "District") demonstrate racially polarized voting within the City. The District spans multiple cities, one of which is Huntington Beach. For example,the District candidate you reference who lost in 2020 and 2022 "due to lack of support from non-Latinos"— Christine Hernandez— is a resident of Midway City. The District is a public entity with its own electorate that is completely independent from the City. Therefore,your references to District elections to support your allegations against the City are irrelevant. Re: City's Response: Violation of California Voting Rights Act March 7, 2024 Page 8 As we well know,you must"prove"any case against the City,no matter how much success you have had intimidating other cities. It will be impossible for you to prevail at trial against Huntington Beach. The facts are against you and as the facts are against you, the law is not on your side. I have shared all of this with you so that you know any attempt to sue the City of Huntington Beach will be frivolous. Neither the facts nor the law is on your side. If you pursue litigation against the City knowing all of this, it will be viewed by the City as malicious and we will take any and all necessary measures to respond appropriately. We are ready,willing, and able to fight any lawsuit you contemplate. Because, even after seven years, you are still clearly unfamiliar with the demographic and historical voting in Huntington Beach, you clearly do not have the best interests of our Latino community in mind, and you clearly have not identified all the meritorious constitutional arguments in favor of the City of Iuntington Beach. I would request therefore that you reconsider your threat to file a frivolous lawsuit against the City. Your errant pursuits here may very well end up charting a course to set new, uninvited legal precedent that finds the CVRA, or portions of it, unconstitutional, which will allow the City of Huntington Beach and other cities like it,to conduct elections as they have been on an at-large basis. As the City Attorney of this great City,and in the interest of having all of the people of the City informed, I insist that you share this letter in its entirety with your clients. It is important to me that those seeking the best interest of the City,or to improve the City,have all of the information available to them. Contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you, ‘;i7 M. ael E. Gates ity Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Photos of Gracey Van Der Mark,2020 Elections Results, and Tito Ortiz Re: City's Response: Violation of California Voting Rights Act March 7, 2024 Page 9 ATTACHMENTS l -� .t. ( aF .L r U i - .. . z. ...Y-- ` •fir^ 1 '"w•.'r-- .. .. IL �. s., +s' Sri i�(6TON BEAGN * 61; ` 3 �.A. ,! i, Fat HUjt$ �pn esac 1 Gty leauneli R � ; *.... Gracey '., Y .y #II -,,, . .... Der Mark ' u. .,...„,..„ Proven Advocate r. - - _ Grace Van Der Mark For Huntington Beach City Council 2022 P o an Arc n e a, a -' - „ i t, .' w - ., •- a , I1 ' ' It iiii,,. Protect our Charter City Status Preserve Our Suburban Beach Community Improve Fiscal Responsibility and Policy Accountability GraceyForHB.corn Gracey4HBCC@grail.com Re: City's Response: Violation of California Voting Rights Act March 7, 2024 Page 10 VANDEN NANA NOVC CRAC[V$C4IT CDV,.CI OSACCVS CNOOA.CUCNTS e AVOW auwaArav CONTACT 164 My name is Greeay Van Der Mark,I have been a resident of Huntington Basch for over 21 years.My husband and i have a blended family with 7 children.We chose to raise our family Mrs because of the safe,suburban family friendly environment our city had to offer. vnn rwwa Tuwn . C IJM i1 Loral tear. Gorey 14n Der Mark gamed new Huntington Beach Gracey Van Der Mark named new Huntington Beach mayor tam » #^' O Call slot A .. Rai s1.7 r V rtt Vtr InJr • ;a or..; Net if '41 Les O Ora a _ gaila din Stat 0 bra „eaSrnt,Vn:�Jf(Mnatcn F.s.ad,,.w,mr,a tea fNUK:4a ba GsnhwxxhaTMra mgan;CaLL.las.r.ry lr<i 1. n�",.ya.:p IOC mrerWyh rtwtmptaeoararu T.,rosy Cxccmtur5?Il1 i6Ma try l+rntrdn n nrercr nr.oh Rd¢xYt:y.Ct4G, e A. Re: City's Response: Violation of California Voting Rights Act March 7,2024 Page 11 Daily Pilot Huntington Beach's first Latina mayor, Gracey Van Der Mark, sworn in after 4-3 vote 1.r WEST MEWS ) Haw do yea sahre a problem I le a gate Idil Fremtain Valley is learnebt through etpt Coruna del Mar Hums Tout marks Its 51 .... .` anniversary with sold-red event ortThe Drake Gtves plays a rule in student &wha m ed by binding music educate - -- 'Gawkritdd Sure City shows lava ter au• f ftIIIE honkWwn.tatmlY .� �'T, ! i J Hu nylon Beach Ines out ocean clear In hawd-to teach local waterways AIM. r' ?or.'ey bin Der Mrl rote putt Avw M M b..vby...gm,Hudeem..8.�.1.Wow•1�Sh.Lrd a11«1r...g eemed nW t*y\k.l male tawdry Uames frCorwr) w\ L li It;> ., I � ' r Y Re: City's Response: Violation of California Voting Rights Act March 7,2024 Page 12 (Los Angeles)(Politics&Govt-) Gracey Van Der Mark Shatters Glass Ceiling as Huntington Beach's First Latina Mayor 3b 5t uet V nw * gip, " 41,'...;,..,, ow .. I - II IjI x JJ IIIBy Gabriela Martinez Published on December 07,2023 Huntington Beach has marked o significant milestone with Gracey Van Der Mark taking the oath as the city's first Latina mayor at the recent City Council meeting.in a historic turn of events,the surf city celebrated the appointment of Von Der Mork,a 23-year--old resident of Huntington Beach, F Post , Latina.Represent ••• ,a,LatinasRep Congratulations to newly appointed Mayor Gracey Van Der Mark, Huntington Beach's first Latina mayor!40 ti " Huntington Beach's first Latina mayor,Gray Van Der Mark,sworn in after 4-3 vote Fror !ae'.mes.com 4:19 PM•Dec 6,2023•128 v'e.. t Repost 3 Likes 0 VI C) Re: City's Response: Violation of California Voting Rights Act March 7, 2024 Page 13 B CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Member,City Council (VOTE FOR 3) ® TITO ORTIZ 42,246 14.83% ( j • DAN KALMICK 30,310 10.64% I ■ NATALIE MOSER 30,185 10.60% In • GRACEY VAN DER MARK 23,365 8.20% z. OSCAR D. RODRIGUEZ 21,696 7.62% • BRIAN BURLEY 20,862 7.33% a • MATTHEW HARPER 20,055 7.04% • CASEY MCKEON 19,900 6.99% • ▪ JEFF MORIN 16,727 5.87% g I WILLIAM BILLY O'CONNELL 16,602 5.83% • SONYA GREEN 11,560 4.06% I ERIC "SILK" SILKENSON 10,388 3.65% ti O JOHN BRISCOE 9,688 3.40% Uj t1 TI-In AAC BAATTI-ILIA/I PaRMIG R A07 7 OM 11 1 Re: City's Response: Violation of California Voting Rights Act March 7,2024 Page 14 REGISOZIIINTY TER Me Ortiz Loper pro tem of Hm rlogtoa eeet3— NEWS•',..s UFC legend Tito Ortiz is mayor pro tem of Huntington Beach The city rotates mayors,and the former MMA star is set to take over in 2022. MOST I • tVt R i, _., , _ A LO Cal 6t0 • _ ©On li-/— i t ©OYI 11141Famo 4m Fir liiii tin 4 III © ce N i j O Sta lea aBOI Ne pot i tee On �ddb. 1431 Co,Ion elect.'to the Huntington Boao Ca.Cawood.n 2018„as namoJ mayor MonOrr.Poo 7.TO Ortiz..no t on m Int wont 2025 waction towMne raja pro t.n, _ Ste UFC Hall of Famer Tito Ortiz wins Huntington Beach city council seat ti • • T �r rr; , , (11:,:it Dave Doyle Nevemner J.20209:40 on,ET "The Huntington Beach Bad Boy"is now a Huntington Beach city councilor-elect. UFC Hall of Famer Tito Ortiz was elected to his hometown's city council on Tuesday night. Re: City's Response: Violation of California Voting Rights Act March 7, 2024 Page 15 HEAD UNES > (FeCtuaty;q.20241 Raquel Ro&,uez returns on WWI Raw,settees final spot en womenS Elimination Tito Ortiz wins city council seat in Huntington Beach, California FORMER UFC UGHT HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION AND HALL OF FAMER TITO ORFIZ HAS WON A SEAT IN THE CITY COUNCIL IN HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA. II'.?io Yl.. . _ .. _ 1 w h 4 was �► f! 'j' '111:�1� .• = 4. Y 1 It ' , $Y i i In e Former UFC light heavyweight champion and Hall of FamerTito Ortiz has won a seat in the city council in Huntington Beach,California. HOME FEATURES BJJ NEWS MMA INTERVIEWS SHOP BJJ RANKINGS Tito Ortiz Elected To City Council In Huntington Beach co ** * * UMP * * T f — 88022 __ _�._. Re: City's Response: Violation of California Voting Rights Act March 7, 2024 Page 16 Sports Top Stories UFC Star Tito Ortiz Wins California City Council Seat With 14% Of The Vote By Bill GaLtuccio Nov 4.2020 ♦1 tr Q U . � 1 Former UFC Light Heavyweight champion Tito Ortiz has thrown his hat into the nnlitiral ring.(lrti7 wac nnp of cixtpen ranrlirlatpc running fnr three nnen cpatc nn the 2890 Californiat 0265 SHENKMAN HUGHES Malibu, orni 965 (310)457-0970 A TORNE.;'` MALIOU. CALIFORNIA kshenkman@shenkmanhughes.com VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Pta 1 0CI January 25, 2024 �— Robin Estanislau-City Clerk 4 �T w 7 City of Huntington Beach -+ r , o 2000 Main Street 0. �- -v < Huntington Beach, CA Re: Violation of California Voting Rights Act N I write on behalf of our clients, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project and its members residing in the City of Huntington Beach, including Victor Valladeras, to follow up on my previous letter of April 5, 2017. The City of Huntington Beach ("Huntington Beach" or "City") continues to rely upon an at-large election system for electing candidates to its governing board. Moreover, voting within the City is racially polarized, resulting in minority vote dilution, and therefore Huntington Beach's at-large elections violate the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 ("CVRA"). The CVRA disfavors the use of so-called"at-large"voting-an election method that permits voters of an entire jurisdiction to elect candidates to each open seat. See generally Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 660, 667 ("Sanchez"). For example, if the U.S. Congress were elected through a nationwide at-large election,rather than through typical single-member districts, each voter could cast up to 435 votes and vote for any candidate in the country, not just the candidates in the voter's district, and the 435 candidates receiving the most nationwide votes would be elected. At-large elections thus allow a bare majority of voters to control every seat, not just the seats in a particular district or a proportional majority of seats. Voting rights advocates have targeted "at-large" election schemes for decades, because they often result in "vote dilution," or the impairment of minority groups' ability to elect their preferred candidates or influence the outcome of elections,which occurs when the electorate votes in a racially polarized manner. See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 46 (1986) ("Gingles"). The U.S. Supreme Court "has long recognized that multi-member districts and at-large voting schemes may operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength"of minorities. Id. at 47; see also id. at 48, January 25, 2024 Page 2 of 4 fn. 14 (at-large elections may also cause elected officials to "ignore [minority] interests without fear of political consequences"), citing Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613, 623 (1982); White v. Register, 412 U.S. 755, 769 (1973). "[T]he majority, by virtue of its numerical superiority, will regularly defeat the choices of minority voters." Gingles, at 47. When racially polarized voting occurs, dividing the political unit into single-member districts, or some other appropriate remedy, may facilitate a minority group's ability to elect its preferred representatives. Rogers, at 616. Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act ("FVRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1973, which Congress enacted in 1965 and amended in 1982, targets, among other things, at-large election schemes. Gingles at 37; see also Boyd &Markman, The 1982 Amendments to the Voting Rights Act.•A Legislative History (1983) 40 Wash. &Lee L. Rev. 1347, 1402. Although enforcement of the FVRA was successful in many states, California was an exception. By enacting the CVRA, "[t]he Legislature intended to expand protections against vote dilution over those provided by the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965." Jauregui v. City of Palmdale (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 781, 808. Thus, while the CVRA is similar to the FVRA in several respects, it is also different in several key respects, as the Legislature sought to remedy what it considered "restrictive interpretations given to the federal act." Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 976 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 9, 2002, p. 2. The California Legislature dispensed with the requirement in Gingles that a minority group demonstrate that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a "majority-minority district." Sanchez, at 669. In Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica (August 24, 2023) 15 Ca1.5th 292, the California Supreme Court recently confirmed this commonsense reading of the CVRA. Also see Assem. Com. on Judiciary,Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 976 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 9, 2002, p. 3 ("Thus, this bill puts the voting rights horse (the discrimination issue) back where it sensibly belongs in front of the cart(what type of remedy is appropriate once racially polarized voting has been shown).") To establish a violation of the CVRA, a plaintiff must generally show that "racially polarized voting occurs in elections for members of the governing body of the political subdivision or in elections incorporating other electoral choices by the voters of the political subdivision." Elec. Code § 14028(a). The CVRA specifies the elections that are most probative: "elections in which at least one candidate is a member of a protected class or elections involving ballot measures, or other electoral choices that affect the rights and privileges of members of a protected class." Elec. Code § 14028(a). The CVRA also makes clear that "[e]lections conducted prior to the filing of an action ... are more probative to establish the existence of racially polarized voting than elections conducted after the filing of the action." Id. January 25, 2024 Page 3 of 4 Factors other than "racially polarized voting" that are required to make out a claim under the FVRA—under the "totality of the circumstances"test—"are probative, but not necessary factors to establish a violation of' the CVRA. Elec. Code § 14028(e). These "other factors" include "the history of discrimination, the use of electoral devices or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the dilutive effects of at-large elections, denial of access to those processes determining which groups of candidates will receive financial or other support in a given election, the extent to which members of a protected class bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process, and the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns." Id. According to the U.S. Census, Huntington Beach has a population of 198,723, with Latinos comprising approximately 19.7% of the City's population. Huntington Beach's at-large system dilutes the ability of Latinos(a"protected class")—even with that significant proportion of the City's electorate—to elect candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of the City's council elections. In addition to the elections discussed in our previous letter, the City's more recent election history further demonstrates the racially polarized voting and vote dilution proscribed by the CVRA. In the 2020 and 2022 elections for the City's council, for example, Oscar Rodriguez was heavily favored by Latino voters, but lost due to a lack of support among non-Latinos. Elections for other offices and on ballot measures have also exhibited racially polarized voting in Huntington Beach. For example, in the 2018, election for the Huntington Beach Union High School District board, Latino voters favored Martin Salgado, but he lost due to a lack of support from non-Latinos. In the 2020, election for the Huntington Beach Union High School District board, Latino voters favored Christine Hernandez and Claudia Ramos, but they both lost due to a lack of support from non-Latinos. In the 2022, election for the Huntington Beach Union High School District board, Latino voters again favored Christine Hernandez, but she lost again due to a lack of support from non-Latinos The elections concerning Propositions 187 (1994), 209 (1996) and 227 (1998) and 17 (2020)reveal the same sort of racially polarized voting in the City — the Latino community strongly opposed Propositions 187, 209 and 227, and supported Proposition 17, but the opposite choice prevailed within the City. Elections within Huntington Beach evidence vote dilution which is directly attributable to the City's unlawful at-large election system. January 25, 2024 Page 4 of 4 At-large elections are well known to cause elected officials to "ignore [minority] interests without fear of political consequences." (Gingles 478 U.S. at 48, n. 14). The City's recent actions— from dissolving the human relations committee and banning the Pride flag to placing a voter suppression charter amendment on the ballot and refusing to allow the development of affordable housing— are all examples of this effect. While some of actions are not directed specifically at Latinos, they all reflect a lack of understanding of the needs of various minority groups. The city council members who have supported the City's recent controversial policies and actions expressed that they saw these issues from one perspective, without ever considering the perspectives of the targeted minority groups. As you may be aware, in 2012,we sued the City of Palmdale for violating the CVRA. After an eight-day trial, we prevailed. After spending millions of dollars, a district- based remedy was ultimately imposed upon the Palmdale City Council,with districts that combine all incumbents into one of the four districts. Given the historical lack of representation of Latinos on the Huntington Beach City Council in the context of racially polarized elections, we urge the City to voluntarily change its at-large system of electing governing board members.Otherwise,on behalf of residents within the jurisdiction, we will be forced to seek judicial relief. Please advise us no later than March 19, 2024 as to whether you would like to discuss a voluntary change to your current at-large system. We look forward to your response. Very truly yours, Kevin I. Shenkman • SI�Nk n f 1-kits CERTIFIED MAIL® Retail U.S. POSTAGE PAID Myr i i &,- FCM LETTER fl1�I�U�t CA - loos- MALIBU, CA 90265 JAN 26, 2024 , uMIIFD STATES I - •OSTALSFIIvlCFe 92648 -$8.7 3 7022 1670 0002 0448 1910 RDC 99 R2304N116714-02 ►10 61 n Fa AA I, f ti� - C;l-y (lerk. - C.+-y or ,,hr5)„,, Bet.d• aDD© Main Sic --i- N-vAlbyl , cA- 726117 92E.48$27EZ CO21 �ji�f{'Ilil.i'11�1��11111'"1����11P�a.sjj,I.N'�T�'IJ1111111"I'll S + •0' ... CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH , `� Brian L.Williams ' Senior Trial Counsel Michelle Ditzhaz p OFFICE OF THE 'r Deputy Community Prosecutor '-=-�-= 0,11 CITY ATTORNEY PsstarDit'City Alessandro Attorney Scott Field Michael E. Gates P.O.Box 190 Sr.Deputy City Attorney City Attorney 2000 Main Street Neal Moore Huntington Beach,California 92648 Sr.Deputy City Attorney Mike Vigliotta Telephone: (714)536-5555 Daniel K.Ohl Chief Assistant City Attorney Facsimile: (714)374-1590 Deputy City Attorney May 18, 2017 Mr. Kevin Shenkman 28905 Wight Road Malibu,CA 90265 RE: City's Response: Violation of California Voting Rights Act Dear Mr. Shenkman, I am writing in response to your letter dated April 5,2017,urging the City of Huntington Beach("City")to voluntarily change its Charter-provided at-large-system of electing Council Members(otherwise you will be forced to seek judicial relief). Your letter makes a number of unsupported contentions that the City of Huntington Beach employs an election system that somehow creates a"racially polarized"voting scheme that disenfranchises"Latino"voters. You suggest that the City's at-large system dilutes the ability of Latinos, a"protected class,"to elect candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of City elections. To put it simply,the facts do not support your allegations and the City Attorney disagrees with your conclusions of law and notably, your letter fails to state what relief your clients seek. As such,with the support of the Mayor and City Council, we are prepared to vigorously defend any lawsuit brought by your clients. To be clear,the City is prepared to mount a defense using all available resources to affirm by the highest court that the California Voting Rights Act ("CVRA")is unconstitutional as applied to the City of Huntington Beach. A couple of important facts that have come to light in my Office's research and analysis. Contrary to your 17%assertion,only 13%of eligible voters are of our Latino community —the vast majority of which(77%to be precise), do not live within a particularly concentrated area of the City—so modifying the City's method of electing Council Members such as going to election districts for instance, would be of no import or Shenkman Letter 4 . Page 2 consequence. When reviewing demographic and historical voter information,the data reveals that the City of Huntington Beach has,unlike perhaps other cities,a fairly even racial"mix"across the City,such that no one racial group is disproportionately disadvantaged in the election process. The demographics of the City of Huntington Beach is unlike all the other cities you have filed suit against. It appears by your standard form letter,you either did not research the demographic and historical voter data for this City, or when you did,you drew the wrong conclusions. While this letter is not intended to reveal the City's defense strategy or provide all the legal theories the City has explored(and will continue to explore)and will advance if sued,the two recent California Court of Appeal cases analyzing the CVRA that you cited are instructive and support the City's position. The case you cited,Jaureguil v. City of Palmdale,provided some guidance with regard to the applicability of the CVRA to Charter Cities;the City of Palmdale case is not dispositive with regard to Huntington Beach. For example,notwithstanding recent amendments made to the Elections Code,one of the factors left unaddressed by the Court of Appeal is the applicability of the CVRA to Charter Cities when the City has expressly adopted its voting scheme in,its Charter as is the case in the City of Huntington Beach (see concurring opinion of Justice Mosk). In addition,the Court of Appeal made several references to the underlying facts of the case,that were not issues on appeal,and it appears the Court of Appeal would have:considered these.issues had they been further litigated. One such issue was the Superior Court's exclusion of certain evidence that may have been telling regarding whether there was in fact racially polarized voting. In addition,,to the"Home Rule"doctrine,the City of Palmdale case did not present or resolve a number.of other constitutional issues and therefore these are left unresolved by California or Federal courts. For example,the CVRA improperly places a clearly legislative process,i.e.,detennining a voting scheme for a jurisdiction,into the hands of the judiciary. The"Separation of Powers"doctrine, crucial to the Federal, State, and Local governance, is unconstitutionally disregarded by the CVRA. "The accumulation of all powers, legislative,executive and judicial in the same hands,whether of one,a few, or many,and whether hereditary,self—appointed,or elective,,may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."(James Madison,.Federalist No. 51, 1788; among other authorities). It is the legislative branch of government that makes the law,including determining voting schemes and creating districts by determining,through the legislative process district boundaries. The Courts on the other hand are tasked with interpreting and enforcing laws,not creating new laws(i.e.,how Charter Cities conduct elections) by judicial fiat. Shenkman Letter Page 3 As you know,prior to Jaureguil v. City of Palmdale,the California Court of Appeal decided a leading case with regard to the constitutionality of the CVRA;Sanchez v. City of Modesto. Notably and very importantly,the Court of Appeal in City of Modesto provided a road map to cities seeking to challenge the CVRA. The Court of Appeal specifically instructed(cities like Huntington Beach)that"[A]city may,however,use similar arguments to attempt to show as-applied invalidity later if liability is proven and a specific application or remedy is considered that warrants the attempt.For example,if the court entertains a remedy that uses race,such as a district-based election system in which race is a.factor in establishing district boundaries,defendants may again assert the weighty constitutional issues they have raised here. (Sanchez v. City of Modesto,(2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 660,665.) Notwithstanding the City of Huntington Beach's other strong arguments,there are a host of issues alluded to by the Court of Appeal in the City of Modesto case with regard to the constitutionality of the CVRA.-Among such issues is the reverse discrimination at work if the CVRA is applied to.the City-of Huntington Beach. This kind of reverse discrimination implicates Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions. A certain class cannot displace any classification of voters, including the First Amendment rights of free speech. Any lawsuit against the City of Huntington Beach will draw a Cross-Complaint by the City against Plaintiff with possible anti-SLAPP ramifications. Finally,with regard to issues we are raising in this letter,the issue of Federal.Preemption of the CVRA by the Federal Voters Rights Act provisions remains unresolved. We also note that the imposition of mandated programs such as set forth in the CVRA, appears to be a State-imposed mandate,which the State must reimburse cities cost otherwise such a mandate amounts to an unconstitutional and impermissible"Unfunded State Mandate." If a lawsuit.is filed,the City of Huntington.Beach plans to immediately seek reimbursement.from the State for any and all costs associated with any studies, implementation and legal fees,etc.,required by the City. The City will encourage other California cities to seek similar reimbursement from the State as well. If your claim is to advance the interests of the Latino voters in our community,you need to ask yourself and discuss with your clients,is it better that our Latino community have. 13%influence over the election of seven Council Members in an at-large system,or is it better they have up to(at most)23%influence over a single Council Member(as hypothetically determined)in a district-by-district system. Based upon the demographics inthe.City and historical voting patterns,many in our Latino community may decide for themselves that they would rather influence all seven elections of Council Members, rather than have an attorney like yourself effect a change in_the system such that the voices in our Latino community are diminished, restricted, or taken away, and relegated Shenkman Letter Page 4 to a mere 23% influence of a single Council Member. By the way, 23%does not guarantee the election of any particular candidate from any particular racial group. Clearly your"cause"as it relates to Huntington Beach does not have the best interest of our Latino community, or any racial group in mind. If that was your design and motivation, you would see that the at-large system in Huntington Beach is more beneficial as it offers more of a voice, with more influence, to the"class"of our Latino voters you claim to represent. With the unanimous support of the Mayor and Members of the City Council,we are ready,willing, and able to fight any such lawsuit contemplated by your letter. Because you are clearly unfamiliar with the demographic and historical voting in Huntington Beach you clearly do not have the best interests of our Latino community in mind, and you clearly have not identified all of the meritorious constitutional arguments in favor of the City of Huntington Beach, I would request that you reconsider your threat to file a lawsuit against the City. I believe that as long as the Mayor and Members of the City Council are willing to defend the City against such a lawsuit,by your lawsuit,you may chart a course to set new,uninvited legal precedent that fords the CVRA,or portions of it, unconstitutional,which will allow the City of Huntington Beach and other cities like it,to conduct elections as they have been. As the City Attorney of this great City, and in the interest of having all of the people of the City informed, I request that you share this letter in its entirety with your clients. It is important to me that those seeking the best interest of the City,or to improve the City, have all of the information available to them. Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerelyee -chael E. Gates City Attorney MEG/ct Shenkman Letter National ND C Demographics Corporation Douglas Johnson President P.O.Box 5271 cell(310)200-2058 Glendale,CA 91221 fax(818)254-1221 (909)624-1442 djohnson@NDCresearch.com www.NDCresearch.com SHENKMAN & HUGHES 28905 Wight Road Malibu,California 90265 (310)457-0970 ArroRNers MAL IBLI CAOSORNIA kshenkman(dshenkmanhughes.com VIA CERTIFIED MAIL April 5, 2017 Robin Estanislau - City Clerk City of Huntington Beach J 2000 Main Street f' ' l Huntington Beach, CA _ ?' D Re: Violation of California Voting Rights Act The City of Huntington Beach ("Huntington Beach") relies upon an at-large election system for electing candidates to its City Council. Moreover, voting within Huntington Beach is racially polarized, resulting in minority vote dilution, and therefore Huntington Beach's at-large elections violate the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 ("CVRA"). The CVRA disfavors the use of so-called "at-large" voting — an election method that permits voters of an entire jurisdiction to elect candidates to each open seat. See generally Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2006) 145 Ca1.App.4th 660, 667 ("Sanchez"). For example, if the U.S. Congress were elected through a nationwide at-large election, rather than through typical single-member districts, each voter could cast up to 435 votes and vote for any candidate in the country, not just the candidates in the voter's district, and the 435 candidates receiving the most nationwide votes would be elected. At-large elections thus allow a bare majority of voters to control every seat, not just the seats in a particular district or a proportional majority of seats. Voting rights advocates have targeted "at-large" election schemes for decades, because they often result in "vote dilution," or the impairment of minority groups' ability to elect their preferred candidates or influence the outcome of elections, which occurs when the electorate votes in a racially polarized manner. See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 46 (1986) ("Gingles"). The U.S. Supreme Court "has long recognized that multi-member districts and at-large voting schemes may operate to minimize or cancel out the voting strength" of minorities. Id. at 47; see also id. at 48, fn. 14 (at-large elections may also cause elected officials to "ignore [minority] interests without fear of political consequences"), citing Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613, 623 (1982); White v. Register, 412 U.S. 755, April 5, 2017 Page 2 of 4 769 (1973). "[T]he majority, by virtue of its numerical superiority, will regularly defeat the choices of minority voters." Gingles, at 47. When racially polarized voting occurs, dividing the political unit into single-member districts, or some other appropriate remedy, may facilitate a minority group's ability to elect its preferred representatives. Rogers, at 616. Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act ("FVRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1973, which Congress enacted in 1965 and amended in 1982, targets, among other things, at- large election schemes. Gingles at 37; see also Boyd & Markman, The 1982 Amendments to the Voting Rights Act: A Legislative History (1983) 40 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1347, 1402. Although enforcement of the FVRA was successful in many states, California was an exception. By enacting the CVRA, "[t]he Legislature intended to expand protections against vote dilution over those provided by the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965." Jauregui v. City of Palmdale (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 781, 808. Thus, while the CVRA is similar to the FVRA in several respects, it is also different in several key respects, as the Legislature sought to remedy what it considered "restrictive interpretations given to the federal act." Assem. Corn. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 976 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 9, 2002, p. 2. The California Legislature dispensed with the requirement in Gingles that a minority group demonstrate that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a "majority-minority district." Sanchez, at 669. Rather, the CVRA requires only that a plaintiff show the existence of racially polarized voting to establish that an at-large method of election violates the CVRA, not the desirability of any particular remedy. See Cal. Elec. Code § 14028 ("A violation of Section 14027 is established if it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs ...") (emphasis added); also see Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 976 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 9, 2002, p. 3 ("Thus, this bill puts the voting rights horse (the discrimination issue) back where it sensibly belongs in front of the cart (what type of remedy is appropriate once racially polarized voting has been shown).") To establish a violation of the CVRA, a plaintiff must generally show that "racially polarized voting occurs in elections for members of the governing body of the political subdivision or in elections incorporating other electoral choices by the voters of the political subdivision." Elec. Code § 14028(a). The CVRA specifies the elections that are most probative: "elections in which at least one candidate is a member of a protected class or elections involving ballot measures, or other electoral choices that affect the rights and privileges of members of a protected class." Elec. Code § 14028(a). The CVRA also makes clear that Apri15, 2017 Page 3 of 4 "[e]lections conducted prior to the filing of an action ... are more probative to establish the existence of racially polarized voting than elections conducted after the filing of the action." Id. Factors other than "racially polarized voting" that are required to make out a claim under the FVRA — under the "totality of the circumstances" test — "are probative, but not necessary factors to establish a violation of' the CVRA. Elec. Code § 14028(e). These "other factors" include "the history of discrimination, the use of electoral devices or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the dilutive effects of at-large elections, denial of access to those processes determining which groups of candidates will receive financial or other support in a given election, the extent to which members of a protected class bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process, and the use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns." Id. Huntington Beach's at-large system dilutes the ability of Latinos (a "protected class") —to elect candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of Huntington Beach's council elections. The council elections in 2014, 2004 and 2002 are illustrative. In 2014 election, a Latino candidate—Hector Valdez—ran and lost. In 2002 and 2004, another Latino candidate—Jim Moreno —ran and lost. In each instance, Mr. Valdez and Mr. Moreno, respectively, received significant support from Latino voters, but fell short of securing a seat in Huntington Beach's at-large election due to the bloc voting of Huntington Beach's majority non-Latino electorate. In fact, as a result of this racially polarized voting, Huntington Beach appears to have not had even a single Latino council member in recent history. According to recent data, Latinos comprise approximately 17.1% of the population of Huntington Beach. The contrast between the significant Latino population and the very limited success of Latinos to be elected to the City Council is telling. As you may be aware, in 2012, we sued the City of Palmdale for violating the CVRA. After an eight-day trial, we prevailed. After spending millions of dollars, a district-based remedy was ultimately imposed upon the Palmdale city council, with districts that combine all incumbents into one of the four districts. Given the historical lack of Latino representation on the city council in the context of racially polarized elections, we urge Huntington Beach to voluntarily change its at-large system of electing council members. Otherwise, on behalf of residents April 5, 2017 Page 4 of 4 within the jurisdiction, we will be forced to seek judicial relief Please advise us no later than May 22, 2017 as to whether you would like to discuss a voluntary change to your current at-large system. We look forward to your response. Very truly yours, Kevin I. Shenkman .;-."- -p,- i,. �" =..-.ter . S V.a....64.,..., t-h)lka, ec.. ' 3a77' MALIBU OA 9026d . AMOUNT \\\ -- t 11\ , tl TT 6.59 ~'I��np"�' b`� 1 CA 9°a �_ �, �{1p0V 92646 R2305H127224-09 ..- ' \ ift4 41 L R L Es , lain . CA/7 (Uri,- - C,#y ,F h.,.,,isv, -. 6 Cr CA 9N,0 o o M.,,.1^ S-I-, C. n �.f PLACE STICKER AT TOP OF ENVELOPE TO THE RIGHT /". .� OF THE RETURN ADDRESS,FOLD AT DOTTED LINE r -.' CERTIFIED MAIL® CD . 7016 2070 0000 1441. 7590 =i2%:. SS 7 6. C.07 . 1I'Ilillll'III'illll" I''si „iih)JIailiiJl'ihJii);Iti,l,IIJhlh