News

News2023-03-27T14:42:29-07:00

Settled: Cerritos Community College District ($55,000)

The District paid $55,000 to plaintiffs. NORWALK, Calif. - March 22, 2012 - The Cerritos College Board of Trustees announced today that they have settled a lawsuit filed under the California Voting Rights Act challenging the at-large electoral system previously used to elect the College's Board of Trustees, and seeking payment of attorneys' fees. The College Board had already announced its intention to change its electoral system voluntarily before the action was filed, so the only issue at the time of the settlement was whether plaintiffs were entitled to payment of their attorneys' fees by the College. Continue reading...

Pending: Anaheim ($800,000 spent to date)

This case is headed to court, and as of October, 2013 the City had spent $800,000 on its legal defense. After a contentious four-hour meeting, the Anaheim City Council decided by a 3-2 vote to put a “hybrid” election model on the ballot next June. But in another 3-2 vote, it rejected a recommendation from a citizens advisory council – appointed by the city council – to let voters decide on district elections. Continue reading...

Settled: Compton Community College District ($40,000)

In an arranged “friendly” lawsuit, the District paid $40,000 to plaintiffs. At the January 17, 2012 Board meeting, the Special Trustee for the Compton Community College District (CCCD) appointed five individuals to serve on the Redistricting Committee. The committee is an important part of the CCCD’s overall redistricting process. At the May 16, 2012 Board of Trustees Meeting, a Public Hearing was held. The Special Trustee adopted new Trustee Area Boundaries. Continue reading...

Settled: Tulare Regional Medical Center ($500,000 + Attorneys’ Fees)

The District paid plaintiffs $500,000, along with paying its own legal team fees. As the nation’s legislatures get set for what is sure to be a bruising battle over redistricting, California is facing its own specific electoral problems that will undoubtedly lead to a wave of costly lawsuits. While numerous states have to comply with the Voting Rights Act, California has its own unique law that practically guarantees litigation: The California Voting Rights Act of 2001. Unless local districts take preemptive action, millions of dollars will soon be going down the drain in losing lawsuits. Continue reading...

Settled: Modesto ($3 million + $1.7 million)

Modesto paid a reported $3 million to plaintiffs and $1.7 million to its own legal team to settle its case. From the Santa Clara Weekly: Nearly ten years after the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) was passed into law, CVRA lawsuits and threats of lawsuits have cost California taxpayers over $8 million. When the 2002 law was enacted, municipalities didn't recognize its implications, Fresno County schools superintendent Larry Powell told the Fresno Bee in 2009. Things changed in 2003, when Robert Rubin and Joaquin Avila of the San Francisco-based Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights (LCCR) - drafters of the law - started bringing CVRA lawsuits against all kinds of elected bodies. Continue reading...

Settled: Escondido ($385,000 + $200,000)

The City paid plaintiffs $385,000 and paid its own legal team a reported $200,000. The Escondido City Council and Plaintiffs have agreed to a settlement of a lawsuit requiring City Council members to represent specific geographic areas.  The material terms of the settlement will be presented to the court at a status conference which is scheduled for Friday, March 22, 2013 at 11:00 a.m.    The Parties will ask the Court to review the settlement agreement and then approve it as a court order at a subsequent date. The settlement will take the form of a consent decree issued by the Superior Court. Continue reading...

Pending: Santa Clarita

No amounts for this case have been reported. The Santa Clarita City Council has voted to fight back over a lawsuit alleging the city’s system for electing council members prevents Latino voters from having full access to the political process. Following a special meeting Tuesday afternoon, City Attorney Joseph Montes said the council had agreed to “undertake defense” against the suit. The suit, filed June 26, alleges the city’s at-large elections — which allow all voters in the city to select all five council members — dilutes the votes of Latino residents and denies them “effective political participation,” according to the complaint filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Continue reading...

Go to Top