Civil rights advocates sued a San Joaquin Valley school district Thursday, saying the method used to elect trustees prevents Latinos from winning seats on the school board.
The suit, filed in Kings County Superior Court against the Hanford Joint Union High School District, will test a state law designed to change the face of local government in California.
There hasn't been a Latino on Hanford's five-member board of trustees in 20 years, despite a growing Latino population that, within the district, has reached 38.6 percent. Lawyers said the Latino proportion of school enrollment is undoubtedly higher.
The suit seeks a switch from at-large elections, in which all candidates run districtwide, to elections by districts.
Both systems have their advocates: Backers of at-large contests say such elections encourage candidates to represent the diverse views of a larger area. Critics counter that at-large balloting allows a majority, whether racial or political, to control an entire governing board and is less responsive to minority views and local concerns than district voting.
A 2002 state law, the California Voting Rights Act, allows minority voters to overturn at-large election systems by showing that voting in the area divides along racial lines, hurting minority representation. This is the second suit filed under that law; the first, against the Modesto City Council, was filed last month.
"We have long been aware that at-large elections in a racially polarized electorate effectively work to dilute Latino voice and influence,'' said Luis Arteaga, executive director of the Latino Issues Forum, an advocacy group that supports the suit. "But only now do we have effective legal tools in California to change election systems that mute minority voices.
"Latinos are clamoring for representation, whereas in the past, they may have accepted the status quo."
Arteaga said a survey of local election systems by the League of California Cities in 1987 found that more than 90 percent of city councils and school boards in the state were elected at large. Those numbers may have diminished since then, in part because of federal voting-rights suits, but a substantial majority of school boards still holds at-large elections, said Robert Rubin, executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, which represents the plaintiffs.
"The decision-making process for schools ought to be reflective of the student body,'' Rubin said.
There was no immediate comment from the school district.
The suit said voting in the district had been polarized, leaving Latinos outvoted and unrepresented. The last Latino to run for the school board, Ramiro Sosa, was the top choice of Latino voters but finished last among six candidates running districtwide for three seats in 2002, the suit said. It also said voting on initiatives during the past decade on illegal immigration, bilingual education and affirmative action based on race and sex had split along racial and ethnic lines.
Hanford schools settle suit charging election bias
Sarah Jimenez, Fresno Bee, March 24, 2005
The Hanford Joint Union High School District agreed to convert its board of trustees elections from an at-large system to voting by district, settling a lawsuit that claimed the district's voting method denied Latino voters the right to elect candidates of their choice.
The settlement was finalized Wednesday and will go into effect for the 2006 board elections.
The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area filed the lawsuit in July on behalf of two Hanford voters, Antonio Gomez and Richard Leon.
The plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the lawsuit if the district changed its voting system, said Peter Moock, Kings County counsel, who represented the district.
Under the California Voting Rights Act of 2001, voters can ask for change in a system so it would be easier for them to elect candidates that represent them.
Courts can issue injunctions against the use of systems if voters can prove racially discriminatory voting patterns.
This is the first case resolved under the law since it went into effect on Jan. 1, 2002, said Robert Rubin, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs.
The city of Modesto was the first jurisdiction sued under the act. Modesto city officials estimate their population at 203,000, about 25 percent of whom are Latinos. There are no Latinos on the seven-member Modesto City Council.
That case is still pending, said Rubin, who is also the legal director for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area.
More than 38 percent of Hanford Joint Union High School District residents are Latinos.
Alfred Benavides, who was elected to the board last year, was the first Latino in recent years to serve as a trustee, said Candace McIlroy, communications coordinator for the district.
Benavides' election to the board last year was "anomalous" and the district still had a pattern of not having racial minority representation for more than 20 years prior to the 2004 election, Rubin said.
"The fact that he happened to win did not change our position," Rubin said.
District officials do not agree there has been racially polarized voting but did not want to spend students' money fighting the lawsuit, said Marie Bañuelos, district superintendent.
"We have never had any complaints from any of our constituents," said Bañuelos.
It will cost between $30,000 and $50,000 to switch voting systems, Bañuelos said.
The district must also pay the plaintiffs' attorney fees up to $110,000, McIlroy said.
The district has paid more than $50,000 in legal fees of its own for this lawsuit, she added.
Trustee Simon Lakritz said he doesn't support the change in elections but would rather accept a settlement than spend education funds to fight the lawsuit.
"They could have come to us first and worked out some kind of arrangement," Lakritz said.
Minority voting rights law declared unconstitutional
Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle, April 1, 2005
A 2002 state law that lets minority voters challenge at-large elections for city council, school board and other local offices has been ruled unconstitutional by a Modesto judge, who said it discriminates by race and ethnicity.
The California Voting Rights Act was prompted by complaints that minorities, particularly Latinos, were denied representation in at-large elections.
The law allows a judge to invalidate an at-large system if voting has been divided along racial lines. That is a much easier test than the one required by the federal Voting Rights Act, which includes proof of past discrimination and evidence that minorities would predominate in at least one of the new districts.
Ruling in a challenge to the state law, filed last year against at-large elections for the Modesto City Council, Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Roger Beauchesne said last Friday that the law established preferential treatment for minorities without "any evidence of need.''
Beauchesne said the law violates standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court by not requiring any showing of past discrimination and allowing a judge to scrap an at-large system even if no resulting district would be likely to elect a minority. It also permits an unconstitutional gift of public money by allowing plaintiffs in those cases to collect attorneys' fees from their local government adversaries, the judge said.
The ruling will be appealed, said Robert Rubin, legal director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco, which filed the suit. The organization last week announced settlement of a similar suit that will require district elections for the Hanford Joint Union High School District in Kings and Tulare counties.
"The Legislature recognized the pernicious nature of at-large elections when combined with racially polarized voting,'' Rubin said Thursday. He said Modesto has had only one Latino council member since 1911 and has a voting-age population that is more than 25 percent Latino, though the percentage of registered voters is lower.
John McDermott, the city's lawyer, said the California law was "a radical departure from the federal Voting Rights Act'' and could be used to overturn virtually any at-large election system without any proof that it was harming minorities or that district elections would help them.
Court ruling gives Latinos OK to sue over at-large elections
Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle, December 8, 2006
A state appeals court has reinstated a 2002 California voting-rights law that allows minorities to sue cities, counties and school districts that elect their governing bodies at large, rather than by district, in areas where voting divides along racial lines.
The little-noticed statute could have a major effect on local elections in the state, most of which require candidates to run in an entire city or county rather than smaller districts, said a civil rights lawyer who sued on behalf of Latinos in Modesto. Their suit claimed that at-large City Council balloting made it difficult for a Latino to get elected.
The 2004 suit was the first to use the state law, which is broader than the federal Voting Rights Act. It was halted, however, when a Modesto judge declared the law unconstitutional.
In a 3-0 ruling Wednesday, the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno said the law is constitutional because it applies equally to voters of all races and does not require voting districts to be drawn along racial lines.
The ruling overturned a March 2005 decision by Judge Roger Beauchesne of Stanislaus County Superior Court. He said the law violated white voters' rights because it allowed minority voters to overturn a local election system without having to prove that the system was put in place for racial reasons. In addition, Beauchesne said, the law failed to require plaintiffs to show that minority candidates would win if elections were held in districts.
But the appeals court said the law as written "does not confer benefits or impose burdens on any particular racial group and does not burden anyone's right to vote.''
Whites would have an equal right to sue under the law if they were excluded from power by a nonwhite majority in a local government with an at-large voting system, Justice Rebecca Wiseman said in the ruling. Requiring elections in individual districts to improve minority candidates' chances is constitutional, Wiseman said, as long as district lines are not drawn predominantly for racial purposes.
Defenders of at-large elections say they encourage candidates to consider the diverse views of a larger area. Critics say such elections allow a majority, whether racial or political, to control a governing board and ignore minority concerns.
The ruling revives a suit against Modesto by Latinos, who make up more than 25 percent of the city's voting-age population but have had only one City Council member since 1911. Candidates run for individual council seats but must campaign citywide.
"One thing that this case stands for is that racial discrimination persists, it's an appropriate target for legislative enactments, and race is an appropriate factor to be considered in remedying discrimination,'' said Robert Rubin, executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco, which represents the plaintiffs.
He said the 2002 law requires a judge to overturn an at-large election system if the plaintiffs can show a history of racially polarized voting -- that is, that the majority has voted as a bloc against minority candidates and against minority interests in race-related ballot measures.
Patrick Whitnell, lawyer for the League of California Cities, which supported Modesto's challenge to the law, said the state should not go beyond federal law to overrule a city's choice of how to conduct its elections, an area in which "local control should be respected.''
Rubin said his organization is considering suits against numerous local governments, though none in the Bay Area.
Supreme Court denies review of state law favoring minority voices
Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle, October 16, 2007
The U.S. Supreme Court turned away a challenge Monday to a California voting-rights law that strengthens minorities' hand in arguing for district elections by cities, counties and school boards.
The court, without comment, denied review to the city of Modesto, which had appealed a state court's ruling upholding the law. Local governments in California whose election systems give short shrift to minority voices may now face lawsuits, said Robert Rubin, legal director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco and attorney for the plaintiffs in the Modesto case.
The law, passed in 2002 but little used, allows members of minority groups to sue local governments that elect representatives at large, rather than by district. To win such a suit, plaintiffs must show that voting in their community is racially polarized - that is, that a majority racial group has historically voted as a bloc to elect its own candidates and oppose minority interests in race-related ballot measures.
A judge who finds racially polarized voting could order a shift to district elections.
Ninety percent of school boards in California, and lesser majorities of city councils and boards of supervisors, are elected at large, Rubin said.
Defenders of at-large elections say that method of voting encourages candidates to consider the diverse views of a larger area. Critics say such elections allow a racial or political majority to ignore minority concerns.
The first suit under the law was filed in 2004 against Modesto, where City Council members are elected citywide. The plaintiffs say Latinos make up more than 25 percent of the city's voting-age population, but that there has been only one Latino member of the City Council since 1911.
A Stanislaus County judge overturned the law in 2005, saying it violated the rights of white voters because it allowed the courts to set aside a local election system without proof that it had been installed for racial reasons. The judge also said the law was invalid because it failed to require evidence that minority candidates would win if elections were held by districts, a prerequisite in similar suits under the federal Voting Rights Act.
But the state's Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno reinstated the law in December, saying the 2002 statute did not interfere with the voting rights of any individual or racial group.
The court said whites could also sue under the law if they were excluded from power by a nonwhite majority in a local government with an at-large voting system. A change to district elections improves the prospects for minority candidates, the court said, and is constitutional as long as district lines are not drawn primarily for racial purposes.
The case now returns to the Stanislaus County court for a ruling on whether voting in Modesto has been racially polarized.
The Supreme Court's action provides "an opportunity for the Latino citizens of Modesto to demonstrate how the existing at-large system has prevented their meaningful participation in civic affairs for the last century," said Rubin, the plaintiffs' lawyer.
A lawyer for the city was unavailable for comment.
The case is City of Modesto vs. Sanchez, 07-88.
TOP
Send mail to mikemcmahonausd@yahoo.com with
questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: March 24, 2004
Disclaimer: This website is the sole responsibility of Mike
McMahon. It does not represent any official opinions, statement of facts or
positions of the Alameda Unified School District. Its sole purpose is to
disseminate information to interested individuals in the Alameda community.
