In a declaration that may force Santa Clara to deal with long-standing complaints about equal representation on the City Council, a judge on Tuesday said the city’s current election system isn’t fair to minority voters.
Superior Court Judge Thomas Kuhnle leaned in favor of the group of Asian Americans who sued Santa Clara last year claiming the city’s at-large election system discriminates against Asian Americans by diluting their vote.
“Based on the evidence presented at trial, the court finds that plaintiffs have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the at-large method of election used by the city impairs the ability of Asians to elect candidates as a result of the dilution and abridgment of their rights as voters,” wrote Kuhnle in a proposed statement of decision Tuesday. “Having found the City liable for violating the [California Voting Rights Act], this action will now proceed to the remedies phase.”
The decision is not final, meaning both sides can try to convince him to change his mind.
Since the city charter was adopted in 1951, not a single Asian American candidate has won a seat on the City Council even though Asian Americans make up more than 30 percent of the city’s eligible voters.
“The judge has some complex statistical analysis to weed through but ultimately this was a case about people, about a community and its ability to affect decisions that directly impact their daily lives,” said Robert Rubin, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.
“I think it’s just a wonderful decision that I thought would be made all along,” said John McLemore, a former Santa Clara councilman.
But Santa Clara City Attorney Brian Doyle said in an emailed statement that the city’s legal team will file its objection by the end of May.
Regardless, Santa Clara will almost certainly have to change the way it runs elections moving forward.
Rubin and the plaintiffs will push for a series of neighborhood districts, while Mayor Lisa Gillmor and others have proposed two districts — divided roughly along the El Camino Real — with council members elected through rank-choice voting.
The two district proposal is the basis of Measure A, which Santa Clara voters will decide this June. With the new tentative decision from Kuhnle, however, the measure’s fate is unclear. It’s unknown whether it will stand up to a court challenge, if approved by voters. Kuhnle has already called the idea of two districts “suspect,” but others who had initially questioned the idea now say they think it makes sense.
“It has taken me a while to understand the relative advantages of this method that is being proposed to you and I’m convinced that it has real potential to achieve purposes of the California Voting Rights Act,” Jeanne Gobalet, a demographer hired by the city told the council recently. “I think I am persuaded now that it has the potential to do so even better than the single-member districts.”
Measure A would let voters rank their preferred candidates. Each district would elect three council members for four-year terms. Proponents, including Measure A campaign committee chair Rob Jerdonek, say the switch “will make sure every vote counts.” With the ability to rank their choices, Jerdonek said, voters would be able to select who they really want to see on the council rather than feeling like they need to strategically save their vote for a candidate they think is more likely to win.
With rank-choice voting, the threshold for winning a seat on the council would be 25 percent plus one.
“While our campaign is not involved in the lawsuit, we believe that Measure A is the best solution for Santa Clara to ensure fair elections, give voters better choices, and protect voting rights,” Jerdonek said. “It is better than both the current system and the single-member district system proposed by the plaintiffs.”
But opponents, including many of the Asian American voters who filed the lawsuit against the city, say they think smaller neighborhood districts would give minority groups a better chance of sending minority candidates to the council and that rank-choice voting will just confuse voters.
“A neighborhood plan would reduce election costs, empower grassroots campaigns, and result in more transparent government that reflects the city’s diversity,” wrote opponents in their official stance against the measure, including Wesley Mukoyama, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and Jethroe Moore, head of the San Jose Silicon Valley NAACP.
While both sides will likely use Kuhnle’s words to bolster their own arguments, opponents of Measure A are prepared to challenge the two-district plan if voters pass it.
They have also objected to Measure A election mailers, which the city has spent more than $30,000 sending to voters. The mailer doesn’t explicitly endorse the measure, but, opponents, who have filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission, say it fails to acknowledge alternatives.
Doyle, the city attorney, pushed back at the idea that the mailer is political, saying, “I’m not concerned about the validity of the mailers.”
Regardless, whether voters ultimately support or reject Measure A, the process of electing a City Council is set to change significantly, ending a process that opponents say has long disadvantaged minority voters. In cases where other cities that have faced similar legal challenges in California, judges have ultimately supported neighborhood districts.
“I think it’s something that the city better take to heart,” said sitting councilwoman Patricia Mahan, adding that she fears institutionalized racial and ethnic biases may be threatening the city, “because I think it was a very-well reasoned decision.”
