At its regular meeting Monday, which, ironically, had zero items listed under “no new business,” the Council again emerged from a session closed to the public and voted 4-1 to fight the allegations that the city is in violation of the California Voting Rights Act.
Following the latest in a series of sessions closed to the public to discuss the city’s alleged violation of the California Voting Rights Act, city attorney Fred Galante announced the Council’s decision to not voluntarily move to district-based elections.
“Following a discussion of that threatened litigation matter, a motion by Council Member Jon Peat, seconded by Council member Scott Minikus, the motion carried four to one with Council member Frances Marquez in opposition.”
“The Council directed the city attorney to respond to Attorney Shenkman ‘s letter expressing that Cypress does not plan to change to by-district elections at this time,” he said with little discussion.
In September of 2021, Malibu Attorney Kevin Shenkman, writing on behalf of the Southwest Voter Education Project, alleged with a series of specific allegations that the City of Cypress was in violation of the California Voting Rights Act.
Since then, the council has held three sparsely attended public forums on “elections” in Cypress, but have not discussed the issue of districting, elections or anything connected to the allegation.
At Monday’s meeting, since the matter was discussed in closed session, Council members did not react publicly, only responding indirectly to some of the accusations of the lack of transparency.
While some have suggested the Council has motives for wanting to prevent districting elections until after the next cycle, the attorney who made the initial allegations said Tuesday morning after the vote that there is a distinct possibility that the elections this Fall may not happen at all.
Shenkman cited cases where, in the past, when cities take evasive action like Cypress has taken in this case, “courts have granted injunctions” to postpone elections until cities are in compliance.
Moreover, Shenkman said he was surprised by the city’s action, noting that he had been in regular communication with Fred Galante, the city’s attorney, since 2021 regarding his original letter and the potential violations.
“This is very different than I was told was going to happen,” said Shenkman, acknowledging his communications with Galante. Galante, founding partner of the firm Aleshire & Wynder, said Tuesday that while he has indeed been in touch with Shenkman on a regular basis, he never suggested any potential outcome.
“I told him the city was evaluating it,” he said, denying any inference to knowing which way the city would ultimately vote on the CVRA allegations.
Moreover, Shenkman said a one-paragraph letter dated March 14, 2022 written to city manager Peter Grant from the Los Angeles based law firm, Armbruster, Goldsmith and Delvac, LLP, representing the Cypress Land Company, the owner of the city’s business park could have made a difference in the council’s decision.
In the letter, signed by attorney Mark Ambruster, the law firm informed Cypress, through its city manager, that the owner of the Cypress Business Park was against district-based elections. The letter was addressed to Grant, but not to the city’s elected officials.
“We believe the Business Park has been an important entity for the entire city and not just the area where the business park is located and therefore, on behalf of Cypress Land Company believe it would be in the best interest of the city to maintain at-large elections,” said Ambruster in the letter.
The ENE has reached out to Mr. Ambruster to discuss the letter, but as of press time, had not received any response. Shenkman called the Business Park letter a potential “shot caller,” meaning he believes it perhaps could have been a signal to the council to take the action to fight the CVRA allegations to remain at-large.
Despite the reasoning for it, he called the Council’s split decision an unfortunate development for voting rights in Cypress that will likely cost the city’s taxpayers millions of dollars in fines and legal fees.
“It is unfortunate that four of the five Cypress Council members chose to openly waste what is likely to be millions of dollars fighting against the voting rights of its residents,” said Shenkman.
Even the consulting firm hired by the city to conduct a series of public forums suggested most cities who contest the law in court end up losing, some of which have paid fines nearing $10 million.
Ariana Barrios, an elected member of the city council in Orange and the CEO of the Communications Lab, provided facilitation services to the city during the three public forums on elections at a cost of approximately $40,000.
Barrios said during the first public hearing, broadcast on Zoom, that the state CVRA provides “even more protection” for voters than the federal law and therefore suggesting any challenge by the city would likely not succeed.
“Since its passage in 2002, CVRA has promoted two decades of change in the California election process. In all, 216 school districts, 34 community college districts, 137 cities and 35 water and other special districts in all county boards of supervisors statewide are now elected representatives by district,” she added.
Local area cities such as Seal Beach, Stanton, Orange and even Los Alamitos have all moved to district-based elections to comply with the CVRA, yet the vote by Cypress indicates they feel the law either does not apply to them or they feel like they are not in violation of the law.
Mayor Paulo Morales did say during the meeting that during the public forums, a majority of residents expressed oppositions to district elections, citing a poll at the last forum in which eight of nine people voting opposed districts.
During the meeting, Grant was asked why the surveys and other materials from the election forums had not yet been posted. He said the materials were being finalized but offered that other surveys performed indicated citywide residents favored remaining in at-large districts by 10 percentage points.
Shenkman said Tuesday while public opinion is critical to city governance, citizens’ opinions have no legal standing in a court of law.
Now that Cypress has voted to not voluntarily move to by-district elections, the Malibu attorney said Tuesday he will now consult with the Southwest Voting Rights Project to consider options to move forward.
“It’s not going to happen in the next few weeks,” he said.
Yet, Shenkman said at some point he will move forward with legal action to bring the city into compliance with the California Voting Rights Act. His legal filings may also seek an injunction to halt the city’s election this Fall until city officials are deemed by the courts to be in compliance with state and federal voting laws.
“It remains to be seen,” he said.
The ENE will have a complete report on the meeting next week.