Following the Cypress City Council’s 4-1 vote to reject allegations made by a Malibu law firm that it was in violation of the California Voting Rights Act, the city’s legal counsel has provided specific responses in a letter posted on the city’s website.
The letter has sparked intense debate among Cypress citizens in the eight months since the allegations were made. Some citizens claim Cypress is knowingly risking millions of taxpayer dollars amid almost certain defeat just to have the process delayed until the next election cycle while others, including a handful of Asian Americans, have testified they are not in favor of single-member districts.
The 2020 Census indicates that Americans of Asian-American descent make up nearly 40 percent of its population.
Most other nearby cities, including Los Alamitos, Stanton, Seal Beach, La Palma, Orange, and others have voluntarily switched to single-member districts. Most cities that have fought the CVRA allegations have paid millions in fines.
In a certified letter to the city dated September 17, 2021, Attorney Kevin Shenkman, writing on behalf of the Southwest Voter Education Project, alleged “voting within the city is racially polarized, resulting in minority vote dilution, and, therefore, the City’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,” said Shenkman in the four-page letter, “because they often result in vote dilution.”
Shenkman’s letter cited the council’s actions and words further reinforced their knowledge of the violation.
“The [Cypress] City Council’s recent difficulty with adopting even a resolution acknowledging the Asian American community and encouraging their participation in the City, and then its blanket refusal to show support for another minority community [LGBTQ], is also telling,” said Shenkman’s letter.
“Then mayor’s [Jon Peat’s] remark – “I don’t believe it is our responsibility to ensure access and success to any particular group” – demonstrates the unresponsiveness to minority communities that atlarge elections are known to cause, notes Shenkman’s letter, citing the specific legal references. in his letter.”
“Ms. [Carrie] Katsumata Hayashida was passed over for an applicant who the council thought would work more cooperatively with the council majority and city staff,” the Malibu lawyer firm claimed in his demand letter.
In a response to Shenkman’s letter now posted to the city’s website, Cypress city attorney Fred Galante claims single-member districts would have, in fact, created the opposite affect sought.
Since the bulk of your letter follows the same form letter you have sent many jurisdictions in California, your office, and your client Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (“SVREP”) fail to acknowledge certain key attributes about Cypress’ demographics and its elections that lead to the opposite conclusion; the City’s at- large election system does not violate the CVRA,” said Galante in the response.
“An analysis of these attributes would lead SVREP to admit that your allegations about the City violating the CVRA are unwarranted,” he said in the letter.
“Indeed, the City’s demographics and the diversity of candidates historically elected to the City Council of the City demonstrates that the City is not a candidate for your boilerplate allegations,” said Galante responding for the city.
In an interesting twist, the city attorney uses the election of a member whom has constantly claimed to have been bullied as an example.
“First, the city has enjoyed a strong track record of having those persons who receive the most votes behind successful Council candidates getting elected at subsequent Council elections. This example can be seen by viewing even the most recent election when Council Member Marquez, a minority candidate, won the election after her second run for a City Council seat,” said Galante.
“In her first run for Council, she received the second-highest number of votes behind the three successful candidates. As such, there is ample evidence that there is no racially polarized voting pattern in the City to warrant switching to by-district elections.”
Galante pointed out that Shenkman “refused” to provide any evidence that racially polarized voting exists in Cypress.
“You refused, notwithstanding the obligations of a CVRA plaintiff to demonstrate more than simply pointing to one minority candidate who lost an at-large election,” the city attorney says in the response.
“I explained to you that the City’s demographer found no evidence of racially polarized voting. As such, it would not only be appropriate for SVREP to provide this basic information it purports to have in support of its letter, the information would need to be demonstrated in any action against the City in any event,” Galante points out in the letter.
Although the city claims to have performed a demographic study, it has never been discussed at a city council meeting nor has it been released to the public.
In the city’s response letter, Galante further cites legal cases to illustrate “a plaintiff alleging violations of the CVRA must prove “racially polarized voting” by establishing that a minority group tends to vote in a similar manner, that is “politically cohesive,” and that “the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it – in the absence of special circumstances… – usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.”
Galante also claims that Shenkman’s letter “overlooks” the fact that “the city has had a history” of Asian-American candidates being elected.”
Galante cites the winning campaigns of Lydia Sondhi and Dr. Prakash Narain as examples. Sondhi was in 1998 and again in 2002, while Dr. Narain was elected in 2006 and again in 2010.
“Certainly, these undeniable trends of Asian Americans succeeding in the City’s at-large elections confirm that Cypress is not the appropriate target for your cookie cutter CVRA letters.”
Galante’s letter claims Shenkman’s demand letter “also incorrectly assumes that minority voters prefer only minority candidates,” citing court rulings that he claims justify the claim.
Galante says the Cypress Elementary School District, which “substantially shares voting borders with those of the city’s jurisdiction, confirms that Asian Americans have enjoyed tremendous success” in their bids for seats.
Incidents, which Galante’s letter claims, are “valuable evidence that racially polarized voting within the city’s borders simply does not exist.”
Finally, Galante informs Shenkman that a case currently under Supreme Court review rejected a vote dilution theory, “similar to the one you advance here…as unprecedented and unwise.”
Shenkman was traveling and not immediately available for comment but has promised a response and even threatened to seek an injunction against the city to halt the election altogether.