Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: BC616804, Date: 2024-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Defendant City of Santa Monica’s motion regarding further proceedings on remand is granted. Parties are ordered to file briefs explaining their respective positions under the new standard for dilution articulated by the Supreme Court. Parties’ briefs may address the last three Santa Monica City Council elections. Parties are allowed to file simultaneous supplemental briefs of up to 25 pages, excluding declarations and exhibits. Parties then have 30 days to file simultaneous supplemental responding briefs of up to 15 pages each.

Plaintiffs Pico Neighborhood Association’s and Maria Loya’s motion for re-issuance of judgment entered by this Court on February 13, 2019, consistent with the guidance of the California Supreme Court is denied.

Defendant City of Santa Monica (“City”) (“Defendant”) moves for this Court to permit the parties to file simultaneous supplemental briefs of up to 25 pages, excluding declarations and exhibits, present arguments under the legal standard articulated by the California Supreme Court in Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica (2023) 15 Cal.5th 292, and introduce new evidence concerning the results of the three most recent City Council elections. (Motion Further Proceedings, pg. 7.) Defendant requests the parties to then have 30 days to file simultaneous supplemental responding briefs of up to 15 pages each. (Motion Further Proceedings, pg. 7.)

Plaintiffs Pico Neighborhood Association (“PNA”) and Maria Loya (“Loya”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for re-issuance of the judgment entered by this Court on February 13, 2019, consistent with the guidance of the California Supreme Court. (Notice Re-issue Judgment, pg. 1.)

Plaintiffs move on the following grounds: (1) this Court entered judgment, and issued a corresponding Statement of Decision, on February 13, 2019, and as the California Supreme Court would later recognize, this Court “found that the City’s at-large voting system unlawfully diluted the electoral strength of its Latino residents within the meaning of the California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”), in that several alternative voting systems—e.g., district-based elections, cumulative voting, limited voting, and ranked choice voting—would better enable Latino voters to elect candidates of their choice or influence the outcomes of elections” (Pico Neighborhood Association, 15 Cal.5th at pg. 309, internal quotations omitted; see also id. at pg. 307); (2) the Court of Appeal observed that the California Supreme Court did not “reinstate the trial court’s judgment on the Act”; indeed, the deadlines for some of the injunctive relief ordered in this Court’s February 13, 2019, Judgment have now passed, and thus must be modified to reflect the later entry of a reissued judgment; (3) the Court of Appeal remanded this case back to this Court “for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s guidance,” and this Court’s analysis of vote dilution mirrors that directed by the California Supreme Court, obviating the need for further findings for disposition of this case; and (4) re-issuing the judgment is a simple ministerial act for this Court in light of this Court’s findings and analysis in its February 13, 2019 Statement of Decision. (Notice Re-issue Judgment, pg. 1.)

Plaintiffs sued Defendant in 2016 claiming Defendant’s at-large system violates the CVRA by diluting Latinos’ votes and that by adopting and maintaining that system, Defendant intentionally discriminated against minority voters in violation of California’s Equal Protection Clause.

The trial court held a six-week bench trial in the fall of 2018. A central question in this case is whether Latino voters cohesively supported candidates who ended up losing because of white bloc voting.

On November 5, 2018, Judge Yvette M. Palazuelos issued a tentative decision stating only that the court found in favor of plaintiffs on both of their causes of action. The court ordered Plaintiffs to prepare a proposed statement of decision and judgment, which Plaintiffs did. On February 13, 2019, Judge Palazuelos adopted both proposals.

Defendant appealed the trial court’s judgment. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment and directed the trial court to enter judgment for Defendant.

Plaintiffs petitioned for review of the Court of Appeal opinion. The California Supreme Court granted the petition, but only “to determine what constitutes dilution of a protected class’s ability to elect candidates of its choice or to influence the outcome of an election within the meaning of the CVRA.” (Pico Neighborhood Association, 15 Cal.5th at pg. 310.) The Supreme Court also ordered the Court of Appeal’s decision depublished (id.), but it remains law of the case with respect to plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim (People v. Rivera (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 494, 495; CRC, Rule 8.115(b)(1)).

The Supreme Court “express[ed] no view on the ultimate question of whether the City’s at-large voting system is consistent with the CVRA” and remanded the case to the Court of Appeal to decide “whether, under the correct legal standard, plaintiffs have established that at-large elections dilute their ability to elect their preferred candidates,” as well as “whether plaintiffs have demonstrated the existence of racially polarized voting” and “any of the other unresolved issues in the City’s appeal.” (Pico Neighborhood Association, 15 Cal.5th at pgs. 324-325.)

On remand, the Court of Appeal issued an order calling for supplemental briefing, noting that the Supreme Court did not “reinstate the trial court’s judgment” and instead only “identified the proper way to analyze” the CVRA. The Court of Appeal also “invite[d] the parties to include in their briefing whether it would be appropriate to remand the case to the trial court” to perform the analysis necessary to decide whether the City’s current election system dilutes Latino voting strength.

After briefing, the Court of Appeal issued an order remanding the case to this Court “for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s guidance.” (Remand Order, pg. 2.) The Court of Appeal reiterated that the Supreme Court “did not review the [Equal Protection] issue,” which the Court of Appeal had rejected, “nor did it reinstate the trial court’s judgment on the [CVRA]” claim.

Defendant filed its motion regarding further proceedings on remand on June 26, 2024. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on July 26, 2024. Defendant filed its reply on August 1, 2024.

Plaintiffs filed their motion to re-issue judgment on July 10, 2024. Defendant filed its opposition on July 26, 2024. Plaintiffs filed their reply on August 1, 2024.

“When a trial court applies the wrong legal standard,” it is natural that “the record might not be fully developed” as it relates to the right standard. (In re J.R. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 526, 532.) When some parties and the court focus on what turns out to be the wrong legal test, it may be the case “that further information was available, but not presented, at the time” of the trial court’s judgment. (In re Charlisse C. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 145, 167.) As a result, when a court announces “the applicable test for the first time,” the parties “should be allowed to present additional evidence to meet that test if they choose.” (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 190.)

The appellate decisions in this case were the first to ever evaluate the elements of the CVRA. The California Supreme Court granted review to give guidance to lower courts on the legal standard for evaluating vote dilution under the CVRA. The California Supreme Court has now announced that standard, under which “[c]ourts should consider the totality of the facts and circumstances of the particular case, including the characteristics of the specific locality, its electoral history, and an intensely local appraisal of the design and impact of the contested electoral mechanisms as well as the design and impact of the potential alternative system.” (Pico Neighborhood Association, 15 Cal.5th at pg. 320, citations and quotation marks omitted.) “The key inquiry in establishing dilution of a protected class’s ability to elect its preferred candidate under the CVRA” under a different election system “is what percentage of the vote would be required to win.” (Id.) Neither the parties nor Judge Palazuelos had the benefit of that standard during trial.

The CVRA provides that elections predating the filing of an action “are more probative to establish the existence of racially polarized voting than elections conducted after the filing of an action.” (Elec. Code §14028(a).) That pre-complaint elections are “more probative” does not mean that post-complaint elections are irrelevant; to the contrary, it means that post-complaint elections must be “probative” to some degree, at least. (See, e.g., Segal v. ASICS America Corp. (2002) 12 Cal.5th 651, 662 [stating courts must give statutes their “plain and commonsense meaning”].)

Plaintiffs argue Judge Palazuelos predicted what the Supreme Court would later articulate on Plaintiffs burden to prove vote dilution, so this Court should begin and end its dilution analysis with the 2019 decision. (Opposition. at pgs. 10-12; see also id. at pg. 11 n.7.) Plaintiffs’ argument does not square with the reality that two appellate courts ordered remand. Further, the 2019 Statement of Decision actually said very little on the subject of dilution. The Court of Appeal observed:

In passing, the trial court[’s Statement of Decision] mentioned “cumulative voting, limited voting and ranked choice voting” as systems that, as alternatives to district voting, would also “enhance” Latino voting power. The court’s treatment of these alternatives was perfunctory. The court did not define cumulative voting, limited voting, or ranked choice voting. Nor did it attempt to analyze how each might satisfy the dilution element. This fleeting reference, which Pico authored, is insubstantial and cannot support the judgment.

(Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica (2020) 265 Cal.Rptr.3d 530, 547, as modified on denial of reh’g (Aug. 5, 2020), as modified (Sept. 20, 2023), rev’d and remanded sub nom. Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica (2023) 15 Cal.5th 292, emphasis added.)

Further, Plaintiffs argued both at trial and on appeal that Oscar de la Torre’s loss in the 2016 Council election supports their case. If de la Torre’s post-complaint defeat in 2016 matters, then so should his post-complaint victory in 2020.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to permit the parties to file briefs explaining their respective positions on how Defendant’s election system measures up under the new standard for dilution articulated by the Supreme Court is granted. Parties’ briefs may address the last three Council elections. Parties then are allowed to file simultaneous supplemental briefs of up to 25 pages, excluding declarations and exhibits. Parties have 30 days to file simultaneous supplemental responding briefs of up to 15 pages each.

Parties are ordered to file briefs explaining their respective positions on how Defendant’s election system measures up under the new standard for dilution articulated by the Supreme Court. Parties’ briefs may address the last three Council elections.

Parties are allowed to file simultaneous supplemental briefs of up to 25 pages, excluding declarations and exhibits. Parties have 30 days to file simultaneous supplemental responding briefs of up to 15 pages each.

In light of the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiffs’ motion to re-issue judgment is denied.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court