HomeMy WebLinkAboutCA District Elections____________________________________________________________________________________
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
File No.: 9-4 (District Elections)
Council Meeting: 2/20/2018
Disposition: Resolution 14468
Agenda Item No: 6.a
Meeting Date: February 20, 2018
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: City Attorney
Prepared by: Lisa Goldfien
Assistant City Attorney
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: DISTRICT-BASED CITY ELECTIONS
SUBJECT: SECOND PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING
CRITERIA TO BE USED IN ESTABLISHING FOUR VOTING DISTRICTS FOR THE
CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS IN 2020
RECOMMENDATION:
Hold a public hearing to receive further public comment concerning how the four City Council electoral
districts should be drawn, and then adopt the attached resolution approving the criteria to be used to
guide the establishment of the districts.
BACKGROUND:
In 2002, the Legislature enacted the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) (Elec. Code §§14025 –
14032), which prohibits California public agencies from imposing or applying an at-large election
method “that impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to
influence the outcome of an election.” (Elec. Code §14027) A protected class is defined by the CVRA
as “a class of voters who are members of a race, color, or language minority group, as this class is
referenced and defined in the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.”
The CVRA defines an at-large method of election to include the election method used by the City of
San Rafael, in which the voters of the entire City elect all the members of the City Council. In a lawsuit
brought pursuant to the CVRA, a plaintiff who establishes a history of “racially polarized voting” under a
city’s at-large election system can require a city to change to a district-based election system.
Since 2015, the City’s Latino Civic Leadership Initiative group has been working to increase minority
representation on San Rafael’s boards, commissions and ultimately the City Council, and the City is
committed to working collaboratively with all of its residents to address any voting or representation
concerns. Despite this work, on November 20, 2017 the City received a letter from Malibu attorney
Kevin Shenkman urging the City to change its at-large voting system to a district-based voting system,
asserting that “San Rafael’s at-large system dilutes the ability of Latinos (a ‘protected class’) - to elect
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of San Rafael’s council elections.” (See
Attachment 4.)
According to the California Elections Code, receipt of this letter starts a 45-day timeline for the City “to
pass a resolution outlining its intention to transition from at-large to district-based elections, specific steps it
will undertake to facilitate this transition, and an estimated time frame for doing so.” (Elec. Code §10010.) A
potential plaintiff may not file a lawsuit under the CVRA until this 45-day period has elapsed. Moreover,
if the City passes such a resolution, it will have a further 90 days to adopt an ordinance implementing
district-based elections before a lawsuit may be filed under the CVRA.
The City Council held a study session on November 20, 2017, at which the City’s outside attorney,
Christopher Skinnell of the law firm of Nielsen Merksamer, provided a general briefing on the federal
and California Voting Rights Acts, as well as an overview of the City’s voter demographics to set the
stage for further conversation on the subject. Subsequently, the City Council held public hearings at its
regular meetings on December 4 and December 18, 2017, and, after receiving an extension of time
from Mr. Shenkman, again on January 16, 2018. At these hearings the Council received public input
about whether the City should switch to a district-based election system.
After the public hearing on January 16, 2018, the City Council deliberated and voted unanimously to
adopt Resolution No. 14453 (Attachment 2), expressing the City Council’s intention to transition to
district-based elections for the City’s four City Council seats, starting with the election of November 3,
2020. The City Council’s adoption of this resolution means that the City is shielded from a possible
CVRA lawsuit until April 16, 2018, by which time the Council must have officially adopted an ordinance
establishing the boundaries of, and the sequence of elections for, the four new election districts.
Elections Code section 10010 specifies the following steps the City Council must follow during that time
period:
a. Before drawing a draft map or maps of the proposed boundaries of the districts, the City
Council must hold at least two public hearings over a period of no more than 30 days, at which
the public is invited to provide input regarding the composition of the districts.
b. After all draft maps are drawn, the City must publish and make available for release at least
one draft map and, if members of the City Council will be elected in their districts at different
times to provide for staggered terms of office, the potential sequence of the elections.
c. After the draft map or maps are published, the City Council must hold at least two additional
hearings over a period of no more than 45 days, at which the public is invited to provide input
regarding the content of the draft map or maps and the proposed sequence of elections, if
applicable. The first version of a draft map must be published at least seven days before
consideration at a hearing. If a draft map is revised at or following a hearing, it must be
published and made available to the public for at least seven days before being adopted.
d. The City Council must hold a fifth public hearing prior to adoption of an ordinance that will
establish the boundaries of the four election districts for City Council elections beginning with
the November 3, 2020 election.
Exhibit A to Resolution No. 14453 sets forth a tentative timeline for the required hearings.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
ANALYSIS:
Following the procedure described above, at this meeting, the City Council must hold the second of two
required public hearings to allow the public to offer input regarding the composition of the districts prior
to the preparation of draft maps of the proposed boundaries of the districts. The City Council held the
first of these hearings at its regular meeting on February 5, 2018. At that meeting, Mr. Skinnell gave a
PowerPoint presentation explaining the factors that may be considered in drawing the districts.
Mr. Skinnell’s presentation included the following points:
• All the districts must have substantially equal shares of the City’s total population. In the case
of San Rafael, with a population of nearly 58,000, there will be four districts with 14,500 people
each, plus or minus up to 5 percent.
• The districts must comply with the Federal Voting Rights Act (“FVRA”), which requires the
creation of minority districts if the voting-eligible population of the minority group can form the
majority in a single member district that otherwise complies with the law. Mr. Skinnell pointed
out that such a “50 percent-plus-one minority” district is not possible in San Rafael, so that
FVRA will not be a substantial consideration in the formation of the City’s electoral districts.
• Gerrymandering (traditionally, drawing districts so as to give one political party an electoral
majority in a large number of districts while concentrating the voting strength of the opposition
in as few districts as possible) is not permitted. For this reason, race may not be used as the
predominant criterion in drawing the districts, although that does not mean that race may not be
considered at all in redistricting.
• The focus should be on neutral criteria that traditionally would be considered in determining
what the districts should look like, such as topography, geography, cohesiveness, contiguity,
compactness and integrity of territory; and “communities of interest” which are listed in state
law, but other non-discriminatory, evenly applied criteria may be considered.
This second public hearing is another opportunity for the City Council to hear from the public as to what
factors should be considered in drawing the lines of the City’s voting districts. At the conclusion of this
public hearing, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to specify the factors that
should guide the establishment of the districts and which the City’s demographic consultant, National
Demographics, Inc., should consider in creating one or more draft district maps (Attachment 1).
The demographer’s draft maps and proposed election sequence will be published no later than
February 26, 2018 for public review prior to the March 5, 2018 Council meeting. At that meeting, the
City Council will hold another public hearing to consider the draft maps and election sequences.
If the City Council requests preparation of any new or revised maps at that time, the new maps must be
published for public review no later than March 12, 2018 for the public hearing scheduled for March 19,
2018. At that meeting, the City Council will take additional public comment on the proposed maps, and
may then approve a final district map by introducing an ordinance to establish the districts. Final action
on the ordinance must be taken by April 16, 2018 to comply with the statutory 90-day timeline.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
The City is partnering with community groups to communicate information throughout the community. A
website, https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/departments/district-elections/ has been created to provide
information about the topic, a schedule of meetings, and an online form for public feedback. Meetings
have been announced via the City’s website, email notifications, the City Manager’s newsletter, and via
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
social media. The City Council considered this issue at a Study Session on November 20, and at its
regular meetings on December 4 and December 18, 2017, and January 16, 2018. The Canal Alliance,
Canal Welcome Center, Alcohol Justice, Youth for Justice, and United Marin Rising organizations
sponsored a public meeting at the Albert Boro Community Center on Saturday January 13 for the purpose
of providing information to and receiving input from interested members of the public. A notice of public
hearing is also posted in the Marin IJ ten days prior to each public hearing. Printed information prepared
by or on behalf of the City in connection with this issue, including PowerPoint presentations, has been
made available in English and in Spanish on the City’s website. Bilingual City staff has also disseminated
informational flyers directly to the public.
Finally, the City will be providing on its website an interactive online tool that the public will be able to use
to draw and submit proposed districting plans.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The full extent of the fiscal impacts of a change to district elections is unknown at this time. The City has
retained National Demographics, Inc. to provide demographic information and prepare optional district
maps. The City’s costs for demographic services, including an interactive online tool for use by the public
in drawing and submitted proposed district maps, will be a maximum of $39,500. There are sufficient
funds to support this contract in the City Clerk’s department budget in the City’s General Fund.
The City’s additional costs for the services of outside counsel during the transition process are estimated
at $35,000. There are sufficient funds to support this contract in the City Attorney’s department budget
in the City’s General Fund.
In addition, upon adoption of the ordinance establishing the electoral districts for the 2020 election, the
City will be liable for the payment attorney Kevin Shenkman’s attorney’s fees incurred in this matter,
subject to documentation and capped at $30,000. There are sufficient funds to support this obligation in
the City Clerk’s department budget in the City’s General Fund.
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:
1. Adopt the attached resolution as presented;
2. Adopt the resolution with modifications to the criteria for establishing the City Council districts;
3. Take no action and continue action until March 5, 2018. Staff does not recommend this option as
it will leave less time for public consideration of draft district maps.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing to receive further comments and then adopt
the attached resolution specifying criteria to guide the establishment of the four City Council districts.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Specifying the Criteria to Guide the Establishment of Electoral Districts and to
Further Specify the Deadline for Submission of Proposed Maps by the Public, with
attached Exhibit A (criteria)
2. Resolution No. 14453, with Exhibit A (Timeline)
3. San Rafael summary demographic profile (prepared by National Demographics, Inc.)
4. November 10, 2017 letter from Kevin Shenkman
5. Questions and Answers
6. Public Hearing Notice, both English and Spanish
RESOLUTION NO. 14468
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
SPECIFYING THE CRITERIA TO GUIDE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
ELECTORAL DISTRICTS AND TO FURTHER SPECIFY THE DEADLINE FOR
SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED MAPS BY THE PUBLIC
WHEREAS, on January 16, 2018, the City Council of the City of San Rafael (“City”)
adopted Resolution No. 14453, stating its intention to adopted district -based elections
pursuant to Elections Code section 10010 and the California Voting Rights Act; and
WHEREAS, the City has retained an experienced demographer and special legal counsel
to assist the City in establishing a by-district electoral system; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2018, and February 20, 2018, the City Council received
presentations from its special counsel concerning the current demographics of the City under the
2010 census and American Community Survey, and the procedures and legal and policy criteria
governing districting, and received public comment regarding appropriate criteria; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2018, and February 20, 2018, the City Council further
conducted duly noticed public hearings at which it received testimony from the public regarding
appropriate districting criteria; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has fully considered the presentations of its consultants and
all of the public comments received; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now wishes to adopt criteria to guide the establishment of
electoral districts consistent with legal requirements, including reasonably equal population and
Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, and which address other concerns and considerations
important to the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has made available on its website materials, including an online
mapping program, that are designed to enable members of the public to submit proposed district
maps for consideration by the Council; and
WHEREAS, in adopting Resolution No. 14453, the City Council also adopted a timeline
for the consideration of proposed maps; and
WHEREAS, to facilitate full consideration of proposed maps at public hearings scheduled
for March 5, 2018, March 19, 2018, and April 16, 2018, the Council wishes to adopt a deadline
for submission of proposed maps from the public;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the above recitals are true and correct; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby adopts the criteria identified
in Exhibit A to this Resolution as criteria to guide the establishment of electoral districts to be
implemented beginning with the November 2020 City Council elections; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City’s redistricting/demographic consulting firm,
acting under the supervision of the City Manager, is hereby authorized and directed to formulate
one or more electoral district plan scenarios based upon the criteria specified in Exhibit A for
review by the public and by the City Council at three public hearings (or more if necessary), in
accordance with the adopted timeline; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby adopts a deadline of March
8, 2018, for submission of proposed maps by the public for consideration by the City Council at
future public hearings; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager shall consult with legal counsel to
resolve all legal issues necessary to give effect to this Resolution.
I, LINDSAY LARA, Interim City Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of San Rafael, held on Tuesday, the 20th of February 2018, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers: Colin, McCullough & Mayor Pro Tem Bushey
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Gamblin & Mayor Phillips
_____________________________
Lindsay Lara, Interim City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Specification of Criteria to Guide the Establishment of Electoral Districts
1. The boundaries of the electoral districts shall be established so that the electoral districts
are equal in population as defined by law.
2. The boundaries of the electoral districts shall not be gerrymandered in violation of the
principles established by the United States Supreme Court in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630
(1993), and its progeny.
3. The boundaries of the electoral districts shall be established so that the electoral districts
do not result in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of
race or color as provided in Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act.
4. The boundaries of the electoral districts shall observe communities of interest as identified
in public comment or identified by the city council, including, but not limited to social
interests; historical areas; industrial or service industry interests; residential and
commercial areas, the location of city facilities and historical sites, and the like, insofar as
practicable.
5. The boundaries of the electoral districts shall be compact, insofar as practicable.
6. The boundaries of the electoral districts shall be created to contain cohesive, contiguous
territory, insofar as practicable. A district shall not be determined to be non-contiguous
within the meaning of this criterion if it is connected by Census blocks comprised of water,
and the Council may also take into account the existence of numerous unincorporated
islands within the boundaries of the City that are not part of incorporated San Rafael in
assessing contiguity.
7. The boundaries of the electoral districts may observe topography and geography, such
as the existence of mountains, flat land, forest lands, man-made geographical features
such as highways, major roadways and canals, etc., as natural divisions between districts,
insofar as practicable.
8. Unless otherwise required by law, the electoral districts shall be created using whole
census blocks, insofar as practicable.
9. The boundaries of the electoral districts may avoid the “pairing” of incumbents in the same
electoral district, insofar as this does not conflict with the constitution and laws of the St ate
of California and the United States.
10. The boundaries of the electoral districts shall comply with such other factors which
become known during the districting process and are formally adopted by the City Council.
RESOLUTION NO. 14453
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO TRANSITION FROM AT-LARGE TO
DISTRICT-BASED ELECTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO
ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 1001 0(E}(3}(A}, EFFECTIVE
FOR THE NOVEMBER 2020 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael is a charter city duly organized and existing pursuant
to the Constitution and laws of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, Article VI of the Charter of the City of San Rafael ("City Charter") provides
for the election of four city council members and a separately elected mayor at the general
municipal election; and
WHEREAS, Article IV of the City Charter provides that all elections to fill public offices
shall be held and conducted as provided by general state law; and
WHEREAS, the City currently uses an at-large election system for electing the mayor
and city council members; and
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2017, the City Clerk received by certified mail a letter
from attorney Kevin I. Shenkman asserting that the City's at-large election system violates the
California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (Elections Code §§14025-14032) ("CVRA") and threatening
to sue the City unless the City transitions to a district-based election system for its city council;
and
WHEREAS, a violation of the CVRA is established if it can be proven that "racially
polarized voting" occurs in the City's at-large election system. Racially polarized voting means
voting in which there is a difference in the choice of candidates or other electoral choices that
are preferred by voters in a "protected class", an in the choice of candidates or other electoral
choices that are preferred by voters in the rest of the electorate (Elections Code §14026(e));
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been advised that defending a lawsuit filed pursuant to
the CVRA will require the City to incur legal fees and costs potentially in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars for the City's own defense, and additional liability of potentially hundreds of
thousands of dollars in legal fees and costs payable to the prevailing plaintiffs if the City is
unsuccessful; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 34886, in certain circumstances,
authorizes the legislative body of a city to adopt an ordinance to change its method of
election from an "at-large" to "district-based" in which each council member is elected only
by the voters residing in the district in which the candidate resides; and
WHEREAS, the California Legislature, in amendments to Elections Code section 10010,
has provided a method whereby a jurisdiction, including a charter city, can expeditiously change
to a by-district election system and avoid litigation under the CVRA; and
WHEREAS, if the City elects to transition to a district-based election system within the
timeframe established in Elections Code section 10010, then the City is protected from the filing
of a CVRA lawsuit with its incumbent costs, and its liability to the potential plaintiffs for legal fees
will be capped at $30,000; and
WHEREAS, although Mr. Shenkman's letter was not accompanied by any evidence to
support his claim of a CVRA violation, the City Council finds that the City should act within the
safe-harbor timeframe provided by Elections Code Section 10010 to transition from an at-large
election system to a district-based election system for electing the city councilmembers; and
WHEREAS, prior to the City Council's consideration of an ordinance to establish district
boundaries for a district-based electoral system, California Elections Code Section 10010
requires all of the following:
1. Prior to drawing a draft map or maps of the proposed boundaries of the districts,
the City shall hold at least two (2) public hearings over a period of no more than
thirty (30) days, at which the public will be invited to provide input regarding the
composition of the districts;
2. After all draft maps are drawn, City shall publish and make available for release
at least one draft map and, if members of the City Council will be elected in their
districts at different times to provide for staggered terms of office, the potential
sequence of the elections shall also be published. The City Council shall also
hold at least two (2) additional hearings over a period of no more than forty-five
(45) days, at which the public shall be invited to provide input regarding the
content of the draft map or maps and the proposed sequence of elections, if
applicable. The first version of a draft map shall be published at least seven (7)
days before consideration at a hearing. If a draft map is revised at or following a
hearing, it shall be published and made available to the public for at least seven
(7) days before being adopted; and
WHEREAS, the City will retain an experienced demographer to assist the City to
develop a proposal for a district-based electoral system; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of a district-based electoral system will not affect the term of
any sitting Council Member, each of whom will serve out his or her current term;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Rafael
as follows:
1. The City Council shall consider an ordinance to change to a district-based election
system for use in the City's General Municipal Election for City Council Members
beginning in November 2020.
2. The City Council directs staff to work with the City's retained demographer, and other
appropriate consultants as needed, to provide a detailed analysis of the City's
current demographics and any other information or data necessary to prepare a draft
map that divides the City into voting districts in a manner consistent with the intent
and purpose of the California Voting Rights Act and the Federal Voting Rights Act.
3. The City Council approves the tentative timeline set forth in Exhibit A, attached to
and made a part of this resolution, for conducting a public process to solicit public
input on proposed district-based electoral maps before adopting any such map.
2
4. The City Council directs staff to institute a program for public outreach and to inform
the residents of San Rafael of this resolution and the process set forth in Exhibit A,
and to facilitate and encourage public participation.
5. The timeline contained in Exhibit A may be adjusted as deemed necessary, provided
that such adjustments shall not prevent the City from complying with the time frames
specified by Election Code Section 10010.
I, LINDSAY LARA, Interim City Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of San Rafael held on the 16 th day of January, 2018, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Colin, Gamblin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Lindsay Lara, Interim City Clerk
3
EXHIBIT A
TENTATIVE TIMELINE
TRANSITION TO DISTRICT-BASED ELECTIONS PER ELECTIONS CODE §10010
NO. TASK DATE
1 Adopt Resolution of Intention January 16, 2018
2 1ST Public Hearing: Consider
composition of districts
February 5, 2018
3 2nd Public Hearing: Consider
composition of districts
February 20, 2018
4 Publication of draft maps and
proposed election sequence
By February 26, 2018
5 3rd Public Hearing: Consider draft
maps and election sequence
March 5, 2018
6 Publication of any new or revised
draft maps and/or proposed election
sequences
By March 12, 2018
7 4th Public Hearing: Consider draft
maps election sequence, and
introduce ordinance establishing
district elections
March 19, 2018
8 Publication of any new or revised
draft maps and/or proposed election
sequences
By April 9, 2018
9 5th Public Hearing: Adopt ordinance
establishing district
April 16, 2018
10 Day 90 April 16, 2018
11 Effective date of ordinance
12 First district-based election November 3, 2020
NDC Summary Demographic Profile 12/14/2017
Race/Ethnic Profile Count Percent ACS Profile Count Percent
Total Population 57,713 ACS Total Population 59,476 3%
Latino 17,302 30% Age 0 - 19 13,439 23%
NH White 34,031 59% Age 20 - 60 31,890 54%
NH Black/African-American 1,242 2% Age 60+ 14,147 24%
NH Native American 313 1%
NH Asian-American 4,189 7% Immigrant 16,172 27%
NH Pacific Islander 137 0% Naturalized (pct of total immigrants) 5,342 33%
NH Other 257 0% Age 5+ 55,785
NH Multi-Race 242 0% Speak English at home 35,764 64%
Voting Age Population total 46,581 Speak Spanish at home 14,073 25%
VAP Latino 12,550 27% Speak an Asian language at home 2,459 4%
VAP NH White 29,103 62% Speak other language at home 3,489 6%
VAP NH Black/African-American 971 2% Speak English only "well" or less 10,490 19%
VAP NH Native American 242 1% Age 25+ 43,126
VAP NH Asian-American 3,249 7% Age 25+, no HS degree 6,135 14%
VAP NH Pacific Islander 104 0% Age 25+, HS degree (only) 17,065 40%
VAP NH Other 181 0% Age 25+, bachelor degree (only) 11,507 27%
VAP NH Multi-Race 181 0% Age 25+, graduate degree (only) 8,419 20%
Citizen VAP total 37,118 Households 22,986
CVAP Latino 4,131 11% Child under 18 in Household 6,685 29%
CVAP NH White 28,509 77% Income $0-25k 4,009 17%
CVAP NH African-American 1,459 4% Income $25-50k 4,160 18%
CVAP NH Asian & Pacific Islander 2,569 7% Income $50-75k 2,880 13%
CVAP Other 449 1% Income $75-200k 8,274 36%
Voter Registration (Nov. 2014) 28,223 Income $200k+ 3,663 16%
Latino Reg 2,063 7% Housing units 24,067
Asian-Surnamed Reg. 1,011 4% Single-Family 14,116 59%
Filipino-Surnamed Reg. 155 1% Multi-Family 9,951 41%
Est. NH White Reg. 24,190 86% Vacant 1,081 4%
Est. African-Amer. Reg 656 2% Occupied 22,986 96%
Democratic Reg. 15,528 55% Rented 10,619 46%
Republican Reg. 4,871 17% Owned 12,367 54%
Other/No Party Reg. 7,825 28%
Voters Casting Ballots (Nov. 2014) 16,838 60% Voters Casting Ballots (Nov. 2012) 25,300 86%
Latino voters 869 5% Latino voters 1,644 6%
Asian-Surnamed voters 507 3% Asian-Surnamed voters 800 3%
Filipino-Surnamed voters 80 0% Filipino-Surnamed voters 137 1%
Est. NH White voters 14,942 89% Est. NH White voters 22,059 87%
Est. African-Amer. Reg 378 2% Est. African-Amer. Reg 561 2%
Democratic voters 9,661 57%
Republican voters 3,297 20%
Other/No Party voters 3,880 23%
City of San Rafael Demographic Profile
Sources: 2010 Census, California Statewide Database (2012 and 2014 November elections), 2011-2015 American Community Survey Special Tabulation of Citizen
Voting Age data, and 2011-2015 American Community Survey data. "Latino" registration and turnout numbers are Spanish-surnamed data adjusted with US Census
SHENKMAN & HUGHES
~_o."" ....... ..., c-.........
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Novcmbo. ... 10, 20 I 7
Cslher Beirne, Clly Clerk
CityorSan R.r,.w.:l
I~OO hrih A'e. Rill . ~09
S,m Rafacl.l"A 9-1901
R,,' I';o /mlllll of Cu/ljim'itl 1'(}Iilll: Rlg/"" ACI
18<10, W'ilht R .....
M.lobu , C.lor"", .. 9026'
U 101 ~n-0970
k .......... " Wat'W"lb,rr ..... egg
wrtle on behilif of our chen!. Soulhw csi VOler RegtSlnlllon Education I'roJCCI .
The Cily of San Rafael (""San Rur.,el") rcltcs upon an al-Iargc clcclion $y~lem for
eleeting cand,dates 10 ils Cuy CouncIl. MOreOH:r , vOllng within San Rafael IS
rnelally polaril.ed, resulting III mmorily \'O le dllulion, and lhercforc San Rafnel's
al.large e1cehons v lola!e lhc Callfornin Votmg Rights ACI 0f2001 ("CVRA "),
The CVRA di~ravors lhe ust' of .so-clliled "nt-large" \'oung an ck~uon method
thai pcmllis \'Olers of an enuft" junsdleuol1 to Ck'Cl eal1dldalC.~ 10 ench OI~1I ~eul .
See ~e"erull)' S(lI!ellc I I, Cilll of ModeslO (2006) 145 Cal.AppA'" 660. 667
("Stmclle:"). Fu r e)lam pli'. ,fthe U.S. Congress WCTC clcctc:d through a nall011wide
ai -large eleetlon, ralher than through t)'plcal smgle-rm:mber d.slnclli. each \OIer
eould easl up 10 435 votes and vOle for an y cllJIdldatc in loc eounny. nOi }U)I the
candidates m the voter's d,stnet, and the 435 candidates rc.::elvlng the mosl
n~!lOllwide VO les would be ek~tc:d. At-Inrge elections Ihu~ ullow a bare majonty of
voters 10 control I.'I'C')' scal, nOI JUSt thc seal>. in a p.lnkular dlslnel o r a
fHUPOnlonal majortly of scals.
Voting nghlS ad\'Qo;lIu.:s have ta rgclcd "at-Iargc" declton seltcml"S for decades ,
hccausc lltey oflell rt:>.uh in ""Ole dil uti on:' ur th e Illl palmlCI1I or l1unOnty group s'
ability 10 elcct the ir prefcrred caJl(hdalcs or Influence the outcome or deettotls,
whll;:h Qo;curs when the clc.::tOflltc >'Ol es In II racially polllnJ.ed manner Sfoe
TllOnlhurg I' Cmgle.f. 4 7K U.S . 30. 46 (1986) ("Gmglcs") The U.S , Suprcme
Coun "has long recognllcd Ihm lIluhi-mcl1lbcr distTicts und at-l:Irge vOl mg
schemes m;tY operate 10 mininllZC or cancel outlhe voting "ITCnglh" or minornics .
Id 111 47; SL't! 11i!;Q id. at 48. fn . 14 {at-large eiL-ehons may also eause el~'Ctc:d
Nov~,"ber 10. 2017
I'age 2 of "
officials 10 "Ignore (minonlyJ inlert:Sls wiloom fe;lr of pohucal eonsequenccs"),
c illng Rogers I'. l,o.Jge. 458 U.S. 61 J. 623 (1982): Whil e I'. R('gislI:r, 412 U.S. 755,
769 (1973). '"(Tihe majority. by virtue of its uumerical ~upenon t y. will regularly
defenl Inc eholc~'S of millOnty \'OIcrs:' Gingles. at 4 7 ..... 'hcn I3.clDlly polan"l!ed
voting occurs. dl\'idlng Ihe polilical UUlt inlo smgh:.-mcmbcr d ist rl cls. o r SOIllC
1.lher upprop riale rcmed y. may faciliwle D minorit y g roup's abi!ilY to ciCCI us
prcfem:d reprcscl1lau\"cs . R"gl'rs. 31 616.
SeCllon 2 of Ihe feoeml VOll ng Righi s ,\C I ("FVRA··j. 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 73, winch
Congn:ss CI13c tcd m 1965 aud amended In 1982, IlIrg e lS. among other Ihlllgs.
at-large eicc tl o n »tocmes. Gingles al 37; fU fllso Boyd & \1ar\;m'in , The 19S]
Aml'lIllmt'tlls f/) IIlI' I'olillg Rig/liS A ct. A Leg/sIM"'C Hi HUfJ' (1 98 3) 40 Wa s h. &
Lee l. R ~'V. 134 7, 1402 . Although enfor.::emelll o f Ihe FVRA wa.~ $IICCl!S5ful HI
mally ~Iale~. California w-.. s an excep tion . By ella c tlng th c CV RA . "(IJhe
Legi s lature IIltend ed tIl e:c p;md prtJll.'Cl1()f1S agalnsl vO le dlluuon ovcr Ihose
provided by Ihe federal VOllng Rights Act of 11)65 ." }f/llteg'" I'. ellY oJI'(llmdllle
(2014) 226 CIiI. Apr. 4 '" 781.l!08. Thus. whil e Ihe C\lRA IS similar 10 the FVRA
m scveral respeclS. It is also different in sc"eml key respects. as the Legislature
soughl 10 remedy whal II conS idered "reS lnell\'C mh:rprelallons given 10 the federnl
aeL" Assc m. Com. on Judiciary , Amtlysis ufScn . Bill No . 976 (2001-2002 Reg .
~s .) as amended Apr. 9, 2002. p. 2
1111."" Califumla Legis!aturc dispclIscd wi lh the requlrclllcnt ill Gillglt'.s Ihm a
tllUionly group d e mons tral e Ihal 11 IS sulTidenlly largl' and g~'Ogrnp hl ca ll y compa e.
to C()I\SlLtute a '"maJonly-nllnoril y d,Slnc •. " SUllche::. a\ 669. Rather. the CV RA
reqUITeS on ly Ihal a pla inllff s hol' Ihe e~iSlcnce of f"~clally polam'~'d votmg 10
eSl3blish Ihat an at-large method o r clecuon violales Ihe CV RA. nOI the
desirablhty of any partieuhu' remed)·. Sce CaJ. Eke. Code § 140211 ("A \"iolatlon
of Seell on 14027 i.f u lubli.f h l'd if it IS s ho wn Ihal racially polaril.cd ,·otmg occurs
..... j (emphaSI S added ); ulw see Asscm Com. (III Judiciary. Ana lysis o f SI.""II. 11111
No. 97612001 2002 Reg. S<.-ss.) as anlclid.."'<I Apr. 9. 2002. p. 1 ("Thus. thl ~ bill
puts the votmg Ilghts hol"SC (the d,scn mmauon Issue) back where It sensibly
belullgs III front of the cart (what Iype of remedy IS appropriate once mC llllly
pollLTl "I!ed \"Ollng ha s been shown):')
T o cslablish I vlolalion o f Ihe CV RA. a plDlllhff mu~t gcnl.""f".llly show thm
"racmlly polamcd voting occurs in elections fo r members o f Ihe goveming body
of the polilical sublhvislOn o r III eJecllOnS Uleorporallng OIher eJectoml chOICes by
the votus of the polill~1 subdi\'I~lon .'" El ec. Code § 14028(a). The CV RA
s pc cl fi cs the ch:ellons Ihal lire mu~t prob:ul\'e : '"cketiuns in which III leasl one
November 10,2011
l'age J of4
candidate IS Ii member of {1 prolL'eted dlLSS or elcellons involvmg ballot measlln:s,
or other electoml dmiecs that alTl'Ct Ihe rights lind pm'lIeges of memOCrs of a
protec ted elhss:' Eke, Code § 14028(3), The CVRA ol~o mukc.~ clc a r Ihat
"feflections conducted prior to the filing of 1111 actiOIl '" arc more prohatlve to
estahllsh the exis tence of raCially polariled votilig than eleClions ellnductcd after
thc films of the lIeuun:' Id,
Factors OIhl.T than "racially polanled \'Ollng" that are Tl.'qllired to make oota claim
under the I:VRA under Ihe "Iotallty of Ihe c lrcumstan ces~ tcst "arc proballve,
hut not neCess.1ry fac\ur'S to eSlabhsh 1\ viol~t ion of' the CV RA . lice , Code §
14028(e). These "other fac tors" include "the hi slory of discnmmli lion, the usc of
electoral deVices or other \'o l ing practices or procedures that lIla y enhancc Ihe
d,luli\'c efTl.'C ts of III·large elecllolI~, demlll of acc ess 10 tho)C processes
deu,:nnll1l11g which groups of candidates \\ III rccel\e fillilllcllIl or other s uppan m a
SIn':n election. the ex tenlto which lIlelllbel'li of a prot ec led cllLSS bear the effects of
past dlSCTlmlnDtion In llreas such as edocallon, employmcnt. and health, which
hmdcr tllelT ability to panlelp:lle elT~'ClI\ely III Ihe polihcal process, alld tlte usc of
oven o r subtle racml uppcals in political Clllll p"lgII S." It!
Sltn Rafael 's lll.!;!rge syste m dilutcs the abiht y of Lal inos (II "protectcd ela ss") 10
elccl cantildalcs of their choice or OIhcrwi sc mnuence the Oilicome of San Rafael's
council ell-clluns.
The cntlre election l11Sl0ry or San Rafael o\'cr )C\'craJ decades IS 11Iusmm\'e: nO!. a
$mgle Lallllo can didat e competed III any oflhe cnune t! cont csts, Opponcnl~ offalT.
dl~tnct~bascd eiectmns may lI!tributc the lal:k of Latmos V} ms for C ity CounCil
posllio ll S to II lack of LatinO mlen: .. "1 in local government, On the camrary, the
alanning a!».ence of Latillo candidates seeklnll electIOn 10 lhe San Rafuel Cit)'
COlilleil reveals \,otc dilutloll &'f! WcslH'l'go Oll:c/ls [or Helll!r GOl'<'mmelll "
Cit)' O[WCSI"~'g(}. 872 ~'. 2d 1201, 1208 .. 1209. n, 9 (5 " Cir, 191N)
According 10 recC 1I1 data. ulmus com pri se approximately J(W. of the popula l loo
of San Rafp el. How e\er. there lire cum:ntly 110 Lalmo repl'CSI.'IIIPIIVCli on th e San
Rafael City CounCil This lack of i.al mo reprcsenm lioll IS perpetuDted by the Cny
of San Rafael _ II (Ip pcars that only 0111' of the Cny's Xl appoill ted otlieia ls is
La llno, and city e Olillc l1 camJld:ltes onen get thelT stUr! III mumclp-11 go\'crnmCllt
through such appotn led pos itions. No t o nly IS th e conlrnsl betwecn \he significant
Latmo proportion of lhe eketOl'llle and the tOlal absence oflatlllOS to be elccted to
the CIlY Coune t! olJlwa rdl y disturblllg. 1\ IS also fundamenwlly hostllc towards
LllImo p.1r11Clpmloo .
No'·cmlx:r 10.2017
I'ug.: 4 or4
The overwhelming maJonty or San Rafael's Latinos rcslde m the Canal Area.
which is locmcd in lhe cCnlra l p;m of the clly. As of 2{)13. a sub$13ll1i pl 80'}. o f
rcside111S in the Can a l Area well: La lillO . Hou'lng in the Callal Area has nOl
mell:ased. no r has II bco;ome any less expcnSI\e limn OIher areas III San Rafael:
howel"er. in the Canal All:a. O\·eIl:TOwd mg goes largely Ignl»"Cd and unregulated.
and so low·inoome. l.ati l1 o fanllhes a rc all but force d to live there. T he Can~1
Area has bco;n beel1 hlTgely neglected and. a s a resul t. is !"linked the lowest In
eommumty well-being m Mann County (Muml COlIII/." Hllmull f);: .. cll)pmelll
Heporf 1011). The Cuy Council is simply not reneet,..e orlhe poople of the Canal
Area. the m:IJority of wh om work low-in come. service-ind ustry job~ in ord er to
MJppon their f.l mi lies and afford o\'ercrowd~-d ho mes ill the poorest pan of San
Rafael I Cnnal Area n.:si&nts and the Latino community thaI largely resIdes there
would greatly benefit from a dlstnct-based e leellon. whieh would allow them t()
ciCCI ellll d uhll es that uuder.>land Ihe Issues faemg thei r neighbor hood.
As you may be awall:. m 20 12."e sued the Clly o f l'almd.11c for vlo1atll1g lhe
CVRA. After an cig.ltHiay trial. "e prevailed. After spcndmg milhons of dollars.
a d lstnet-based reme d y WIIS ulu mately imposcd lI pon the ralmda le cny counCil,
wit h d istricts Ih;11 c o mbi ne 311 mcumbcnts mJ() onc of Ihe fo u r distrlel.'i.
GI'·c n the hlston cal lad: of Launo represcnlatlon on the eny council In Ihe contC"1
of racially polari zed elections. ",e u rge Sn n Kaf.le1 to vo lli nt a rily eh3nge its
at-large syslem o f elect ing CO Il IlCII mcmbers. O therwlsc. 0 11 behalf of rcsidents
Within the Junsdiet ioll. we will be forced 10 seek Judicial rehef. I'lcase advise us
no later than December 31. 2017 as 10 "'hether you "ould like to diSC USS 3
volul1131")' chan ge to your CUrTe n t ai-l arge system .
We loolc forw ard to your response
Very lruly yours.
~
K~'·1n I. Shenkman
, C"""",lmon Aotlrcw M<Cull""'" 'pp"'onl ly rc,ode. ,n ".OJ San R.f..,l .• he <10"= """''''' uflhe C.n.1
An: •. 00-.·0'·"', ~ Son IlIf .. 1 e<>mp<i ... 0 .. OI'''U . uDI"r~' pun''''' "rlbe C .... I Arc ... "b"h .. oul • ...-.Jly
ond _ .. lIy dlffCfnK from Ibe mI "flbcC .... 1 Arc •.
1
updated: January 31, 2018
ATTACHMENT 4
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS RE DISTRICT-BASED ELECTIONS
The following is a list of questions and answers concerning district-based elections, for
discussion by the City Council and the public.
The questions below were asked of staff prior to the City Council’s November 20 Study Session:
1. Did the City receive a letter from attorney Kevin Shenkman?
RESPONSE: Yes, Kevin Shenkman’s letter dated November 10, 2017, addressed to the
City Clerk was received by her on November 20, 2017.
2. What made the City decide to take proactive action on district elections rather than just
wait for pressure from the various groups? What does the City hope to accomplish?
RESPONSE:
The City began to do research, hired outside counsel, and started to schedule public
hearings on the issue of district-based elections when it learned of the impending receipt
of Mr. Shenkman’s letter. The City hopes to provide an opportunity for all interested
persons to provide input to the City Council on the issue of district-based elections, and
to ensure that the City’s electoral system best serves the entire City, in compliance with
state and federal law.
3. Is the City considering forming a citizens committee to look at the issue?
RESPONSE:
Given the very strict timelines that the Legislature has imposed for this process under
the CVRA, and the substantial number of hearings that must be held in a short time, a
citizen commission is impractical at this point. Nothing would prevent the Council from
appointing such a committee in 2021, when lines are redrawn following the next Census.
4. Assuming the City moves to district elections and set the districts in 2018, what districts
will be open in the next election in 2020? For example, if the Mayor and two
Councilmembers are up for reelection in 2020, will it be the districts the two incumbents
are in that get to vote? What if there is another district with no Councilmembers currently
living there? If the Mayor runs for re-election and he lives in a district that has no
Councilmember, is that district Councilmember seat up for election as well?
RESPONSE: (See response to No. 8.) The City Council will be determining the
sequence of elections as part of the process of establishing the voting districts.
2
updated: January 31, 2018
5. Under what circumstances would a vote of the people be required when setting up
districts and at-large versus rotating Mayor?
RESPONSE:
Article IV, Section 2 of the Charter provides that “all elections to fill public offices and
elections on measures shall be made, held and conducted in the manner provided by
law.” Thus, Staff has concluded that under this provision, a vote of the people is not
required to change to district-based elections for the four Councilmember seats. It is
staff’s opinion, however, that converting the office of Mayor to a fifth district-based seat
would require a charter amendment, that would require a vote of the electorate.
6. How does the timing of the City’s decision play into likely outcomes?
RESPONSE: If the City transitions to district-based elections within the timeline
established by the CVRA, the City will be liable for the attorney’s fees of the potential
plaintiffs, capped at $30,000. If the City chooses not to make the transition within that
timeline but does so after being sued, it is possible that the City will be liable for
substantially higher litigation costs and attorneys’ fees of the plaintiffs, and the expense
of the City’s own defense attorneys will also likely be higher. The amounts are unknown
but will increase the longer the action is litigated prior to settlement.
Sued in 2008, Madera Unified School District ended up paying plaintiffs’ counsel over
$100,000 for six weeks of uncontested litigation, and that was after a substantial
reduction of the fees that were requested (which exceed $1 million).
An additional consideration is that the Council may have less control over the districting
process if a court is involved.
7. If the City is sued, could the City appeal to the judge to give us a five-year period to
come into compliance and demonstrate increased diversity on the Council?
RESPONSE: Once a lawsuit is filed under the CVRA, we do not believe there is any
authority for a judge to stay the case for five years; even if a judge is willing to approve a
five-year transition period, it seems unlikely that this would be a basis for refusing to
award the plaintiffs their attorney’s fees and costs.
8. Do we need to collapse the 2020 and 2022 elections? How does it work when only three
of the 5 positions are up in 2020?
RESPONSE:
No. The seats just rotate in. Each current member of the Council serves out the rest of
the term to which he or she was elected, and then must run for re-election in the
districts. It potentially gets a little more complicated if two councilmembers are paired in
3
updated: January 31, 2018
a single district, but everybody still serves out his or her full current term. As part of the
establishment of City electoral districts, the Council will determine the districts that will
have an open seat at the 2020 election.
9. Could this process force the City to do a 2018 election under any scenario?
RESPONSE:
Staff is not aware of any circumstance that would require the City to hold an election for
City Council in 2018.
10. Are the districts set by population or registered voters? If population, wouldn’t that create
significant disparity of registered voters over the districts?
RESPONSE:
Districts are set by total population. It can create a significant disparity, but that is the
basis that has been approved by the courts, including—most recently—the Supreme
Court in Evenwel v. Abbott. The chief exception is that prisoners can be excluded from
the population base.
11. The City of Encinitas spent $150K on the attorneys and $45K on the demographer and
$30K to reimburse plaintiff. Should we expect similar costs? Any others?
RESPONSE:
The City’s outside counsel advises that those figures appear to be realistic for the
demographer and the plaintiff. Fees for the City’s attorneys would likely be less, since
minimal travel time would be required.
12. Will attorney Shenkman be required to prove that he spent $30K before the City is
required to reimburse him?
RESPONSE:
Mr. Shenkman must provide documentation to back up the demand, but in past cases
the documentation has not been very specific and the fees have been negotiated.
The questions below were asked by the public at the City Council’s public meetings:
13. The cost of running for office disadvantages certain members, in particular Latino
members, of the community. Will the cost of running for office in either a district or
citywide election be one of the considerations in court and is that something the City will
also consider?
RESPONSE:
This is a matter for further public input and discussion by the City Council as it considers
the composition of the electoral districts.
4
updated: January 31, 2018
14. What sets San Rafael apart from the rest of the County with regard to an at large mayor
as opposed to a rotating mayor? What benefit to the City transition to 5 districts and
rotating mayor vs current to 4 districts and at large mayor?
RESPONSE:
The Mayor’s office in San Rafael is elected pursuant to Article VI, Section 2 of the City’s
Charter, which was approved by the voters in 1912. Other cities in Marin County
governed by general state law, rather than by a charter city; however, general law cities
may also put a measure before their voters to have a separately elected mayor.
Generally speaking, the larger the city, the more likely it is that the city will have a
separately elected mayor, although there is no formal size requirement.
15. Does the City have a choice between 4 or 5 districts? What input can community give
regarding 5 districts? What input can we make to ensure City investigates 5 districts
thoroughly, as opposed to 4 districts?
RESPONSE:
See response to No. 5.
16. Can the City delay creating district voting until the census and can that decision be
negotiated? What would the cost be to delay? Has it been done in other jurisdictions?
How would the Council delay the implementation of districts and any related cost? What
is the optics of waiting until the 2020 census to create districts? What is the community
opinion? And are there examples of other communities that have done similar?
RESPONSE:
The City’s outside counsel advises that the City has the option to delay implementing
district-based elections until after the 2020 Census, and a number of jurisdictions took
this approach preceding the last Census (in 2010). However, litigation under the CVRA
has become substantially more active since that time, and this approach would not
necessarily avoid litigation. In the course of litigation, a judge might deem this to be a
reasonable course of action for the City rather than having to redistrict for two
successive elections. There is case law under the federal Voting Rights Act recognizing
that redrawing districts for two successive elections would be confusing and disruptive.
Based upon an assessment of the risks, the City Council voted on January 16, 2018 to
proceed with the transition to district elections for the next election in 2020.
17. What is the real candidate’s cost to run a citywide election vs. a district wide election?
Can we project cost to run for a contested district seat?
RESPONSE:
The costs vary based upon the candidate’s approach. There are no City-mandated costs
under either system.
5
updated: January 31, 2018
18. Is there data that can evaluate the pluses and minuses of a less homogenous council?
For example, data that would show if you have regional or district elections do you have
a much more contentious council advocating for its own district rather than the entire
city?
RESPONSE:
City staff is not aware of any quantitative data that addresses this, though there is
qualitative scholarship and case law recognizing the possibility that districts could lead to
more concern for one’s district at the expense of a “big-picture” view. However, the
extent to which this is true varies by jurisdiction.
19. Can information be translated into Spanish from meetings?
RESPONSE:
Yes, the City has arranged for Spanish translations of written agenda materials on this
matter, and for the presence of a Spanish-speaking translator at the public meetings.
20. Can you provide a summary of pros and cons from the Palmdale decision to go to trial?
Can we apply those to our community?
RESPONSE:
CVRA cases are highly fact- and jurisdiction-specific, so applying the result in one
jurisdiction to another is very difficult. San Rafael has far different demographics and
electoral history, and there were a number of unique aspects to the Palmdale case. This
is especially the case as there is no Court of Appeal decision (on the merits) in Palmdale
that would be binding on any lower court. Staff developed a preliminary list of the pros
and cons of transitioning to district-based elections as requested by Mr. Shenkman,
which was included in the staff report for the December 4, and December 18, 2017 City
Council meetings. The City of Palmdale incurred expenses of approximately $4.5 million
litigating its case through trial and appeals. The high cost of litigation is the primary
lesson of the Palmdale case and the argument for making the change during the
statutorily allowed time period.
21. How will the City involve the entire community in the public process and keep them
involved? How will the City ensure people affected, i.e. people of color, have opportunity
to speak and be involved beyond just public comment?
RESPONSE:
The City held a study session on November 20 and has held public hearings on
December 4, December 18 and January 16 to receive public input. Now that the City
Council has decided to transition to district-based elections, the City Council will hold
multiple meetings over a period of not more than 90 days in order to make a final
decision by April 16, 2018. These hearings will give the public the opportunity to speak
to the Council about how the new electoral districts should be formed. In addition, the
6
updated: January 31, 2018
City is entering into an agreement with National Demographics, Inc. that will make an
interactive online system available so that the public can review and propose optional
district maps. Finally, the City has been and will continue to be posting informational
materials to its website and on sound recordings, and will be partnering with community
organizations to get the word out.
22. Will there be an effort in the County to engage the Latino community to become
citizens? i.e. People that may be eligible to become citizens.
RESPONSE:
Such engagement efforts are not a requirement of the CVRA, which only addresses the
change from at-large elections to district-based elections, nor of the decision to be made
by the City Council whether to transition to district-based elections during the time period
allowed by the law. It is a related matter, however, which may be the subject of further
discussion by the City Council either in connection with the current matter, or at a later
date.
23. If the City moves to districts for the 2020 election will the City then have to redraw the
districts in 2021 after the 2020 census data?
RESPONSE:
Yes.The City’s next election is 2020, and the lines would have to be reconsidered upon
the release of the Census the following year. See Elec. Code § 21620 which states
“After the initial establishment of the districts, the districts shall continue to be as nearly
equal in population as may be according to the latest federal decennial census or, if
authorized by the charter of the city, according to the federal mid-decade census.”
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City Council of the City of San Rafael will hold a public hearing:
DATE/TIME/PLACE: Tuesday, February 20, 2018, at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael
PURPOSE: Public Hearing: On February 20, March 5, March 19, and April
16, 2018, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers located at
1400 Fifth Avenue, the City Council of the City of San Rafael
will conduct Public Hearings regarding establishing single-
member council districts in which to conduct by-district
elections for the City Council members, and the potential
sequence of elections in such districts. At the February 20
hearing, the public is invited to provide input regarding the
composition of the districts and the appropriate criteria to
consider in creating the districts. At the two public hearings in
March, the public is invited to provide input regarding the
content of the draft map or maps and the proposed sequence of
elections. At the final public hearing, the City Council will vote
to approve or defeat an ordinance establishing district-based
elections. Comments can also be submitted via e-mail to
Lindsay.lara@cityofsanrafael.org. More information about the
establishment of single-member districts for by-district
elections, including draft maps when they become available,
will be included on the City's website at
https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/district-elections. It is
anticipated that draft maps will be made available on
approximately February 26, 2018. In the event changes are
necessary to the public hearing schedule noted above, a new
notice will be published in accordance with law.
IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You may send a letter to Lindsay Lara, Interim City Clerk, City
of San Rafael, P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560.
You may also hand deliver a letter to the City Clerk prior to the
meeting.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: You may contact Lisa Goldfien, Assistant City Attorney, at
(415) 485-3081. Office hours are Monday through Friday, 8:30
a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL
/s/ LINDSAY LARA
LINDSAY LARA, Interim City Clerk
(Please publish in the Marin Independent Journal on Friday, February 9, 2018)
CIUDAD DE SAN RAFAEL
AVISO DE AUDIENCIA PÚBLICA
El Concejo Municipal de la Ciudad de San Rafael tendrá una audiencia pública:
FECHA / HORA / LUGAR: Lunes, 5 de febrero de 2018, a las 7:00 p.m.
Cámaras del Consejo Municipal, 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael
PROPÓSITO: Audiencia pública: el 5 de febrero, el 20 de febrero, el 5 de
marzo, el 19 de marzo y el 16 de abril de 2018, a las 7:00 p.m.,
en las cámaras del concejo municipal ubicadas en 1400 Fifth
Avenue, el concejo municipal de la Ciudad de San Rafael
conducirá audiencias públicas con respecto al establecimiento
de distritos municipales de un solo miembro en los cuales se
llevarán a cabo elecciones para los miembros del concejo
municipal, y la posible secuencia de elecciones en dichos
distritos. En las dos primeras audiencias públicas, se invita al
público a proporcionar información sobre la composición de los
distritos y los criterios apropiados a considerar al crear los
distritos. En las segundas dos audiencias públicas, se invita al
público a proporcionar su opinión sobre el contenido del mapa o
mapas preliminares y la secuencia propuesta de elecciones. En
la audiencia pública final, el concejo municipal votará para
aprobar o rechazar una ordenanza que establezca elecciones por
distritos. Se anticipa que los borradores de mapas estarán
disponibles aproximadamente el 26 de febrero de 2018. En el
caso de que sean necesarios cambios al calendario de audiencia
pública mencionado anteriormente, se publicará un nuevo aviso
de acuerdo con la ley.
SI NO PUEDE ASISTIR: Puede enviar una carta a Lindsay Lara, Secretaria Municipal
Interina, City of San Rafael, P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA
94915-1560. Usted también puede entregar una carta a la
secretaria municipal antes de la reunión. Los comentarios
también pueden enviarse por correo electrónico a
Lindsay.lara@cityofsanrafael.org.
PARA OBTENER MÁS INFORMACIÓN:
Se incluirá más información sobre el establecimiento de
distritos de un solo miembro para elecciones por distrito, y
borradores de mapas cuando estén disponibles, en el sitio web
de la ciudad en https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/district-
elections. También puede comunicarse con Lisa Goldfien,
Fiscal Asistente Municipal, al (415) 485-3081. El horario de
oficina es de lunes a viernes, de 8:30 a.m. a 5:00 p.m.
CONCEJO MUNICIPAL DE SAN RAFAEL
/f/ LINDSAY LARA
LINDSAY LARA, SECRETARIA MUNICIPAL INTERINA
STAFF REPORT APPROVAL
ROUTING SLIP
Staff Report Author: Lisa Goldfien Date of Meeting: 02/20/2018
Department: City Attorney
Topic: District-Based City Elections
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Composition of Districts to be Established for District-Based City Council
Elections in 2020
Type: (check all that apply) ☐ Consent Calendar ☒ Public Hearing
☐ Discussion Item ☐ Resolution ☐ Ordinance
☐ Professional Services Agreement ☐ Informational Report
*If PSA, City Attorney approval is required prior to start of staff report approval process
Was agenda item publicly noticed? ☒ Yes ☐No Date noticed:
2/9/18
☐Mailed ☐Site posted ☒Marin IJ
Due Date Responsibility Description Completed
Date Initial / Comment
DEPARTMENT REVIEW
FRIDAY noon
Director Director approves staff
report is ready for ACM,
City Attorney & Finance
review.
2/9/2018
☒
LG
CONTENT REVIEW
MONDAY
morning
Assistant City
Manager
City Attorney
Finance
ACM, City Attorney &
Finance will review items,
make edits using track
changes and ask questions
using comments. Items will
be returned to the author
by end of day Wednesday.
Click here to
enter a date.
2/9/2018
☐
☒
LG
☐
DEPARTMENT REVISIONS
WEDNESDAY
noon
Author Author revises the report
based on comments
receives and produces a
final version (all track
changes and comments
removed) by Friday at
noon.
Click here to
enter a date.
☐
ACM, CITY ATTORNEY, FINANCE FINAL APPROVAL
MONDAY
morning
Assistant City
Manager
ACM, City Attorney &
Finance will check to see
their comments were
Click here to
enter a date.
☐
City Attorney
Finance
adequately addressed and
sign-off for the City
Manager to conduct the
final review.
Click here to
enter a date.
Click here to
enter a date.
☐
☐
TUES
noon
City Manager Final review and approval Click here to
enter a date.
☐