Agda Pkt 2026.07.27 Joint SA PFA

Browse Search

1127 11TH STREET, SUITE 300, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • 916.974.9270 • PUBLICPOLICYGROUP.COM PAGE 7 Assembly floor, then on the Senate floor for concurrence of amendments before the bill makes its way to the Governor’s desk. RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS Keep the safe harbor for cities that have already converted – The problem: Cities that did exactly what the 2001 act demanded, converting to district elections, often at significant cost, are thrown back into the litigation pool the day this bill takes effect, and the new anti-reversion rule (14033) locks them in. The bill's first targets will be the jurisdictions that complied, not the holdouts. – Recommended fix: Add to Section 14027(b): a method of election adopted before the act's effective date in response to a notice letter or action under the CVRA of 2001, or by conversion from at-large to district-based elections, is not subject to a claim under this subdivision absent a showing that circumstances in the political subdivision have materially changed since adoption. – Rationale: It preserves the reliance interests of compliant jurisdictions such as Redwood City while reserving the new act's full force for cities that never converted. Plaintiffs keep a path where demographics or voting patterns have genuinely shifted, so no one with a real claim loses anything. Protect the districts-plus-elective-mayor structure – The problem: Many cities' voters approved council districts paired with a citywide-elected mayor, a structure state law expressly authorizes. Under the bill, the mere existence of the citywide mayor's seat can anchor a dilution claim, and a court could strike a voter- approved office. Redwood City is not directly exposed, because it selects its mayor from council, but this is a live threat for districts-plus-elected-mayor cities and charter cities statewide, and Redwood City should support the fix as part of the local-government coalition. – Recommended fix: Amend Section 14026(e) or add to 14027(b) to provide that a district- based method that includes an elective mayor, as authorized by Sections 34871 and 34886 of the Government Code, is treated as district-based for all purposes of this chapter, and that the existence of an elective citywide office shall not, standing alone, establish or support a finding of vote dilution. – Rationale: Genuine dilution claims against a gerrymandered map remain fully available. What comes off the table is the structural question of whether a city may have a citywide mayor at all, which belongs with local voters, not with whichever plaintiff files first. Fix the double demand-letter problem – The problem: Every demand letter must be posted on a public state website. While a city negotiates in good faith with the firm that sent the first letter, inside the process the bill itself prescribes, a second firm can work from the posting and sue without warning. Transparency becomes a solicitation channel. 7.D. - Page 13 of 17 301