Agda Pkt 2026.07.27 Joint SA PFA

Browse Search

Letterhead Date The Honorable Buffy Wicks Chair, Assembly Committee on Appropriations California State Assembly 1021 O Street, Suite 8220 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: SB 1164 (Cervantes) – California Voting Rights Act of 2026 – OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED (As amended July 2, 2026) Dear Assemblymember Wicks: On behalf of the City of Redwood City, I write to respectfully express our position of Oppose Unless Amended on SB 1164 (Cervantes), as amended in the Assembly on July 2, 2026. The City shares the bill's goal of protecting every Californian's right to vote and to participate fully in local elections. We are concerned, however, that the current text imposes substantial new litigation and compliance exposure on cities that have already acted in good faith to comply with the California Voting Rights Act, and that several provisions can be readily improved to achieve the bill's purpose without penalizing compliant jurisdictions. Redwood City is a general-law city of roughly 85,000 residents. In 2019, following a demand letter, the City voluntarily converted from at-large to by-district council elections by adopting a resolution of intention under Elections Code Section 10010. The City completed that transition without litigation, without a settlement, and without any admission of liability. SB 1164 would nonetheless return the City, and others like it, to the litigation pool the day it takes effect. Under the bill, any districting or redistricting plan is itself a challengeable method of election; the by-district structure that has served as a practical safe harbor is removed; courts owe the City's proposed remedy no deference and may act notwithstanding any other law; and the new anti-reversion rule locks the City's district system in place. In practice, the jurisdictions that complied with existing law become the first and easiest targets. The fiscal exposure is significant. Statutory reimbursement per qualifying demand letter nearly doubles to a combined $75,000 plus CPI, defensive demographic and racially polarized voting analysis can cost $50,000 to $150,000 per cycle, a full city-side response to a single letter can run $150,000 to $500,000, and litigating a map or structure challenge under one-way fee shifting has cost comparable California cities anywhere from $1 million to more than $20 million. For a bill pending in your Committee, these are precisely the cost pressures that warrant close scrutiny. We appreciate that the July 2 amendments improved the bill in meaningful respects, including removing the earlier provision that would have stripped legislative, executive, and deliberative privilege and instead preserving those protections under Article I, Section 3(b)(6) of the California Constitution. We ask that the following additional amendments be adopted: 1. Preserve a safe harbor for cities that have already converted. 7.D. - Page 15 of 17 303