Agda Pkt 2026.07.27 Joint SA PFA

Browse Search

Cities that converted to district-based elections in response to a notice letter or action under the CVRA of 2001 should not be exposed to a new claim absent a showing that circumstances have materially changed since adoption. We request an addition to Section 14027(b) providing that a method of election adopted before the act's effective date, whether in response to a CVRA notice or by conversion from at-large to district-based elections, is not subject to a dilution claim absent a showing of materially changed circumstances. This preserves the reliance interests of compliant cities while leaving plaintiffs a full path where demographics or voting patterns have genuinely shifted. 2. Protect the district-based-plus-elective-mayor structure. Many California cities operate voter-approved council districts paired with a citywide-elected mayor, a structure state law expressly authorizes under Government Code Sections 34871 and 34886. Under the bill, the mere existence of that citywide office could anchor a dilution claim and a court could strike a voter-approved office. Redwood City selects its mayor from among its councilmembers and is not directly exposed, but we support this fix on behalf of the local-government community. We request an amendment to Section 14026(e) or 14027(b) providing that a district-based method that includes an elective mayor is treated as district-based for all purposes of the chapter, and that the existence of an elective citywide office shall not, standing alone, establish or support a finding of vote dilution. 3. Close the double demand-letter loophole. The bill requires every demand letter to be posted on a public state database. While a city negotiates in good faith with the first letter-writer, using the process the bill itself prescribes, a second firm can work from the posting and sue without warning. We request that Sections 10010(e)(5)(B) and 14029(b)(5)(B) be amended so that the 45-day and 90-day protected periods bind all prospective plaintiffs, not only the first letter-writer, for as long as a resolution of intention remains in effect and the city is proceeding with reasonable diligence. The bill already caps cumulative reimbursement across letter-writers; this simply aligns the filing rules with the fee rules. 4. Reconcile the compliance timelines with a tolling provision. The bill requires a full public process to change a map in response to a letter, including four hearings, seven-day publication cycles, republication after revisions, and now mandatory multilingual outreach, but gives cities only 45- and 90-day windows to finish, with no tolling. In an election year the timelines do not reconcile, and a city acting diligently mid-process can be sued for not being done. We request an addition to Section 10010(e)(4) tolling the protected periods while a city is performing the hearing, outreach, and publication requirements with reasonable diligence. The deadline keeps its force, since tolling applies only while the city is actively doing the work. 5. Define “material disparity.” Liability for voter suppression triggers on a “material disparity,” a term the bill never defines. Once a plaintiff asserts one, the burden shifts and the city must defend its policy by clear and convincing evidence. Agencies cannot know in advance whether they are in compliance. We request an addition to Section 14026 defining material disparity as a statistically significant difference that is meaningful in magnitude, established by competent evidence, and not attributable to chance, or, in the alternative, direction to the 7.D. - Page 16 of 17 304