May 07--Palmdale officials are expected to announce Wednesday evening that they have decided to settle a widely watched lawsuit alleging the city violated the California Voting Rights Act.
News of the apparent settlement was broken by R. Rex Parris, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, a few hours before the council was expected to vote on it.
Parris, who also is mayor of neighboring Lancaster, said in a statement that he was "deeply disappointed that Palmdale City Council spent millions of dollars in precious tax dollars fighting to keep a system that violated the law of California and amounted to electoral discrimination."
City officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
As part of the settlement, the city is expected to agree to align its balloting to coincide with state and federal general elections, starting in November 2016. It also will have voters choose elected officials by geographic district rather than from the city as a whole.
Palmdale will pay $4.5 million plus interest to lawyers for the three minority plaintiffs who argued the city's at-large voting system deprived them of opportunities to elect representatives of their choice.
The current City Council members will continue to serve until the next election, when the balloting for mayor, elected at-large every two years, will be held. Council terms can be staggered after that, according to the terms of the agreement.
Asked to comment on the purported settlement, Kevin I. Shenkman, lead attorney on the case, said he was "very pleased with the result."
"Not only will Palmdale have fair and inclusive elections, but other cities will look to Palmdale as an example of what happens if they refuse to comply with the California Voting Rights Act," Shenkman said.
The settlement represents the end of a three-year court battle and a major victory for voting rights activists, with Palmdale as the lone holdout in a string of legal actions against local governments throughout California.
Palmdale residents and registered voters Juan Jauregui, Jesse Smith and Nigel Holly sued the city in 2012. The following year, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mark V. Mooney ruled the city's system of electing council members was illegal and ordered it to come up with a new system of district elections.
The city lost a series of appeals, held an election that plaintiffs argued was illegal and was awaiting a hearing before a California appellate court, which also is expected to be resolved in the proposed settlement Parris announced Wednesday.
Most cities, school districts and other local jurisdictions targeted under the state's voting rights law have switched to district elections rather than wage costly court battles. Santa Barbara and Whittier are among the most recent to agree to change to district elections, while Santa Clarita agreed to switch to a system of "cumulative" balloting that allows voters to put more weight behind a preferred candidate.
Jurisdictions vulnerable to lawsuits under the act generally have significant minority populations but few or no minority elected officials. Advocates of district elections say they are one remedy to the vote dilution that is characteristic of at-large elections and that minorities have a better chance of winning elections from districts made up of a large proportion of their peers.
