Arguably, one obstacle to replacing our notorious board is the way in which our trustees are elected. Our South County district is divided into seven geographical areas, and each trustee represents one of those areas. But our “at-large” voting system has all voters in the district voting in all races. Thus, during the November election, though I reside in Mr. Fuentes’ area (Lake Forest, etc.), I was able to vote also in the races for a seat in Mr. Williams’ (Mission Viejo, etc.), Mr. Jay’s (Laguna Beach, etc.), and Mr. Lang’s (Irvine, etc.) areas.
The “at-large” system is widely used in California, but it has now been successfully challenged owing to its conflict, in some areas, with California’s Voting Rights Act.
Whether these changes will ultimately yield a change in our own district—with its peculiar demographics—is difficult to say.
An article from Sunday’s LA Times:
Madera Unified case is changing elections throughout California
…[Retired custodian Jesse] Lopez was one of three plaintiffs in a lawsuit earlier this year against the Madera Unified School District aimed at greater Latino participation on the school board in the San Joaquin Valley town.
An injunction in the case is forcing Madera Unified, which is 82% Latino, to change the way it elects its board.
The decision has already begun to reshape school boards, city councils and special districts throughout California. Dozens of jurisdictions have Latino majorities with few, if any, Latino elected officials—the very conditions that led to the ruling that the Madera district's electoral system had fostered "racially polarized voting" in violation of the California Voting Rights Act.
…
The latest [episode in this struggle]… was a ruling in September by Madera County Superior Court Judge James E. Oakley, who invalidated, in advance, the results of the November school board election. Oakley said Madera's at-large voting system, in which all voters in the district cast ballots for all board members rather than for a candidate representing their section of town, violated the Voting Rights Act.
…
Roughly 90% of California school boards use at-large voting, as do many city councils and other local boards. The state's Voting Rights Act, enacted in 2002, bans at-large voting if there is evidence that it "impairs the ability" of a minority group "to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election."
Other jurisdictions are paying heed. In the wake of Oakley's order, the Madera City Council decided to switch to district elections, City Councilman Robert Poythress said. And in neighboring Fresno County, where 28 of 32 school boards use at-large elections, all 28 decided to follow Madera's lead and switch to district elections, county schools Supt. Larry Powell said.
…
[In explaining the low number of Latino candidates for public offices, Latino trustee Robert] Garibay argued that Latinos were, perhaps, discouraged from running because "they don't feel that they have a chance." As a result, he said, "they don't get involved, for the most part, in community events." That is the argument made in interviews by the three plaintiffs.
"What are the chances of one of us being able to run citywide?" asked Carlos Uranga, who ran twice unsuccessfully for school board. "And what are the chances of us motivating our voters to vote when they don't think we stand a chance?"
…
The idea behind district [i.e., area]-based elections, which most large urban school systems use, is that a minority candidate has a better chance of being elected in a specific area than citywide.
The argument against them is that they encourage territorial disputes and pork-barrel fights for resources.
"Our concern is that it could lead to some Balkanization, where you have one candidate who really just represents one race of people, and we think they should represent everyone," said Ralph Kasarda, a staff attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, a leading legal voice against affirmative action in California. Kasarda said he wasn't familiar with the Madera case and stressed that he had no problem with a legal remedy that prevents votes "from being diluted."….
Ultimately, it was the threat of a costly legal battle … that persuaded Madera Unified to give in.
"It's too expensive," Supt. John Stafford said. "We can't afford to take money away from our students to fight this, even though we don't feel we've done anything wrong."….
Ah, yes. Defending the current system is expensive. If the SOCCCD's embrace of at-large voting is legally challenged, perhaps the specter of unnecessary cost would deter the board from pursuing a legal defense.
Well, anything's possible. I guess.
In the past, Dissent the Blog has advocated pursuing a challenge to the at-large voting system in our district, though not for reasons related to the Voting Rights Act. It seems to me that, where voter cluelessness about "down ballot" races is the norm, at-large voting only exaggerates the tendency of voters to vote for incumbents. Perhaps, if a voter only had one trustee race to think about, he or she would be more likely to pay attention to the candidates and the issues.
Who knows.
UNRELATED NEWS:
UC to curtail enrollment in 2009 (Contra Costa Times)
The University of California is preparing to limit the number of freshmen it admits this year, a step brought on by the state budget crisis.
The UC Board of Regents will meet Jan. 14 to discuss the best way to cut enrollment, university system officials said Tuesday. The 10-campus, 220,000-student system follows the California State University system in limiting admissions for the fall 2009 term….
2 comments:
Voting by area instead of at large would allow people who would like to run a much better chance against the well funded incumbents. It would cost less to wage a good race.
Why not just set up a super-delegate system like the Dems have done at the national level? That way you can exclude voters because everyone knows that voting should only be reserved for the elite Marxist intellectual vanguard of professional revolutionaries. All the excluded voters can then join an organization that is affiliated with the Democrat party, i.e. the Union. This way the local chapter execs. (or Soviet) can legitimately be integrated into the government. Now go rally you vanguard Chunk!
Post a Comment