Skip to content
Advertisement

Judge’s decision to cancel Palmdale election creates confusion

Advertisement
 (25212)

PALMDALE, Calif.—The City of Palmdale plans to immediately file an appeal and seek an emergency ruling in the wake of a decision by a superior court judge to halt an upcoming city council election.

According to city officials, “confusion reigned supreme” as voters, city staff and candidates alike wrestled with unanswered questions and confusion regarding the court’s decision regarding the planned Nov. 5 election.

“We have received calls and emails from residents, candidates and even the media wondering just what elections have been cancelled by the judge’s decision in the California Voting Rights Case,” said Palmdale Communications Manager John Mlynar.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mark V. Mooney’s ruling stated that the city of Palmdale is “preliminarily enjoined from holding an at-large election (as that term is defined in the California Voting Rights Act) for Palmdale’s City Council, tabulating the results of such an at-large election, or certifying the results of such an at-large election.”

Mooney wrote in his decision that the Northern Los Angeles County city violates the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) by using an election format that dilutes the influence of minority voters.

In the ruling, Mooney said he didn’t consider voter turnout or the effectiveness of past campaigns, only voting patterns. He pointed out that intent to discriminate is not required to prove a violation.

“Plaintiffs’ evidence established that racially polarized voting occurred in the city council elections for the city of Palmdale,” he wrote. Additionally, he also determined that members of a particular class do not need to be geographically concentrated for racially polarized voting to take place.

City Attorney Matthew Ditzhazy says Palmdale hopes to file with the Court of Appeal by today and hopes a decision will be returned in the next few days.

Ditzhazy says among the key grounds for the appeal are that the judge’s decision was unprecedented; that it is contrary to the state election code; that stopping the election would cause irreparable harm to the city, candidates and voters; and the election would engender lack of trust in the electoral system.

Ditzhazy also notes that a hearing will be held Oct. 9 where the judge is suppose to present a legal remedy for the situation.

The lawsuit filed against Palmdale alleged that at-large election methods—in which voters can cast ballots for all seats up for election, not just one based on where they live—prevent minority voters from electing candidates of their choice, a violation of the Voting Rights Act.

According to Patrick Whitnell, general counsel for the League of California Cities, such lawsuits have been filed periodically against entities, mostly school districts, since the CVRA was passed in 2001, But legal action against cities did not start occurring at a pronounced rate until the resolution of a lawsuit against the city of Modesto.

“I think that opened the floodgates to these types of lawsuits,” said Whitnell, noting that similar cases have been filed against the city of Santa Clarita, the Santa Clarita Community College District and the Sulphur Springs School District.

The Mooney ruling did not order a halt to the races for Palmdale School District, Westside School District, Antelope Valley Union High School District, Antelope Valley Community College District or Palmdale Water District.

“Those elections, to the best of our knowledge, will continue as planned,” Mlynar said. “The city is appealing the decision regarding the Palmdale City Council election.”

Questions about candidate debates have also arisen due to the decision.

“I’ve gotten emails from groups who have scheduled candidate debates for all the various offices, and they’re wondering if they should be going forward with them,” added Mlynar.

Never before in the state of California has an election been enjoined.

“We are certainly traveling on uncharted waters,” Mlynar said. “Absentee ballots have been sent out already, which means the election has already begun. Under this ruling, it would prevent tabulation and certifying the vote outcome of the Palmdale City Council election, but not the other elections which are all on the same ballot. This has to be very confusing for the voters.”

“We continue to encourage our residents who have received absentee ballots to exercise their right to vote and fill out and mail in their ballots,” said Ditzhazy. “The City of Palmdale stands firm in our efforts to protect the constitutional rights of its residents to have their voice heard through the voting process.”

Not only is this ruling without precedent, but it is contrary to the Elections Code provisions set forth by the Legislature. While the code does provide the exclusive means for a judge to interfere with an election, it also requires that the ruling would not “substantially” interfere with the conduct of the election. The California Voting Rights Act, which has never been ruled on before and the complex provisions which have never been interpreted, has resulted in the elimination of the election for more than 153,000 Palmdale residents, said the city attorney.

“This ruling is not only highly unusual, it strikes at the heart of our republic, directly thwarting the will of the people,” Ditzhazy said.

“Equally as perplexing is the fact that by halting the election, it will prevent what the voting rights lawsuit intended to do,” stated Ditzhazy. “Four candidates—Tom Lackey, Fred Thompson, Sir Daniel Duplechan, and Richard Loa—are vying for two seats. Three of the four candidates are minorities. That means at least one and possibly two minority candidates would be elected to the Palmdale City Council in November if the election were held.”

Under the ruling, the current council, which was elected at large, will remain seated until the future election is held.

City News Service contributed to this story.

Advertisement

Latest