Jump to content

User:Clairestum/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Clairestum

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Clairestum (talk | contribs) at 00:10, 9 November 2010 (→Adversaries). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Claire's Sandbox

The California Voting Rights act of 2001 (CVRA) was signed into law on 9 July 2010.[1] The act expands on the federal voting rights act of 1965 and makes it easier for minority groups to prove that their votes are being diluted in "at-large" elections.[1] In 1986 the U.S. supreme court established conditions that must be met to prove that minorities are being disenfranchised; the CVRA eliminated one of these requirements (plaintiffs must demonstrate a specific geographic district where a minority is concentrated) making it easier for minorities to sue districts. [2]

In 2007 the California State Supreme court ruled the act constitutional in Sanchez v. The City of Modesto.[3] The city claimed that the act was unconstitutional because it inherently favored people of color; the court concluded that the act was not racist in nature and returned to case to trial court.[3]

Critics of the act argue that it inappropriately makes race a predominant factor in elections and that is does not make sense to eliminate the requirement to establish a geographic district where there is a minority concentration.[2]

Establishment of the Act

The bill was authored in the California State Senate by Democratic Senator Richard Polanco [4] It was endorsed by both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican America Legal Defense and Educational Fund.[5]. The bill was passed by both the house and senate with votes as follows: [5]

Senate

  • For: Alacorn, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Chesbro, Costa, Dunn, Figueroa, Karnette, Kuehl, Machado, Murray, O’Connell, Ortiz, Perata, Polanco, Romero, Scott, Soto, Speier, Torlakson, Vasconcellos
  • Against: Ackerman, Battin, Brulte, Haynes, Johannessen, Johnson, Knight, Margett, McCLintock, Monteith, Morrow, Oller, Poochigian

House

  • For: Alquist, Aroner, Calderon, Caniamilla, Cardenas, Cardoza, Chan, Chavez, Chu, Cohn, Corbett, Correa, Diaz, Dutra, Firebaugh, Florez, Frommer, Goldberg, Havice, Hertzberg, Jackson, Keely, Kehoe, Koretz, Longville, Lowenthal, Matthews, Migden, Nakano, Nation, Negrete, McLeod, Oropeza, Papa, Pavley, Reyes, Salinas, Shelley, Simitian, Steinberg, Strom-Martin, Thomson, Vargas, Washington, Wayne, Wiggins, Wright, Wesson
  • Against: Aanestad, Ashburn, Bates ,Bogh, Briggs, Bill Campbell, John Campbell, Cogdill, Cox, Daucher, Harman, Hollingsworth, La Suer, Leach, Leonard, Leslie, Mountjoy, Robert Pacheco, Rod Pacheco, Pescetti, Richman, Runer, Strickland, Wyland, Zettel
  • Abstain/Absent: Cedillo, Dickerson, Horton, Kelley, Liu, Madox, Maldonado, Wyman

The bill was signed into law by Governor Gray Davis on July 9th, 2002.[1]

Impact

Overview

The act had two major ramifications. First, it made it easier for minority groups to sue governments that use at-large elections that may be diluting the minority vote [6] Second, if the plaintiffs in these cases wins then the government is responsible for paying the all legal and court fees; this includes cases in which the government chooses to settle before a verdict is reached.[5] By 2009 three cases had been successfully brought against local governments; all three resulted in the local government being required to eliminate at-large elections (and draw district lines) and a total of $4.3 million has been paid out to plaintiffs.[7]

Proponents

Supporters of the CVRA championed how much easier it made it for minority groups to dismantle at-large elections; minorities no longer had to prove that a specific minority candidate lost due to racially polarized voting, they only had to prove racially polarized voting existed.[8] Luis Artega, Executive Director of the Latino Issues Forum, supported the bill and claimed, "We have long been aware that at-large elections in a racially polarized electorate effectively work to dilute Latino voice and influence".[9] While the law has in practice served the Latino population, it applies to all ethnic minorities including the LGBT community.[10] Regardless of racially polarized voting, some argue that at-large elections allow a majority voice to control the entire populous and therefor prefer elections by district.[11]

Adversaries

Critics of the CVRA argue that the act makes race a predominant factor in elections and that eliminating at-large elections does not make sense if a minority cannot occupy and establish a majority in a specific geographic area.[2] John McDermott, defense attorney for the City of Modesto in their case under the CVRA, claimed that the CVRA is a radical departure from the Federal Voting Rights act; he argued that at-large elections can be threatened even if there is no proof that a minority group either suffered a disadvantage or would benefit from districts.[6] Others say the law is unnecessary, arguing that the number of minorities holding office was on the rise before the act passed and that the law is being used to "shake down" local governments.[7] General supporters of at-large elections say they encourage candidates to encompass many view points and represent diverse groups.[11]

Another criticism arose from the section of the act maintaining that if a government loses or settles they are required to pay the lawyer fees of the plaintiffs. The law was primarily drafted by Seattle law professor Joaquin Avila and the legal counsel for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, Robert Rubin.[7] All three cases filed under the CVRA has been filed by one of these men and they (along with lawyers working with them) have received $4.3 million in fees.[7] Avila and Rubin stated they do not feel like their roles in writing the act overshadow its importance and are surprised that more lawyers have not taken on suits due to the financial incentive.[7].

Government Response

Court Cases

Sanchez v. The City of Modesto

File:California Counties and Court of Appeals Map.JPG
California Counties and Court of Appeals Map

Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights v. Madera Unified School District

Gomez v. Hanford Joint Union School District

References

  1. ^ a b c [1]FairVote. California voting rights act of 2001. Retrieved 31 October 2010.
  2. ^ a b c [2] Associated Press.(15 November 2009). A glance at the California Voting Rights Act. Retrieved from ABC News on 31 October 2010.
  3. ^ a b [3] Common Cause. Big win for California Voting Rights Act. Retrieved 31 October 2010.
  4. ^ Latino voters sue kings county board of education over voting right; school districts at-large elections dilute minority vote. PR NewsWire. 15 July 2004. Retrieved November 3rd from LexisNexis.
  5. ^ a b c "California State Senate Legislation". California State Senate. Retrieved 2010-11-03.
  6. ^ a b Egelko, B. (2 April 2005). Minority voting rights law declared unconstitutional. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 3 November 2010 from Lexis Nexis
  7. ^ a b c d e Blood, M. Jackpot:lawyers earn feew from the law they wrote. Associated press on-line. Retrieved 3 November 2010 from LexisNexis
  8. ^ Ashton, A. (25 September 2005). Modesto to high court: strike voting rights act. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News.
  9. ^ Latino voters sue Kings County Board of Education over boting rights; school dsitricts at-large election dilute minority vote.(15 July 2004).PR NewsWire
  10. ^ Magee, M. (10 December 2003). Study finds no evidence at-large voting violates law; Trustees look into possible racial disenfranchisement. The San Diego Union Tribune.
  11. ^ a b Egelko, B. (16 July 2004). Hanford school district sued over at-large elections; Latino voters are at a disadvantage, advocates say. San Francisco Chronicle.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Clairestum/sandbox&oldid=395642890"