HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy Session - Districting packetCITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-0611
INFO@CITYOFPALMDESERT.ORG
NOTICE OF STUDY SESSION
OF THE
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Palm Desert City Council will convene for a
Study Session on Thursday, April 27, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber
at Palm Desert Civic Center, 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert.
Said Study Session will be to receive updates on Districting and Police
Services. Any resulting recommendations will be considered at an upcoming
Regular City Council Meeting.
______________________________
NÍAMH M. ORTEGA
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
Posted: April 20, 2023
NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AT THE STUDY SESSION
NOTE: Pursuant to Assembly Bill 2449, this meeting may be conducted
by teleconference and there will be in-person public access to
the meeting location.
Study Session is accessible in person or on the City's website at
www.palmdesert.gov under the Council Agenda link at the top of the page.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 27, 2023
PREPARED BY: Anthony J. Mejia, City Clerk
William Priest, Attorney, Best, Best & Krieger
REQUEST: STUDY SESSION: REDISTRICTING OPTIONS
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct a Study Session regarding redistricting options. Staff will return to the May 25, 2023, City
Council meeting for direction.
BACKGROUND:
On September 18, 2017, the City of Palm Desert (City) received a letter alleging that the City’s
at-large election system for City Council members violated the California Voting Rights Act
(CVRA). The letter claimed that there was evidence of Latino “racially polarized voting” in the
Palm Desert electorate whereby Latino minority voters were unable to elect the candidates of
their preference or to influence an election due to the White majority in the electorate. The
letter threatened litigation if the City did not adopt a by-district election system. Based upon
information provided to the City by consultants at the time, the City did not respond to the
allegations and took no further action.
On June 5, 2019, plaintiffs Lorraine Salas and Karina Quintanilla, represented by attorney
Kevin Shenkman and other legal counsel, filed a lawsuit against the City alleging a violation of
the CVRA based on the City’s continued use of an at-large election system. While the City did
not believe that its at-large election system violated the CVRA, due to the low threshold of
proof required by the CVRA, the unanimously unsuccessful efforts by California cities to
defend against such lawsuits to date, and the considerable cost of defending such lawsuits,
the City decided to settle the case with Mr. Shenkman and his clients.
On December 12, 2019, the City and the plaintiffs announced a settlement of the lawsuit, which
was reduced to writing in two documents – a settlement agreement and stipulated judgment
approved by the Court. The principal elements of the agreement/judgment are as follows:
• A two-district election system was approved as outlined in the Court-approved electoral
district map. District 1 would represent the “Civic Center District” (approximately 20% of
the City’s total population) and elect one member to the City Council. District 2 (the
“Outer District”) would represent the remainder of the City (approximately 80% of the
City’s total population) and elect the other four members to the City Council.
• The City is prohibited for 10 years from conducting any further at-large elections except
as set forth above. However, this shall not preclude the Council from adopting a five
single-member district electoral system in accordance with applicable law.
City of Palm Desert
Study Session: Districting Options
Page 2 of 11
• The City will implement ranked choice voting (RCV) for City Council elections at the
November 2020 General Municipal Election or the earliest practicable election date.
• Following the release of data from each Decennial Census, the City would evaluate
District 1’s population. If its population is less than 18.4% or more than 21.6% of the
City’s total population, the City will be required to “redistrict” – to redraw District 1’s
boundaries for future elections to bring its population within this range. Any redrawing of
boundaries must be in conformity with applicable federal and state law. Notwithstanding
the above, any redrawing of District 1 boundaries shall further the purposes of the
CVRA with minimal changes to District 1’s boundaries.
• The City would pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses per the settlement
agreement. The City ultimately paid $555,125.99 to settle the litigation.
• The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement and stipulated
judgment for ten years.
In early 2020, the City followed the public hearing, outreach and input procedure set forth in
AB 350 and, pursuant to the legal authority in Government Code sections 34871 and 34886,
ultimately adopted Ordinance No. 1356 on May 14, 2020, approving a two-district electoral
map that transitioned the City from an entirely at-large system and which established RCV. At
the November 2020 General Municipal Election, the City elected one Councilmember from
District 1 and two Councilmembers from District 2. The City was unable to conduct RCV at that
time due to timing and logistics issues caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
In early 2022, the City reviewed the data from the 2020 United States Census and determined
that District 1 was “underpopulated” – containing only 18.1% of the City’s total population
within its boundaries. Therefore, the City was required to “redistrict” – to redraw the boundaries
of both Districts to keep District 1’s population within the 18.4% – 21.6% range per the
settlement agreement and stipulated judgment. The City followed the public hearing, outreach
and input procedure set forth in the California Fair and Inclusive Redistricting for Municipalities
and Political Subdivisions (FAIR MAPS) Act and ultimately adopted Ordinance No. 1380 on
March 24, 2022, approving the adjusted boundaries as set forth in what was termed “Map 3C”.
At that November 2022 General Municipal Election, the City elected two more Council
members from District 2 using the recently adjusted boundaries and also held its first election
by RCV.
At that same election, a majority of City voters approved Measure B – a non-binding advisory
measure asking whether the City should divide District 2 into four smaller single-member
districts, for a total of five electoral districts in the City. Following the election, the City Council
established an Ad Hoc Subcommittee (Subcommittee) consisting of Councilmember Harnik
and Mayor Pro Tem Quintanilla to assess the effects of Measure B and to recommend options
for the City Council to consider to that end.
City of Palm Desert
Study Session: Districting Options
Page 3 of 11
On February 10, 2023, the Subcommittee met and requested staff research the following
options and to present the results to the full City Council:
• Demographic analysis on Advisory Measure B
• Analysis on Ranked Choice Voting
• Evaluation of other demographers, specifically Paul Mitchell/Redistricting Partners
• Potential Districting Milestone Schedule
• Three (3) single member districts and two (2) members elected at-large
• Four (4) single member districts with an at-large mayor
• Five (5) single member districts
Advisory Measure B Analysis
The Subcommittee requested an analysis on Advisory Measure B. To complete this analysis,
we are waiting for the California Secretary of State to release the demographic information for
the November 2022 Election, which is expected soon. Below are the election results by district:
Yes No Percent Yes
Citywide 9,829 8,633 53.24%
District 1 1,135 829 57.79%
District 2 8,694 7,804 52.70%
Ranked Choice Voting Analysis
The cities of Albany, Eureka, and Palm Desert were slated to use RCV for the first time in the
November 2022 Election, however, the City of Eureka only had two candidates per race so
RCV was not used in these elections. For comparison purposes, included are the election
results for the City of Berkeley which has used RCV since 2010.
City of Albany
Registered Voters: 11,832
Voters Casting Ballots: 8,133
Voter Turnout: 68.74%
Ballots Cast (City Election): 7,159
Blanks: 875 / 12.22%
Overvotes: 109 / 1.52%
City of Berkeley, District 1
Registered Voters: 10,435
Voters Casting Ballots: 7,224
Voter Turnout: 69.23%
Ballots Cast (City Election): 6,625
Blanks: 538 / 8.12%
Overvotes/Suspended: 61 / 0.92%
City of Palm Desert
Registered Voters: 27,655
Voters Casting Ballots: 17,857
Voter Turnout: 64.57%
Ballots Cast (City Election): 16,177
Blanks: 1,324 /
8.18%
Overvotes: 381 / 2.36%
City of Berkeley, District 8
Registered Voters: 9,142
Voters Casting Ballots: 6,097
Voter Turnout: 66.69%
Ballots Cast (City Election): 5,176
Blanks: 863 / 16.67%
Overvotes/Suspended: 58 / 1.12%
City of Palm Desert
Study Session: Districting Options
Page 4 of 11
Blanks
Palm Desert voters did comparatively well to Albany & Berkeley, with 8% of voters skipping the
Palm Desert election versus:
• 12% skipping the Albany Election
• 8% skipping the Berkeley D1 Election
• 17% skipping the Berkeley D8 Election
Overvotes
Palm Desert did worse in comparison to Albany & Berkeley, with 2.23% of voters overvoting
versus:
• 1.52% overvoting in the Albany Election
• 0.92% overvoting in the Berkeley D1 Election
• 1.12% overvoting in the Berkeley D8 Election
Future Action
Based on the finding that Palm Desert voters overvoted at a higher rate, City staff will focus
more attention on educating the community about marking the ballot correctly and how to
avoid overvoting for the November 2024 Election.
Demographer Options
In 2017, National Demographic Corporation (NDC) was selected to serve as the City’s
demographer to develop the two-district system map. Following the 2020 Census, the Election
Services Division of Best, Best, & Krieger was selected for redistricting purposes.
In response to Advisory Measure B and the City Council’s direction, the City Manager
authorized an agreement with NDC for preliminary demographer services to assist the City
Council. The subcommittee requested staff evaluate other demographer services for City
Council consideration, specifically Paul Mitchell/Redistricting Partners.
a. National Demographic Corporation: NDC was founded in 1979 and based in Glendale, CA.
NDC is headed by Doug Johnson, Ph.D., and prides itself on being neutral technicians.
NDC’s client list consists of over 200 client jurisdictions including special districts, school
districts, cities, and counties. NDC has never drawn maps for any political party or partisan
elected official.
b. Redistricting Partner: Redistricting Partners is headed by Paul Mitchell, a data consultant
based in Sacramento. Paul Mitchell has conducted redistricting for more than 75 states,
cities, school districts, and college districts and serves as Vice President of Political Data,
Inc. (PDI). In February 2021, PDI issued a press release announcing it will offer services
exclusively to democratic candidates, progressive organizations, and non-partisan
campaigns. Redistricting Partners are the redistricting consultants to various democratic
groups as noted in these articles from the Washington Post and Politico.
c. Redistricting Insights: Redistricting Insights is headed by Matt Rexroad, Chief Legal
Counsel, and Fabian Valdez Jr., Chief Demographer. Mr. Rexroad and Mr. Valdez also
operate Meridian Pacific, Inc., a Republican political campaign consulting firm.
Mr. Valdez previously served as the Data Director for the California Republican Party.
City of Palm Desert
Study Session: Districting Options
Page 5 of 11
d. Bear Demographics & Research: Founded in 2021, Bear Demographics and Research
is headed by Andrew Westall with David Ely, of Compass Demographics, serving as
Technical Director. David Ely is the demographer for Attorney Kevin Shenkman.
e. Best, Best, & Krieger: The City utilized the Election Services Division of Best, Best &
Krieger for the 2020 Redistricting process. While BBK successfully completed the
process, BBK does not have an in-house demographer resulting in a lack of control in
the process.
Recommendation: 1) Based on their nonpartisan and neutral stance, staff recommends
selecting National Demographic Corporation to serve as the City’s demographer; and 2) Staff
will return to the City Council to award a contract with a recommendation to find it is in the best
interest of the City to make an exception to the purchasing policy for demographer services
(PDMC 3.30.160[I]).
Potential Districting Milestone Schedule
If the City Council pursues districting, under the FAIR MAPS Act, the City must hold at least
four public hearings to allow input regarding the composition of the City Council districts.
These hearings must include:
• At least one public hearing before maps are drawn.
• At least two public hearings after maps are drawn.
• At least one public hearing or public workshop shall be held on a Saturday, on a
Sunday, or after 6 p.m. on a weekday Monday – Friday.
If a public hearing is consolidated with a regular or special meeting of the City Council that
includes other substantive agenda items, the public hearing must begin at a fixed time, regardless
of its order on the agenda. The time of the public hearing must be noticed to the public.
If the City Council intends to move forward with a mid-cycle redistricting prior to the November
2024 Election, below are recommended milestone deadlines:
a) By July 2023: City Council decides on the number of districts and awards contract for
demographer services.
b) August 2023: Staff presents a detailed community outreach plan for City Council
feedback.
c) September to January 2024: Community Outreach/Public Hearings/Map Adoption
d) February 2024: Transmittal of Final Map to the Registrar of Voters
e) July 15, 2024: Nomination Period Begins
City of Palm Desert
Study Session: Districting Options
Page 6 of 11
Redistricting Options
Below are the rules and goals for redistricting as established by the Federal Voting Rights Act
(FVRA) and the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA):
1. Federal Laws
Equal Population
Federal Voting Rights Act
No Racial Gerrymandering
3. Other Traditional
Redistricting Principles
Respect voters’ choice / Avoid
unnecessary pairing of
incumbents
Future Population Growth
2. California Criteria (in priority order):
a. Geographically contiguous
b. Minimize division of neighborhoods
and “communities of interest” (Socio-
economic geographic areas that should be
kept together)
c. Easily identifiable boundaries
d. Compact (Do not bypass one group of
people to get to a more distant group of
people)
Prohibited: “Shall not favor or discriminate
against a political party.”
FAIR MAPS Act Prohibits Displaying Maps Prior to Public Hearings
The FAIR MAPS Act prohibits the release of potential maps prior to the public hearing process.
Therefore, staff will review the demographic information corresponding to the options for
redistricting.
Three (3) Single Member Districts with Two (2) Members Elected At-Large
This is not a legally viable option as the CVRA states any electoral system which combines at-
large and by-district seats is still an “at-large” system, except as provided in Government Code
section 34886 which allows the City to transition to a “by district with an elective mayor”.
Four (4) Single Member Districts with an At-Large Mayor & Five (5) Single Member Districts
In the demographer’s preliminary best efforts, below are the demographic results for
maintaining the highest level of Latino Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) in District 1:
D1 Latino CVAP D1 NH White CVAP
Existing 44.81% 47.85%
Four Districts 39.93% 52.70%
Five Districts 44.81% 47.85%
Legal Analysis - Four Single Member Districts with an At-Large Mayor
This option is inconsistent with the current stipulated judgment, Advisory Measure B, and
probably applicable law. Section (e) of the stipulated judgment does not authorize an
adjustment to a “4+1” format. Only a five-district option is contemplated. Therefore, this
adjustment would require an amendment to the stipulated judgment. The City would have to
renegotiate the settlement with Mr. Shenkman and his clients and the Court would have to
approve an amended judgment. It is unknown at this point whether such an agreement could
be reached and, for the reasons below, it is unlikely.
City of Palm Desert
Study Session: Districting Options
Page 7 of 11
A “4+1” option is technically allowed under Government Code section 34886 which allows the
City to transition to a “by district with an elective mayor” format without holding an election.
However, the change must be in furtherance of the purposes of the CVRA.
According to the preliminary demographic data provided by NDC, the “4+1” option does not
appear to be in furtherance of the CVRA’s purposes. This option reduces Latino CVAP
population in District 1 and increases White CVAP to a majority in District 1, resulting in dilution
of Latino voting strength. Therefore, Government Code 34886 likely cannot be used to adopt a
“4+1” option without an election.
Legal Analysis - Five Single Member Districts
This option is most consistent with the stipulated judgment, Advisory Measure B, and
applicable law. As noted above, a mid-cycle adjustment to a five-district option is already
authorized by section (e) of the stipulated judgment, which “shall not preclude the Council from
choosing to adopt a five-single-member district map in accordance with law.” There would be
no need to renegotiate the settlement agreement with Mr. Shenkman or to amend the
stipulated judgment to secure this authority. However, as noted below, it may be prudent to
seek an amended judgment to strictly comply with section 21625.
A five-district option is also consistent with Government Code section 34886 which allows the
City to transition to an entirely by-district election system without holding an election, provided
the change is in furtherance of the purposes of the CVRA.
According to the preliminary demographic data provided by NDC, the “Five Single Member
Districts” option subdivides District 2 into four single-member districts and leaves District 1
unaltered - Latino Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) remains at 44.81% and White CVAP
remains at 47.85%. We believe that this adjustment would be in furtherance of the CVRA’s
purposes because Latino CVAP voting strength is not further diluted by White CVAP. It also
complies with the settlement/stipulated judgment by making “minimal changes to boundaries of
the Civic Center District.”
Legal Analysis – Does the California FAIR MAPS Act permit the City to adjust district
boundaries between each census?
The City transitioned from an entirely at-large to a two-district election system in 2020 and
“redistricted” those two districts in 2022 with data from the most recent United States Census.
Further, section (b)(4) of the stipulated judgment requires that “[A]ny redrawing of boundaries
must be in conformity with applicable federal and state law."
City of Palm Desert
Study Session: Districting Options
Page 8 of 11
Under these circumstances, the FAIR MAPS Act may prohibit the City from again adjusting
district boundaries until the 2030 Census. Elections Code section 21625, which specifically
applies to charter cities, states as follows:
“(a) After redistricting or districting pursuant to section 21621 or 21623, a council shall not
adopt new council district boundaries until after the next federal decennial census, except
under the following circumstances:
(1) A court orders the council to redistrict.
(2) The council is settling a legal claim that its council district boundaries violate the
United States Constitution, the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 10301
et seq.), or this article.
(3) The boundaries of the city change by the addition of territory pursuant to section
21623 or by the subtraction of territory.
(b) This section does not prohibit a council from adopting council districts between federal
decennial censuses if the council is adopting council districts for the first time, including
when a city adopts council districts for the purpose of transitioning from electing its council
members in at-large elections to elections by districts or from districts.
(c) This section does not apply to a charter city that has adopted different rules for mid-
cycle redistricting in its city charter.”
The City is not considering a change to districts pursuant to a court order (although that could
be an option – see below). It is also not settling a pending legal claim to its two-district system,
or annexing/detaching territory.
Nor does exception (b) appear to apply. The City already established districts in 2020 and has
redistricted once in 2022. Therefore, this would not be the City’s “first time” adopting districts.
The City could argue that District 2 remains, for all practical purposes, as an at-large system
for four Council seats. The CVRA defines an “at large” election system to include “one that
combines at-large elections with district-based elections.” Therefore, the argument would be
that City is transitioning from what is still an “at-large” system to elections by districts. That
said, this is an untested argument and, if challenged, we cannot guarantee that a court would
accept it.
Lastly, there is exception (c) for a charter city that “has adopted different rules for mid-cycle
redistricting in its city charter.” However, the City’s Charter does not contain any rules
regarding electoral districts, let alone language authorizing mid-cycle redistricting. Any
amendment to the Charter to include such authorization would require majority voter approval
at either the next Statewide Primary Election (March 2024) or the Statewide General Election
(November 2024).
City of Palm Desert
Study Session: Districting Options
Page 9 of 11
One could argue that a charter city may authorize mid-cycle redistricting in its Municipal Code.
As a Code amendment and not a Charter amendment, no election would be required. It is well
established that a charter city has the Constitutional authority to exercise “home rule” over its
municipal affairs by adopting ordinances that conflict with State law. “Home rule” over
municipal affairs need not be exclusively exercised in the charter.
However, there are two vulnerabilities to this argument. First, while regulation of local elections
is generally considered to be a “municipal affair” there is a stronger argument that the FAIR
MAPS Act addresses a “matter of statewide concern” and, therefore, preempts any conflicting
ordinance adopted by a charter city. While the FAIR MAPS Act does not explicitly use the
words “a matter of statewide concern”, Elections Code sections 21620 through 21630 are
expressly written to apply to charter cities and to no other types of local government. Separate
provisions within the FAIR MAPS Act govern general law cities, counties, and special districts.
This shows a clear expression to preempt local law. This appears consistent with the intent of
the FAIR MAPS Act which is intended to “standardize redistricting procedures and
requirements for counties and cities.”
Secondly, the authorization to adopt local mid-cycle redistricting rules only in a city charter
(and not also in its code) does not appear to be inadvertence or a drafting oversight. For
example, the Act authorizes a charter city to adopt different local redistricting map-drawing
criteria “in its city charter”. Likewise, when a charter city fails to adopt a map by the applicable
deadline, the Act generally requires that a petition be filed with the court to judicially adopt a
final map. However, a charter city is allowed to set a different method to resolve the matter “in
its city charter”.
In contrast, the Act authorizes a charter city to set a different deadline to adopt a redistricting
map “by ordinance or in its city charter.” Likewise, if a charter city expands its boundaries
through annexation or consolidation, the Act generally prescribes how that new territory is to
be included in the city’s existing electoral districts. However, the Act also allows a charter city
to adopt different local standards “by ordinance or in its city charter”.
Overall, it appears that the Legislature has clearly delineated which local redistricting rules a
charter city may change by ordinance and which may only be changed through a charter
amendment. In the case of mid-cycle redistricting, the FAIR MAPS Act requires a charter city
to authorize such action by city charter amendment and not by ordinance. Therefore, the FAIR
MAPS Act indicates that an election in 2024 will be necessary to amend the City Charter in
order to authorize mid-cycle redistricting. Authorization by ordinance alone would be
vulnerable to legal challenge for violating section 21625 of the FAIR MAPS Act.
That said, the stipulated judgment allows for mid-cycle redistricting to five single-member
districts during its 10-year term. Therefore, to this limited extent, Mr. Shenkman and the Court
have already agreed that this form of mid-cycle redistricting is permissible. Thereby eliminating
one significant avenue of a Section 21625 challenge.
City of Palm Desert
Study Session: Districting Options
Page 10 of 11
However, it is also uncertain whether this authority to mid-cycle redistrict would constitute a
“court ordering the Council to redistrict”. At this point, the City is only considering options. It
can continue to operate under a two-district system with RCV and is not currently under a court
order requiring it to redistrict to form more districts. Therefore, if the City intends to invoke the
“court order” exemption under subsection 21625(a)(1), it would be prudent to seek an
amendment to the stipulated judgment that specifically addresses this issue. This would
require negotiation with Mr. Shenkman and his clients.
Legal Conclusion
Overall, absent a court order or charter amendment, it does not appear that the City may
mid-cycle redistrict under the FAIR MAPS Act and thereby adjust its electoral system from the
current two district to a multi-district format. However, if Mr. Shenkman and his clients are
agreeable to a change, the risk of legal challenge is significantly reduced.
Assuming that Palm Desert voters approve a charter amendment or the City secures a court
order, the “Five Single Member District” option proposed by NDC would be fully compliant with
the settlement agreement/stipulated judgment, Government Code 34886 and Advisory
Measure B. The “4+1” option is not compliant with the agreement/judgment and would require
renegotiation with Mr. Shenkman and approval from the Court. However, it is unlikely this
would succeed due to potential Latino vote dilution.
Lastly, while federal and state law do not require the City to continue using ranked choice
voting, elimination of ranked choice voting would require a renegotiation of the
agreement/judgment to authorize its elimination.
Next Steps
City staff intends to return at the May 25, 2023, City Council meeting for direction regarding the
following questions:
1. Should Palm Desert be divided into smaller districts? Options include:
a. Maintaining the existing two (2) district system,
b. Four (4) single member districts with an at-large mayor, or
c. Five (5) single member districts.
2. If Palm Desert should be divided into smaller districts, what is the preferred path forward
for mid-cycle districting?
a. Rely on the existing judgment as authority to transition to five districts,
b. Seek a Charter Amendment to allow mid-cycle districting, or
c. Seek an amended judgment/court order to authorize mid-cycle districting.
3. Should the City of Palm Desert retain or seek elimination of Ranked Choice Voting?
4. Which vender should be selected to serve as the City’s demographer?
a. Staff Recommendation: National Demographics Corporation
City of Palm Desert
Study Session: Districting Options
Page 11 of 11
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact is unknown. If the City Council directs staff to negotiate with Attorney
Shenkman and his clients to secure an amendment to the settlement agreement and stipulated
judgement to transition to “five single member districts” or “four single member districts with an
at-large mayor” electoral system, Attorney Shenkman may seek reimbursement for his time,
plus the City will incur its own legal fees.
REVIEWED BY:
City Clerk: Anthony J. Mejia
City Attorney: Robert Hargreaves
Finance Director: Veronica Chavez
Assistant City Manager Chris Escobedo
City Manager: Todd Hileman
ATTACHMENT:
PowerPoint: “Study Session: Districting Options”
Study Session:
Districting Options
City of Palm Desert
April 27, 2023
City Council Subcommittee
Three (3) single member districts and two (2) members
elected at-large/citywide (Not Legally Viable)
Four (4) single member districts + at-large mayor
Five (5) single member districts
Demographic analysis on Advisory Measure B (Not Yet Available)
Analysis on Ranked Choice Voting
Evaluation of other demographers, specifically Paul Mitchell
December 15, 2022: Mayor
Pro Tem Quintanilla and
Councilmember Harnik
appointed to an ad hoc
subcommittee.
February 10, 2023:
Subcommittee met and
requested staff research
the following options:
Registered Voters:11,832
Voters Casting Ballots:8,133
Voter Turnout:68.74%
Ballots Cast (City Election):7,159
Blanks:875 / 12.22%
Overvotes:109 / 1.52%
Ranked Choice Voting
City of Palm DesertCity of Albany
Registered Voters:27,655
Voters Casting Ballots:17,857
Voter Turnout:64.57%
Ballots Cast (City Election):16,177
Blanks:1,324 / 8.18%
Overvotes:381 / 2.36%
Registered Voters:10,435
Voters Casting Ballots:7,224
Voter Turnout:69.23%
Ballots Cast (City Election):6,625
Blanks:538 / 8.12%
Overvotes/Suspended:61 / 0.92%
Ranked Choice Voting
City of Berkeley, D8City of Berkeley, D1
Registered Voters:9,142
Voters Casting Ballots:6,097
Voter Turnout:66.69%
Ballots Cast (City Election):5,176
Blanks:863 / 16.67%
Overvotes/Suspended:58 / 1.12%
Ranked Choice Voting Findings
Blanks
12% skipping the Albany Election
8% skipping the Berkeley D1 Election
17% skipping the Berkeley D8 Election
Palm Desert voters did comparatively well
to Albany & Berkeley, with 8% of voters
skipping the Palm Desert election versus:
Overvotes
1.52% overvoting in the Albany Election
0.92% overvoting in the Berkeley D1 Election
1.12% overvoting in the Berkeley D8 Election
Palm Desert did worse in comparison to Albany &
Berkeley, with 2.23% of voters overvoting versus:
Future Action: Based on the findings, City staff will focus more attention on educating the community
about marking the ballot correctly and how to avoid overvoting.
Demographer Options
National Demographics Corporation
Redistricting Partners
Founded in 1979, based in Glendale, CA
Headed by Doug Johnson, Ph.D.
Prides itself on being neutral technicians
Over 200 client jurisdictions
Never drawn maps for a political party
Founded 10+ years ago, based in Sacramento, CA
Headed by Paul Mitchell (also VP of Political Data, Inc.)
Over 75 client jurisdictions
Paul Mitchell is described as a redistricting consultant/strategist
to various democratic groups (Washington Post/Politico)
Demographer Options
Redistricting Insights
Bear Demographics & Research
Founded in 2015, based in Woodland, CA
Headed by Matt Rexroad & Fabian Valdez, Jr.
Rexroad and Valdez also operate Meridan Pacific, a
Republican political consulting firm
Valdez previously served as the data director for the
California Republican Party
Founded in 2021, based in Los Angeles, CA
Headed by Andrew Westall & David Ely, of Compass Demographics
David Ely is the demographer for Attorney Kevin Shenkman
Demographer Options
Best, Best, & Krieger - Election Division
Recommendation
The City utilized BBK Election Division Services for the 2020
Redistricting process. While BBK successfully completed
the process, they do not have an in-house demographer
resulting in a lack of control over the process.
Based on their nonpartisan and neutral stance, staff
recommends selecting National Demographics Corporation to
serve as the City's demographer.
Staff will return to City Council for award of contract with a
recommendation to find it is in the best interest of the City to
make an exception to the purchasing policy for demographer
services (PDMC 3.30.160[I])
Potential Districting Milestone Schedule
August 2023: Staff presents a
detailed community outreach
plan
September to January 2024:
Community Outreach/Public
Hearings/Map Adoption
February 2024: Transmittal of
Final Map to Registrar of Voters
July 15, 2024:
Nomination Period Opens
By July 2023: City Council provides direction
on the # of districts and awards contract for
demographer services
1. Federal Laws
Equal Population
Federal Voting Rights Act
No Racial Gerrymandering
2. California Criteria
(in priority order):
1. Geographically contiguous
2. Minimize division of neighborhoods
and "communities of interest" (Socio-
economic geographic areas that should
be kept together)
3. Easily identifiable boundaries
4. Compact (Do not bypass one group of
people to get to a more distant group of
people)
Prohibited: "Shall not favor or discriminate
against a political party."
1. Federal Laws 3. Other Traditional
Redistricting Principles
Respect voters' choice / avoid
unnecessary pairing of incumbents
Future Population Growth
Redistricting: Rules and Goals
Source: NDC
Redistricting Options
FAIR MAPS ACT
Options Researched:
The FAIR Maps act prohibits the release of potential
maps prior to the public hearing process. Therefore, staff
will review the demographic information corresponding
to the number of districts.
Four (4) single member districts + at-large mayor
Five (5) single member districts
Redistricting Options
In the demographer's preliminary best efforts,
below are demographic results for maintaining
the highest level of Latino CVAP in District 1:
Options D1 Latino CVAP D1 NH White CVAP
Existing 44.81%47.85%
Four Districts 39.93%52.70%
Five Districts 44.81%47.85%
First-Time Districting Court Order Charter Amendment
A council may adopt
districts between federal
censuses if adopting
districts for the first time
A court orders the council to
redistrict
A charter city has adopted
different rules for mid-cycle
redistricting in the charter
Legal Analysis
Under the FAIR Maps Act, a City is prohibited from adjusting district boundaries until the 2030
Census, except under the following circumstances:
Mid-Cycle Redistricting: Charter Amendment
EC 21625(c): Provides an exception for a Charter City that "has
adopted different rules for mid-cycle redistricting in its City Charter."
Palm Desert's Charter does not contain any rules regarding electoral
districts or mid-cycle redistricting.
Any amendment to the Charter would require majority vote at the
next Statewide Primary Election (March 2024) or Statewide General
Election (November 2024).
Authorization by ordinance alone would be vulnerable to legal
challenge for violating Section 21625 of the FAIR Maps Act.
Mid-Cycle Redistricting: Court Order
The existing settlement agreement and stipulated judgment
contemplated allowing for mid-cycle redistricting to five single
member districts during its 10-year term.
To this limited extent, Attorney Shenkman and the Court have
already agreed this form of mid-cycle redistricting is permissible.
If the City intends to invoke the "court order" exemption under EC
21625, it would be prudent to seek an amendment to the stipulated
judgment that specifically addresses this issue. This would require
negotiation with Attorney Shenkman and his clients.
This process would eliminate one significant avenue of a Section
21625 challenge.
Legal Analysis: Four Single Member Districts+At-Large Mayor
Four Single Member Districts + At-Large Mayor
Inconsistent with the stipulated judgment, Advisory Measure B, and probably applicable law.
Stipulated Judgment: does not authorize an adjustment to a "4+1" format. Only a five-
district option is contemplated.
A "4+1" option is technically allowed under GC 34886 which allows the City to transition
to a "by district with an elective mayor" format without holding an election, when in
furtherance of the purposes of the CVRA.
The demographer's preliminary best efforts could not identify a 4+1 configuration that
does not result in diluting Latino CVAP in District 1. Therefore, this option does not
appear to be in furtherance of the purposes of the CVRA.
The City would have to renegotiate with Attorney Shenkman and his clients and the
Court would have to approve an amended judgment.
Legal Analysis: Five Single Member Districts
Five Single Member Districts
Consistent with the stipulated judgment, Advisory Measure B, and applicable law.
Stipulated Judgment: calls for "minimal changes to boundaries of the Civic Center District."
A five-district option is consistent with GC 34886, which allows a city to transition to
by-district election system without holding an election, provided the changes are in
furtherance of the purposes of the CVRA.
Absent a court order (via an amended judgment) there is risk of a third party legal
challenge to mid-cycle redistricting under EC Section 21625.
Legal Analysis: Conclusion
Absent a court order or charter amendment, it does not appear the City may
mid-cycle redistrict under the FAIR Maps Act.
However, if Attorney Shenkman and his clients are agreeable to a change, the
risk of legal challenge is reduced.
A five single member district option would be fully compliant with the settlement/
stipulated judgment, Government Code 34886, and Advisory Measure B.
Federal and state law does not require the City to continue using Ranked Choice
Voting (RCV), however, elimination of RCV would require renegotiation of the
settlement/judgment to authorize its elimination.
For Consideration at the May 25, 2023,
City Council Meeting
Maintain Existing Two (2) District System
Four (4) Districts + At-Large Mayor
Five (5) Districts
Rely on existing judgment as authority to go to 5 districts; or
Seek a Charter Amendment to allow mid-cycle districting; or
Seek an amended judgment/court order
If PD should be divided into smaller districts, what is the path forward:
Retain or seek elimination of Ranked Choice Voting?
Demographer Selection
Recommendation: National Demographic Corporation
Should Palm Desert be divided into
smaller districts?
What is the preferred path forward
for mid-cycle districting?
Ranked Choice Voting
Demographer Selection