In new order, Judge blasts Santa Clara over redistricting

In an order stunning for its blunt wording, a judge blasted the city of Santa Clara for failing to tackle questions of how and when it will move forward with reworking its faulty election system before residents take to the polls again in November.

Weeks after Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Thomas Kuhnle found the city’s at-large election system discriminates against Asian-American residents, the judge accused Santa Clara officials of dragging their feet — and came up with his own timeline for reforms.

“The city’s comments suggested it would be impossible to hold public meetings on such short notice, and that any attempt to order the city to comply with Elections Code section 10010 could be immediately appealed, and as a consequence, the city could not be ordered to do anything,” Kuhnle wrote. “Instead of making best efforts to ensure the November 2018 elections comply with the California Voting Rights Act, the city submitted comments that described how the city might bring those efforts to a halt.”

At a June 20 conference, Kuhnle had asked the city to comment on a schedule for fixing Santa Clara’s election system proposed by the plaintiffs, a group of Asian American voters represented by Robert Rubin, who has won similar cases in courts up and down the state.

“I think it’s drastic,” Mayor Lisa Gillmor said of the judge’s comments, “but it’s an order that we have to comply with.”

Still, she said, the city will file an appeal.

In the past, Gillmor and much of the council have supported the idea of dividing the city into two districts, but the judge is likely to require Santa Clara to create more districts, which the plaintiffs have insisted is the only way to ensure Asian-American voters are fairly represented. More than 30 percent of Santa Clara’s eligible voters are Asian, but no Asian-Ameri-

can has ever won a seat on the City Council.

In the order, published Tuesday, Kuhnle directed the city to “use its best efforts” to publicize and hold two meetings where residents can weigh in on how districts should be drawn by July 9, going so far as to suggest meeting locations and issuing a reminder that the city clerk should keep a record of the meeting minutes.

Gillmor said she didn’t have thoughts “at this point” on how many districts the city would propose and would weigh feedback from residents. But, she said, it will be difficult to get meaningful public input on such short notice during a holiday week. And carving the city into six districts, one for each council seat, Gillmor continued, “is the equivalent of 50 districts in San Jose with our population.” Santa Clara has about 130,000 residents compared to San Jose, which is divided into 10 districts, with more than a million.

On July 10, Kuhnle wrote, both the plaintiffs and the city should propose district maps, and then host two more meetings to solicit feedback from residents during the following two weeks.

Kuhnle said that he expects to make a final decision on how Santa Clara should be divided for election purposes by Aug. 3.

Complicating all of this is the fact that California’s election rules say the city only has up until 125 days before an election — in this case July 5 — to make changes to its election maps. Election officials at the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters technically have up to 88 days before an election — Aug. 10 — to make changes if a court requires it, said Eric Kurhi, a spokesman for the agency,

After Aug. 10, it’s too late. If talks fall through and deadlines are missed, the city’s November elections could be in jeopardy. That’s not hyperbole. In 2013, Palmdale failed to fix its election system and a court prevented the city from certifying its City Council election results.

While Kuhnle acknowledged the timeline is tight, he wrote he’s “optimistic… that the city can take advantage of its exhaustive efforts spent in the last seven years soliciting public comments on districting, including comments received on the specific proposals developed by the city, to be able to inform the court of the needs and preferences of its residents.”

The filing deadline for the November election is Aug. 10. Right now, a number of council members live near each other and could conceivably end up in the same district. With district lines being unclear, Gillmor rightly pointed out, “people at this point do not know if they can run.”

Still, Gillmor said, ultimately, “the goal is to diversify our council.”