Why Santa Clara voters should reject unwise Measure C
Santa Clara’s Measure C is on the short list for the most irresponsible South Bay measure on the March 3 ballot.
The City Council is asking voters to approve an amendment to the city’s charter that would, beginning in 2022, reduce the number of council districts from six to three, with two representatives for each district.
Voters should reject this stubborn refusal to accept a 2018 court order that forced Santa Clara to switch from an at-large system to six district elections. Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Thomas Kuhnle’s ruling made clear that the city’s previous system violated the California Voting Rights Act because it reduced the political impact of minority voters.
The voting rights act was specifically designed to force local governments to move from at-large elections to district elections that better reflect a city’s racial diversity.
The wisdom of the decision to create six smaller neighborhood districts was demonstrated later that year when Raj Chahal won the District 2 council seat. Chahal is the first Asian American candidate in the city’s history to be elected to the council, even though Asian Americans now make up 41% of the city’s population. Until Chahal’s election, Santa Clara had elected only one nonwhite council member in nearly 40 years.
Not only is the council pushing this misguided measure, it’s also appealing Kuhnle’s decision. The lawsuit has already cost Santa Clara taxpayers more than $3 million in legal fees and another $775,000 to pay for the city’s lawyer. No city has ever defeated a CVRA challenge since it was signed into law in 2002. Passing Measure C would likely trigger another lawsuit that the city is almost certain to lose, costing taxpayers additional millions that would be better spent on enhancing public services.
Measure C proponents argue that the judge’s order does not make changes to the city charter. They say it only requires a six-district system to be in effect through 2020, leaving open the question of what district configuration should be in place after that.
Mayor Lisa Gillmor, one of the four council members who voted to place the three-district system on the ballot, said in November it would improve responsiveness.
“There are some council members who are very engaged and responsive to their district, and there are others … who are not responsive at all,” said Gillmor. “If you have a council member who is not responsive, you’re out of luck, and the only person you can rely on is the mayor.”
It’s not a compelling argument. Bigger districts make it harder for minorities to be fairly represented. They also make it more expensive for potential candidates, discouraging less wealthy candidates from running for office. And Santa Clara has a history of electing candidates who live near one another, increasing the chances that some neighborhoods won’t be fully represented. Moreover, the smaller the districts, the easier it is to oust a council member who is not responsive, the very issue Gillmor claims she’s trying to address.
Chahal, who voted against putting Measure C on the ballot, argues that Santa Clara would be better off working on a charter amendment making six districts the law.
He’s right.
Santa Clara voters should reject Measure C and send a message to the City Council to accept the message of the court’s ruling.