There are a lot of reasonable questions that the community can ask at this point – one of the biggest perhaps is why the city didn’t anticipate the challenge of converting to district elections before receiving the letter. For all of the criticism that the school board received, by jumping the gun they avoided the tight timeline that the city now faces.
However, that timeline might be flexible. Matt Rexroad, representing the two clients who are still anonymous, said that “we are going to (be) ok with giving more time.”
He added, “If they would have asked before the meeting … We would have gotten right back to them.”
As people attempt to guess motivation here, “It is extremely unlikely that either of my clients will ever run for public office in Davis.”
What Mr. Rexroad and his clients were not willing to do was wait until 2022 to make these changes. That was very clear in the letter that came out on Tuesday, dated July 25.
He wrote, “We have discussed your proposed resolution with our clients, and they have instructed us to refuse to your proposal. We hereby reiterate our demand that Davis change its election system to a district-based election system in time for the 2020 elections.”
City Attorney Inder Khalasa, responding to a question from Councilmember Dan Carson, made it clear that the city would risk serious financial consequences should they challenge Mr. Rexroad on this.
“The decision to transition to district elections and then hold the election at-large in 2020 – Mr. Rexroad has indicated he would challenge that and bring a lawsuit against the city,” she said.
That clinched the deal for November.
Moving to November was the right thing to do anyway. Councilmember Will Arnold said he was “somewhat begrudgingly in favor of moving toward an election in November 2020.” He pointed out, “That is 
maximum voter participation. I think that’s a good thing for democracy.”
Lucas Frerichs pointed out – as we have – that Davis is now the only city in the county that does its municipal elections in the primary.
The numbers strongly bear out the need to move to November – if the goal is more participation by people of color and overall.
Just looking at 2016 and 2018, Latinos and Asians are less than 15 percent of voters in primaries, whereas they are around 18 to 19 percent in the general. While that is not necessarily earth-shattering, it is about a 30 percent increase.
But even more than that, the voter turnout across the board is vastly different. Most primaries have less than 50 percent voter turnout, versus general elections with upwards of 70 percent overall turnout. Even forgetting the issue of RPV (racially polarized voting), the participation rates during the general demonstrate a need to consider the change.
One of the big concerns might be resolved. Lucas Frerichs in his comments indicated, “I’m not convinced that the 90-day window is long enough.”
He might be right. Now that Mr. Rexroad indicates his willingness to extend that timeline, it could provide the city with the time it needs to draw the districts in the best possible way.
Thus far I am not supportive of the idea of a citizen’s commission. I believe that a professional demographer working with city staff and the council, subject to public scrutiny and an open public meeting as laid out in the law, should be sufficient.
With that said, my view of that may change if this becomes an exercise in the protection of incumbents rather than an effort to create the fairest and most diverse districts possible.
The spirit of the California Voting Rights Act is to create the potential for more participation by marginalized groups. An effort to draw district boundaries to protect the districts for the incumbents would violate the spirit if not the letter of that law.
One question that I do think the city should at least entertain is what it would take to go beyond five districts. Does it take a charter or can a general law city do so?
On Tuesday, there was a good amount of anger directed toward Mr. Rexroad on this issue.
The most pointed perhaps came from Dan Carson who said, “I think it’s inappropriate for a former city councilmember and County Supervisor who resides in Woodland, who after he retires from public office, turns around and hits the city with a demand letter that says, if you don’t do what I say right away, I’m going to take away millions of hard-earned tax dollars that belong to your city. That’s really wrong.”
Mayor Brett Lee added, “I found that demand letter fairly offensive. I don’t think it was coming from a place of sincere desire for improving the governance of Davis.”
Gloria Partida, reading from prepared remarks, said, “I’m not a fan of people with hidden agendas using hard-won paths to level real inequity to further those agendas.”
She said, “It may be that political representation is a legitimate concern for our city and that people have been hurt by our current process. But the current process being unwinnable and costly as it is, robs our community of exploring and rectifying this problem in a deliberate and thoughtful way.”
I understand the frustration, but Matt Rexroad in a way is the messenger not the vehicle for this suit. He is simply the voice representing two citizens in this process rather than being the vehicle itself.
It would probably behoove everyone if they knew who the actual litigants were here, but putting this on Mr. Rexroad seems to be akin to killing the messenger.
I do think if we are going to go to the blame direction, the failure of the city to anticipate their vulnerability to this type of action should outrank the actions by Mr. Rexroad and his clients.
The bottom line at least for me is that I believe, contrary to the views expressed by several on Tuesday night, that Davis is a city that is a good deal more polarized racially than people give it credit for being.
While people can certainly talk about factors other than race which play a role, the fact remains that in the bivariate analysis, the difference between Gloria Partida and Dan Carson was rather telling. In heavily white precincts with only four percent Latinx registered voters, Dan Carson was a plus 5. In the most heavily Latinx precincts, Gloria Partida was a plus 20.
Are there other factors? Yes, I think so. Race certainly overlaps with socio-economic and perhaps political liberalism and party ID. On the other hand, in the nation as a whole, race is a huge explanatory variable in voting behavior that actually strongly dwarfs socio-economic status.
I also disagreed with Dan Carson, who argued that this was not a community divided by race.
This is not a community that looks beyond racial differences. People of color give this city poor marks on race relations. Students of color, whether they are at DJUSD or UC Davis, feel marginalized.
In this debate and discussion, we have unfortunately lost sight of that as we argue to protect a system of government that really isn’t necessarily the optimal one.
I completely understand the frustration of feeling forced into it by an outsider – whether it be Mr. Rexroad, his clients hiding behind anonymity, or the state law. But aside from that, this is the right thing to do and the numbers are far more compelling than I thought possible.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
When will elections for County Supervisors be held? Primary or General Election. Can’t seem to find on County Website.
March for the primary, November for the general
There is only one election for County Supes… not a primary, then run-off. They are technically non-partisan offices, so no primary… so, my question remains unanswered…
Historically Supes had a vote in the primary (March or June), and took office following January…
That’s actually not true. We just never see it play out because there is usually only one or two candidates. But if one of the candidates does not get 50%, it goes to a November election. It came closest in 2008 when Jim Provenza had two challengers for the open seat, but he managed to get 50% and avoid the runoff. Look it up.
Comment: Vanguard Expresses Same Article, but Rubs it In That It Got What It Wanted on District Elections
And, in moving CC elections to November… that is also a key piece in the calculus of some…
Those who believe in the latter, welcome the potential litigation, as it is essentially a two-for… and accomplishing what would have been much harder to do,if it was a ‘stand-alone’ action…
The reasoning for which seemed to be that non-white-people vote in greater proportions in general elections? So lack of participation is a point of pride, or a need to adjust the system to reward lack of participation? I don’t see the point.
What happens when district elections end up with the same or worse CPV’s? Do we go to racial quota representation?
Think the old magic 8 ball: “It may well be”…
There is no further provision under the CVRA
yeah, that was kinda my point. I theoretical fix that most people who don’t run a blog in Davis think won’t work has no recourse if it itself doesn’t work. You might as well pass a law that the fix for a horse’s broken leg is a small, red refrigerator. And if that doesn’t work, oh well.
Rexroad is an attorney, it’s his job to represent his clients’ interests, not his own. He can choose to decline a case that truly offends him, but I expect that to Rexroad this looks like just another job.
I’ve done plenty of work on development projects that I thought were bad ideas — even some that I voted against — but my participation didn’t change the outcome except to ensure that the developer got a high-quality professional work product to use. It’s the same thing with lawyers, except that they tend to get vilified because they’re the public face of their clients.
Well said Jim. I see it that way as well.
With a difference, Jim. As a professional, you can’t manipulate words or arguments to achieve your client’s goals. But, using words to ‘prove that’ dung is gold, is within the purview of attorneys and bloggers. So, you are correct, Mr Rexroad was doing his job… and, pretty sure, enjoying the hell out of it.
I agree that there’s a lot of unwarranted lawyer-bashing that goes on when, in fact, lawyers are representing their clients’ interests, not their own. However, as we were told in law school, a lawyer is not a bus; they need not pick up everyone who comes along. Lawyers choose the cases they take on, and a lawyer who is has had a longstanding partisan political career is not likely to take on cases that conflict with his or her longstanding political values. So, it’s not unfair to question whether there may be hidden agendas in a matter such as this one, with direct political implications.
This isn’t surveying. Many if not most lawyers I’ve known have had an agenda and a cause. Certainly not all, but many. For some, having an effect on the system is the entire reason they went to law school and specialized where they did.
“The spirit of the California Voting Rights Act is to create the potential for more participation by marginalized groups.”
One problem is that in Davis, political conservatives either see, or like to portray themselves as “marginalized groups”.
“putting this on Mr. Rexroad seems to be akin to killing the messenger.”
In my view, Mr. Rexroad is far more than just an employed “messenger”. As Jim has pointed out Mr. Rexroad could have turned down this particular client. His participation is by choice, and I believe in line with his preferences. Where I disagree with Jim is that this is akin to working on a development project you do not like. This is legal monetary extortion and I believe Mr. Rexroad is well aware of that.
Here, will have to (sort of) defend Rexroad… if he charged his clients going rates… if he did it ‘pro-bono’ (or on the contingency of up to a $30,000 payday), that’s a different matter entirely…
The two letters produced look like about 3 hours work, tops (assuming coffee breaks were included)… maybe another 3-4 hours of an intern, to dig up the stats and produce the graphs.
Anyone want to bet, between $0 – 30k, what will be claimed? Paid by City? Operators are standing by…
Tia – You’re expecting an attorney to turn down a valid client with an almost certain payment?
Of course! As a lawyer, I would most definitely turn down cases that conflict with my personal or ethical values regardless of the financial benefit.
Granting that – but why does this one rise to that level?
Let’s look at Woodland which I think is a classic example – a few years ago there were five white, male, Republicans on the council there in a town that is more than half Latinx. After the change, there are three Latinx on the council. So wouldn’t filing the letter and suit in Woodland be warranted and justified?
So what makes Davis difference? Because it’s whiter? Because it’s special?
I think there are a lot of assumptions by the people of Davis that may not be true. At the heart of this then is assumptions and uncertainty. I get that, and I also get reasonable people disagree, but I don’t see anything disreputable here other than perhaps the lack of transparency.
Maybe the fact that Davis isn’t even close to 50% Latinx, hasn’t had a Republican on the council in years, has 40% POC on the council right now apparently, and this change isn’t likely to make any difference in that regard.
But other than that, great example.
Oh yes, and the guy bringing the lawsuit is a consultant for a political party that is seeking to systematically disenfranchise minority voters across the country by the hundreds of thousands. Blocking them from the polls. Throwing them off voter rolls. Removing polling stations in heavily-minority areas. Things like that.
So, is lack of transparency ‘disreputable’, or not? Or does it depend on whose ox is being gored? Think twice before answering… will hold you to your words…
I would say lack of transparency in this case is suboptimal rather than disreputable. But it is a situational evaluation.
So, whose ox is being gored… ‘situational’ is in the eye of the beholder… fair answer… just never make it out to be absolute.
You said yourself people of color vote in lesser numbers, and even more so in a non-general election. If the town is more than half of something, the people should get others to participate in the system, not change the system. Why should the system be changed to accommodate a lack of participation?
It’s not about ox goring. I think I’ve been fairly consistent on this stuff.
“Why should the system be changed to accommodate a lack of participation?”
The system is being changed because it’s state law to change it.
Exactly. Enhancing minority voter participation is not a priority of the Republican Party. Which is why it’s not out of line to be asking whether there might be a hidden agenda in this particular instance.
DS, you wear snark well. Hope to see more of this side of you.
Cool that he’s in close contact with the Vanguard, champion of the ‘protected classes’. Whatever those are.
Bad state law. You’d never use that as an excuse if it was a state law you disagreed with, so you might as well not use the argument at all.
If what they are doing amounts to legal extortion, my answer is yes. I am sure that Mr. Rexroad is aware, if this came down to a large payment from the city, it is the taxpayers that will be paying his fees. Not an ethical stand from my point of view.
Until an actual client is identified, this is all Matt Rexroad. He has joined the ranks of other attorneys in Davis who use lawsuit and threat of lawsuit to meddle in politics.
Or to receive a payday. I’m not sure why that’s problematic.
Well it isn’t…..if your highest value is money. Rexroad is portraying this as though it is a public service when we have no idea whether districts imposed under an arbitrary time crunch he has created will fulfill their intended purpose or not. I suggest this means he simply doesn’t care as long as he gets “the win”.
All Matt Rexroad has done here is to push the City to follow State law. The City had plenty of opportunities (multiple years) to do just that on its own but failed to act. If there is an attorney responsible for this mess, it would be the one employed by the City Council.
There is an “if” in the law… one of its flaws… there was no reason to look to see if the City met the “if” test… but it is what it is…
Legislators should have removed the “if”, and just mandated all General Law cities go to district elections (unknown if they could have done so for Charter cities)… but perhaps the legislature figured there would be more paydays for attorneys, if they worded it the way they did (with the “if”), and put a $30k floor on likely payday for attorneys… with no upper limit. But it is what it is.
The legislature that passed the law, was half-stepping, and setting up the rules to favor attorneys, it appears. Either district elections are mandatory, or they are subject to easy litigation threats… that is neither transparent, nor honest. But, it is what it is…
WHAAAAT? Gambling in Casablanca???!!!
I imagine if surveyers ran the legislature, JF would be a very rich man.
I think there’s some misunderstanding of the $30,000 figure. It’s not free money. According to the statute, this is intended to be “reimbursement for the cost of the work product generated to support the notice” of a challenge to a city’s voting system under the CVRA—e.g., costs associated with obtaining demographic voting statistics. It’s capped at $30,000; it’s not a minimum payment. Should the plaintiff also prevail in a subsequent lawsuit, reasonable attorneys’ fees would be awarded, which is standard practice in civil rights cases.
Which is important. As an attorney friend explained, these provisions enable attorneys to take cases for clients who would not be able to afford an hourly cost.
I’m not convinced that there was harm caused by the current system. The biggest real complaint was that South Davis didn’t have representation after the lone candidate from that area lost terribly in the last election. The law doesn’t address that as a reason to change. David has pointed out that it will be less expensive to run a campaign and make it easier to win a seat with fewer votes – also not a reason to change.
Maybe the lone candidate sucked. No personal offense, lone candidate, as I didn’t look up who that was.
JF prefers making an honest living to being rich.
I’ve seen you around town making an honest living with your tripods & lasers. Kudos!
Republican lawyer takes on predominantly Democratic Davis demanding a fairer electoral process that seeks to empower minorities. Democrats in Davis are outraged and only accede to the demand for change under threat of litigation after doing nothing for years. You can’t make this stuff up. We are through the looking glass and its hilarious.
The whitest and last community in the county to move towards compliance with a voting rights law, that seeks to give minorities a better chance of gaining proportional representation at the polls, has many locals upset. Many of those same locals attack a Republican lawyer, representing two minority clients, who demanded, under threat of legal action, that Davis bring its electoral process into the 21st century.
Opponents argue there must be some hidden agenda because the lawyer is also a political campaign consultant for a party that on a national level often seeks to suppress votes of minorities.
However, going from the general to the specific fails the test of inductive reasoning in this case. First Rexroad didn’t impede Woodland, where he served and lives, from making this same change. Second there are many Republicans, past and present, who detest the xenophobia of today’s GOP. They range from George Bush to George Will. Being a Republican isn’t synonymous with being racist.
Here in California, the bluest state in the union, its common knowledge that Republicans must adapt or die. Instead of seeing Matt Rexroad as possibly trying to create the future with a diverse Republican Party in minority majority California, opponents of change in Davis seek to blame the messenger, tarring him with unfounded suppositions about his motives. They impugn him without any foundational evidence.
Maybe, instead of some hidden agenda, Matt Rexroad was willing to represent his clients because he believes in the cause of fairness at the ballot box. Maybe instead of trying to vilify Rexroad we should honor his commitment to free and fair elections.
Yes. Maybe. The point is, there’s reason to ask.
Ron
“You can’t make this stuff up”
Au contraire, you just did. You made up an entire story about what people’s motivations are, all for something that is as you said “seeks to empower minorities” while conveniently leaving out the fact that we have no idea whether or not that will be the impact in our community. Gloria Partida, arguably the only individual on council currently affected, expressed the same doubts that I have about the effect of this well-intentioned but clearly flawed “one size fits all” bit of legislation.
To every solution, there is a problem…
Actually, David first pointed it out… I asked about Co Supes… he pointed out that they run on the primary cycle, with run-off’s if necessary (no candidate gets 50%+1) in general election… guess it’s not important to have the larger participation (particularly for PC’s or POC’s for County Supes, but critically important for Davis CC)…
But, if CC elections, by district, are held in November (“more participation”, per DG and others), and in a given district there are 3 candidates, none of whom get 50%+1, then what? Special election at sole cost to City? Participation?
This could prove interesting… “philosophically”, and practically… ripe for inconsistencies in ‘philosophy’ by some…