Attend a public hearing in person or online! You can also email your input to mapcypress@cypressca.org

Residents are encouraged to participate in any or all of five upcoming public hearings to help guide the mapping process. The electoral map that the City Council selects at the conclusion of the public hearing process will group neighborhoods and communities for election purposes for the rest of the decade.

During the hearings, residents are encouraged to share how they think district boundaries should be established to best represent their community. Residents also have the opportunity to submit their own maps for consideration using specialized tools provided by the demographer.  

Public Hearings Schedule:

• Monday, January 22, 2024
• Monday, January 29, 2024
• Monday, February 12, 2024
• Monday, February 26, 2024
• Monday, March 11, 2024

 *All Public Hearings will be held at 6 PM in the Council Chambers.

At each of these public hearings, the City is seeking to:  

• Explain the Districting Process
• Gather Input on Draft Maps
• Hear Community Stories 
• Define Neighborhoods and Communities of Interest
• Encourage Community Participation 

If you are unable to attend a meeting or would like to submit comments to the City Council or demographer, you can email mapcypress@cypressca.org

 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 

Since its founding, Cypress has used an at-large election system where all voters in the City can vote to elect all Council Members.

By-district elections distribute the City’s population into approximately equal-sized voting districts. Voters in each district may only elect one Council Member who must also live in that district. This is the system that Cypress will use to elect Council Members starting with the November 2024 election.

The California Voting Rights Act is a State law that prohibits the use of any election system “that impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election.” Jurisdictions can be sued if they elect their governing body using an election system that violates the CVRA. If the court rules against a jurisdiction, the jurisdiction must change its election system and pay the plaintiff’s attorneys, experts, and other related expenses.

A class of voters who are members of a race, color, or language minority group, as referenced and defined in the Federal Voting Rights Act.

The CVRA was adopted in 2002 and is based upon the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (FVRA), with some important differences that make at-large election systems much more susceptible to legal challenges. 

For a plaintiff to successfully claim a violation under the FVRA relating to at-large elections, the plaintiff must show that:

1.    a minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to form a majority of the eligible voters in a single-member district;
2.    there is racially polarized voting; and
3.    there is a “white bloc voting” (the term used by the courts reviewing such cases) that votes sufficiently as a bloc to defeat the minority group’s preferred candidates.  

If a plaintiff proves these three elements, then the federal court will consider whether, under the “totality of circumstances,” the votes of minority voters are diluted by the at-large election system.

The CVRA removes two of these factors. It eliminates what is known as the “geographically compact” FVRA precondition (e.g., can a majority-minority district be drawn) as well as the “totality of the circumstances” or “reasonableness” test.

In September 2021, Cypress residents Malini Nagpal and Kathryn Shapiro, represented by Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (SVREP), a Texas-based Latino voter registration non-profit, asserted that the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) prohibits Cypress’ use of an at-large election arguing, it impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or otherwise influence the outcome of an election.

Adopted in 2001, the CVRA has been employed across California to coerce cities and other small local governments to adopt by-district elections. 

While the City disputes the plaintiffs’ claim, it conducted outreach to understand the community’s opinion of Cypress’ system for electing Council Members. Through public forums and a survey, residents made it clear they preferred an at-large election system that ensures their right to vote for all five Council Members.

In July 2022, the plaintiffs sued the City to force it to switch to by-district elections. The lawsuit seeks to limit residents to vote for one Council Member every four years from the district in which they reside, depriving voters of the opportunity to select the other four Council Members that they have enjoyed throughout the City’s history.

Honoring residents’ input from community outreach it conducted, the City defended Cypress’ at-large election system while acknowledging that no city has ever prevailed against a CVRA lawsuit.

In September 2023, the California Supreme Court reversed the only successful defense of a CVRA claim by a local government when it ruled against the City of Santa Monica in a lawsuit by Pico Neighborhood Association and Maria Loya.

The Santa Monica ruling significantly reduced the likelihood that Cypress’ at-large election could be found to comply with CVRA. As a result, the City participated in advisory mediation to reassess its ability to defend the lawsuit to force Cypress into by-district elections. The mediation was conducted with the assistance of a retired judge with extensive CVRA experience.

While the City remains confident that Cypress’ at-large election system effectively represents the entire community and complies with CVRA, the mediator’s conclusion, combined with the Santa Monica ruling, represents a consequential change in the circumstances surrounding the lawsuit.

• The City is required to transition to by-district elections beginning with the November 2024 City Council election.
• The City has the ability to work with the community to establish districts, rather than have a court dictate the districts.
• The City will use a public hearing process (in accordance with Elections Code § 10010) to adopt five electoral districts. The public hearing process will include the opportunity for residents to generate maps for consideration.
• The City must select an electoral map no later than February 26, 2024, and identify the districts that will elect Council Members in November 2024 and 2026. If the City follows its traditional election sequence, it will elect two Council Members in 2024 and three in 2026. This would respect the terms voters elected Council Members to serve in the November 2020 and November 2022 elections.
• The district with the highest percentage of Asian American voters, measured by citizen voting age population estimates, must be one of the two districts to elect its Council Member in November 2024.
• The district map and election sequence adopted following the public hearing process will govern elections between 2024 and 2030. Note: The City will update the electoral map in conformance with state and federal law following the release of data from the 2030 decennial census.
• The agreement requires the plaintiffs to participate in the 2024-2030 electoral map public hearing and election sequence selection process by submitting electoral maps that are acceptable to them and/or specifying which electoral maps submitted by the City or third parties are acceptable to them.
• If the plaintiffs do not accept the City’s electoral map or election sequence, they may require the City to meet and confer.
• If the plaintiffs and City agree upon an electoral map or election sequence through the meet and confer process, the City will adopt the electoral map or election sequence no later than March 11, 2024.
• If the plaintiffs and City are unable to agree on an electoral map or election sequence by March 4, 2024, the lawsuit will proceed to trial.
• The agreement also provides the City unique, and important, protections against uncontested elections. For example, if the pattern of uncontested elections recently documented throughout Orange County emerges in Cypress, the City has the option to switch to a ranked choice or cumulative voting election system if three of the seven contests to elect Council Members through 2028 are uncontested, or if five of the 10 contests through 2030 are uncontested. Similarly, if California permits alternative at-large election systems under the CVRA, the City may seek to change away from the by-district election system.
• The agreement does not change Council Members’ term limits or any other provisions of the City Charter. 

The CVRA has been repeatedly used throughout California to force cities to adopt by-district election systems. Plaintiffs may closely examine a jurisdiction for potential CVRA challenges if the jurisdiction exhibits a history of electoral losses by minority candidates, or a history of unresolved issues disproportionately affecting a minority community (e.g., affordable housing, street and sidewalk maintenance, juvenile crime, etc.), coupled with a significant proportion of the population that are ethnic or racial minorities.

The threshold to establish liability under the CVRA is considered low. The Federal Voting Rights Act requires three conditions to be met plus, the “totality of circumstances”, to prove a city is not in compliance. Whereas, the CVRA has only two conditions to prove a violation. Because the CVRA eliminates some of the federal conditions that a plaintiff must prove, defending a CVRA lawsuit is more challenging than contesting a claim under the FVRA. As a result of the lower threshold for proving a claim under the CVRA, many jurisdictions have voluntarily switched to by-district election systems rather than face litigation.

CVRA challenges are considered no-risk litigation for plaintiffs. The CVRA mandates the award of costs, attorney’s fees, and expert expenses to prevailing plaintiffs. Prevailing defendants, however, are not treated so kindly. Prevailing defendants can be reimbursed for attorney’s fees and litigation costs only if the court finds a suit to be “frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.” This is an extremely high burden of proof.

No. The CVRA applies to cities without making any explicit distinction between general law or charter cities. (Elec. Code 14026(c)) A charter can provide for a form of government or election system for a city that is different from the general law, but charter cities are subject to the California Constitution and are prohibited from adopting or maintaining a discriminatory election system or electoral practices.

Enacting an at-large election system by ballot measure (or rejecting a by-district election system by ballot measure) will not protect a city. Indeed, voter rejection of a by-district election system may increase the risk to the jurisdiction by serving as proof of a violation of the CVRA if the by-district election system was rejected in an election characterized by a racially polarized vote.

If Cypress experiences a trend of uncontested elections after transitioning to by-district elections, the City has the option to switch to a ranked choice or cumulative voting election system. Similarly, if California permits alternative at-large election systems under the CVRA, the City may seek to change away from the by-district election system.

Yes. Cities smaller than Cypress have transitioned to by-district elections.

Several district map options will be developed and must account for Cypress’ communities of interest and unique land uses including, Forest Lawn, the business parks, and Los Alamitos Race Course.

Cypress voters will no longer vote to elect all Council Members, as occurs with the existing at-large election system. Currently, each voter has as many votes to cast as there are available City Council seats. For example, if there are three open seats on the City Council, voters in an at-large system have three votes to cast in the election.

In a by-district system, each voter only has one vote to cast and can only vote for the Council Member who will represent their district. Furthermore, districts will be on a staggered election cycle, so voters will cast ballots electing their Council Member every four years instead of voting for Council Members every other year in an at-large system.

The City has hired a professional demographer to draw maps with resident participation. National Demographics Corporation (NDC) has served hundreds of local governments over the past 37 years. Founded in 1979, NDC has established a reputation as the state's leading demographic expert on the CVRA, having performed demographic assessments for over 300 jurisdictions. No company has been responsible for addressing the electoral demographic needs of more local governments, as NDC has districted and/or redistricted well over 150 local school districts, cities, water districts, county boards, and other local districts. Nationally recognized as a pioneer in good government districting and redistricting, NDC is especially experienced in working with local jurisdictions in California, Arizona and Nevada.

Supported by online tools from NDC, residents will be able to provide input on boundaries, the criteria for creating the boundaries and submit their own maps for consideration. The map-drawing process will be transparent and accessible to all residents. Ultimately, the district boundaries will be approved by the City Council.

The City is hosting five public hearings where you can learn about the mapping process, view proposed maps, help define communities of interest, get the tools to draw your own map and talk with neighbors.

If you are unable to attend a meeting or would like to submit comments to the City Council or demographer, you can email mapcypress@cypressca.org

• Monday, January 22, 2024 
• Monday, January 29, 2024 
• Monday, February 12, 2024 
• Monday, February 26, 2024 
• Monday, March 11, 2024 

All Public Hearings will be held at 6 PM in the Council Chambers.   

Yes. The district map must be evaluated every 10 years when new census data is available. If population changes occur, district boundaries are adjusted to maintain balance and representation.

The by-district election system will go into effect beginning November 2024. 

The district map and election sequence adopted following the public hearing process will govern elections between 2024 and 2030.

A transition to districts will not immediately affect the current City Council. Each Council Member will serve out his/her term.

Along with selecting an electoral map, the City will identify the districts that will elect Council Members in November 2024. The other districts will elect Council Members in November 2026.

The agreement that resolves the lawsuit requires the district with the highest percentage of Asian American voters, measured by citizen voting age population estimates, must be one of the districts to elect its Council Member in November 2024. 

If multiple current Council Members live in the same district and seek re-election, they will run against each other.

No. The City Charter term limits remain in place.

The City Council would follow the provisions in the City Charter.

Yes, the City has reviewed the process CSD followed in 2016-17. It is not possible to simply adopt another jurisdiction’s map. The geographic make-up, demographics, etc. are not an exact match to the City of Cypress. For instance, the City and CSD have different boundaries as CSD does not serve all of Cypress and serves parts of Buena Park and La Palma. Information about how CSD created its trustee areas is available on its website.

A community of interest is a neighborhood or community that would benefit from being in the same district because of shared interests, views, or characteristics.

Possible community features or boundary definitions include:

• School attendance areas
• Natural neighborhood dividing lines such as roads, hills or highways
• Areas around parks and other landmarks
• Common issues, neighborhood activities or legislative concerns
• Shared demographic characteristics, such as:
  • Similar levels of income, education, or linguistic isolation
  • Ancestry (not race or ethnicity)
  • Languages spoken at home
  • Percentage of immigrants
  • Single-family and multifamily housing units

There are several organizations with information on this topic, which we have provided links to below:

State of California - We Draw The Lines
Brennan Center for Justice
Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund

Cypress residents Malini Nagpal and Kathryn Shapiro, represented by Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (SVREP), a Texas-based Latino voter registration non-profit.

The lawsuit referenced the 2012, 2014 and 2020 elections. The City’s elections video provides some information about these elections.

No. The CVRA prohibits the use of any election system “that impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election."

In September 2021, Cypress residents Malini Nagpal and Kathryn Shapiro, represented by Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (SVREP), a Texas-based Latino voter registration non-profit, asserted that the City’s at-large election system is prohibited under the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA). Adopted in 2001, CVRA has been employed across California to force cities and other small local governments to adopt by-district elections.

While the City disputes the plaintiffs’ claim, it conducted outreach to understand the community’s opinion of Cypress’ system for electing Council Members. Through public forums and a survey, residents made it clear they preferred an at-large election system that ensures their right to vote for all five Council Members.

In July 2022, the plaintiffs sued the City to force it to switch to by-district elections, which would mean that residents elect one Council Member every four years from the district in which they reside, instead of selecting all five Council Members as they have throughout the City’s history.

Honoring residents’ input from community outreach it conducted, the City has defended Cypress’ at-large election system while acknowledging that no city has ever prevailed against a CVRA lawsuit.

In September 2023, the California Supreme Court reversed the only successful defense of a CVRA claim by a local government when it ruled against the City of Santa Monica in a lawsuit by Pico Neighborhood Association and Maria Loya.

The Santa Monica ruling significantly reduced the likelihood that Cypress’ at-large election could be found to comply with CVRA. As a result, the City participated in advisory mediation to reassess its ability to defend the lawsuit to force Cypress into by-district elections. The mediation was conducted with the assistance of a retired judge with extensive CVRA experience.

While the City remains confident that Cypress’ at-large election system effectively represents the entire community, it is also clear that there have been consequential changes to circumstances surrounding the lawsuit since the City began defending against it. This includes taking into account the opinions of an experienced mediator and reviewing data regarding the 2022 City Council election (an election that occurred more than a year after plaintiffs made their claim against the City).