Cypress currently uses an at-large election system, where all voters in the city elect all members of the City Council.

By-district elections distribute the city’s population into equal-sized voting districts. Voters in each district may only choose one Council Member who must also live in that district.

From-district elections differ from at-large systems only in that they require each Council Member to live within a particular district. Council Members are still elected by all the voters in the city.

In a cumulative voting system, voters cast votes equal to the number of open seats. For example, if there are three open seats, voters may cast up to three votes. However, unlike winner-take-all systems, voters are not required to select one candidate. Instead, voters can cast some or all their votes for one or more candidates.

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.

No. The City has received what is known as a challenge letter asserting that the City may be in violation of the CVRA. A copy of that letter can be found on this page or by clicking here.

The challenge letter received is written on behalf of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project and its members residing within the City of Cypress.

The attorney who authored the challenge letter has said his clients will sue the City. Looking at cities in California facing similar challenges, only the City of Palmdale has gone to trial on the merits of at‐large elections – and lost. The court ordered Palmdale to convert to district elections and ended up paying $4.5 million in legal fees to city and plaintiff’s attorneys. The City of Santa Monica is currently defending a CVRA challenge and to date, has spent more than $10 million in legal fees. If they are unsuccessful, Santa Monica will also be required to transition to by-district elections and pay the plaintiff’s legal fees.

Features that might cause plaintiffs to scrutinize a jurisdiction as a potential target for a CVRA challenge include 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.

Nearly every city that has been challenged has changed its election method, voluntarily or by court order. Agencies that have defended their at-large election systems have incurred significant legal costs. Here are a few examples of the legal costs that other cities paid defending their at-large systems:

• Santa Monica $10 million + (currently in litigation)
• Palmdale $4.7 million
• Modesto $3 million
• Anaheim $1.1 million
• Santa Barbara $600,000
• West Covina $220,000

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.

No. The fact that the voters of a jurisdiction enacted an at-large election system by ballot measure (or rejected 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.

Cities larger and smaller than Cypress have transitioned to by-district elections. If the City Council decides to make that change in Cypress, several district map options will be developed and must account for Cypress’ unique land uses including Forest Lawn, the business parks, and Los Alamitos Race Course.

If districts are approved, Cypress voters will no longer vote to elect all members of the City Council 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. If there are three open seats on the City Council, voters have three votes to cast in the election.

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

The City will hire a professional demographer to create proposed district boundaries, with resident participation. Residents will be able to provide input on boundaries and 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 established by an ordinance approved by the City Council.

While the map drawing process is public, it begins with data and maps prepared by specialized consultant demographers. If the City Council decides to pursue by-district elections at the conclusion of the community forums, map drawing will begin.

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.

A transition to districts would not immediately affect the current City Council. Each Council Member would serve out his/her term. Current Council Members would become at-large representatives and would term-out, or run for re-election, when their district appears on the ballot. The transition would happen over time. If multiple current Council Members live in the same district, they would be required to run against each other or move to another district, presuming they were eligible for re-election.

No. The City Charter term limits would remain in place even if the City transitioned to districts. The exact language in the City Charter is: No person shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Council who, at the time he would take office, would have previously served on the Council for eight or more years; provided, however, that service on the Council prior to the effective date of this provision shall be disregarded in determining eligibility for office.

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

Yes, the City has reviewed the process CSD followed in 2016-17. Unfortunately, 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 but does serve parts of Buena Park and La Palma. Information about how CSD created it 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 interest, view, 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

The CVRA challenge letter references the 2012, 2014 and 2020 elections. The City’s elections video provides some information about these elections.

The CVRA challenge letter was sent by Shenkman & Hughes, PC on behalf of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project and its members within the City of Cypress.

This data is not yet available.

Yes. The CVRA provides the City 90 days to respond and take action on the challenge. However, the City has been in communication with complainant to discuss the issue and allow Cypress additional time to conduct these public forums and allow the City Council to deliberate.

If Cypress transitions to by-district elections, a public process will begin to develop potential maps outlining possible districts. The City Council would hold public meetings and seek public input as part of changing the City’s election system.

No. There is no minimum population provision in the CVRA. Cities larger and smaller than Cypress have transitioned to by-district 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."

The City Council would follow the provisions in the City Charter. Since transitioning to by-district elections, Cypress School District has seen uncontested Trustee elections, but has not encountered a Trustee election with no candidates.

If Cypress transitions to by-district elections, the City will hire a professional demographer to work with the community to propose district boundaries. Residents will be able to provide input on boundaries, communities of interest, 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 established by an ordinance approved by the City Council. According to the League of California Cites, only eight cities and two counties have established independent redistricting commissions: Berkeley, Sacramento, San Francisco, Chula Vista, Modesto, San Diego, Escondido, Oakland, San Diego County and Los Angeles County.