Sept 6, 2026 Letter to Governor Gavin Newsom, RE: SB 1164, Please restore options for small cities in California Voting Rights Act
The Honorable Gavin Newsom, Governor, State of California
The Honorable Monique Limón, President pro Tempore, California State Senate, District 21
The Honorable Steve Bennett, California State Assembly, District 38
RE: SB 1164 — Request for a Small-City Safe Harbor for Returning to At-Large Elections
Dear Governor Newsom, President pro Tempore Limón, and Assemblymember Bennett:
I am a longtime Ojai resident and civic volunteer. I serve on the City of Ojai’s Budget and Finance Committee, but I am writing in my personal capacity as a constituent.
I have serious concerns that a one-size-fits-all approach to local voting systems does not work for small cities like Ojai. I am not asking California to abandon the intent or protections of the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA), nor am I suggesting that at-large elections are appropriate everywhere. I am asking for an evidence-based pathway for small cities where an independent analysis finds that returning to at-large voting would not impair protected voters’ ability to elect candidates of their choice.
Ojai provides a good example of why this is needed. In 2018, Ojai changed from at-large to district-based City Council elections after receiving a legal demand alleging that its at-large system diluted Latino voting power. District elections began in 2020.
This year, the City commissioned an independent demographic analysis to examine whether the facts continue to support district elections.
Ojai’s independent demographer found:
Latino voters are geographically dispersed throughout Ojai rather than concentrated in a particular district.
Even in Ojai’s most-Latino district, non-Hispanic white voters outnumber Latino voters about five to one among actual voters.
District elections have not improved Latino voters’ ability to elect their preferred candidates since Ojai began using districts in 2020.
District elections actually reduce every voter’s participation: Latino and non-Latino voters alike can now vote for only one of four Council seats, rather than all four under at-large elections.
These findings illustrate why district elections should not automatically be assumed to provide greater minority electoral opportunity in every community. Districts can provide an important remedy when a protected population is sufficiently concentrated to influence or elect a preferred candidate within a district. But where a protected population is relatively small and geographically dispersed, dividing a small city into districts may not produce that benefit.
Recent academic research also supports taking local circumstances into account. A 2026 California Law Review Note examining California election systems found that the effects of district elections on minority representation are not uniform and can depend on the size and geographic concentration of minority communities. Donald Wittman’s 2024 research separately examines circumstances in which at-large elections can provide advantages to geographically dispersed minority voters.
The legal landscape is also evolving. On April 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court decided Louisiana v. Callais, addressing the relationship between Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act and race-conscious districting. The decision does not repeal or invalidate California’s CVRA, but it further demonstrates the importance of carefully examining demographic and electoral evidence when determining whether race-conscious districting is legally justified.
I therefore ask that SB 1164 provide a carefully limited small-city safe harbor. A city should be permitted to consider returning to at-large elections without open-ended litigation risk when it:
Has a population below a reasonable threshold, such as 30,000;
Commissions an independent demographic and electoral analysis concluding that at-large voting would not unlawfully dilute the voting strength of a protected class;
Holds public hearings and follows applicable state public-participation requirements; and
Demonstrates that returning to at-large elections would not impair the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice.
Such a safe harbor would not weaken the CVRA. It would preserve its protections while recognizing that California’s communities differ dramatically in size, demographics, and residential patterns.
This concern is particularly important as SB 1164 proposes to expand California voting-rights protections and potential challenges to election practices. Cities acting in good faith should have a clear, evidence-based pathway for determining compliance rather than face continuing uncertainty and litigation regardless of the election system they use.
California can protect minority voting rights without requiring every small city to use the same election structure regardless of its demographics. The law should allow reliable evidence to determine whether districts actually improve protected voters’ electoral opportunities in a particular community.
I respectfully ask that a small-city safe harbor be considered before final action on SB 1164. If that cannot be accomplished this legislative session, I ask that such a safe harbor be considered early in the next session.
I would be happy to provide your staff with Ojai’s independent demographic analysis and additional information about our experience with district elections.
Thank you for your consideration and for your service to California and the Ojai Valley.
Respectfully,
Renee RothOjai, California
References
Donald Wittman, “District versus At-Large Voting: Why District Voting Results in Worse Policy for Minorities,” European Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 81 (2024), 102502. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176268024000041
Zachary Griggy & Jonah P. Smith, “Beyond District Lines: Rethinking the California Voting Rights Act’s Promise of Fair Representation,” California Law Review, Vol. 114 (2026). https://www.californialawreview.org/print/beyond-district-lines
Comments