Torrance City Council – A Town Hall Style Conversation About Local Politics

Yesterday evening the Council took the initial step of moving from At-Large to District based elections. The action stemmed from a March 7, 2018 letter received by the City from attorney Kevin Shenkman in which he threatened to sue the City unless Torrance voluntarily moved to a District based election system.

Shenkman acted on behalf of his client the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project. In the letter he claimed that “voting within Torrance is racially polarized resulting in minority vote dilution.”

Torrance is not alone as many other California jurisdictions are facing similar threats from Shenkman. Antonio Gonzalez, the President of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, was quoted in an LA times article last year as saying they had already sent in demand letters to 25 jurisdictions and were going to do 100 before the year was out.

The City attorney warned the Council that the chances of the City successfully defending itself against the threatened litigation were extremely remote. In that regard, the staff report stated that:

“Every government defendant in the history of the CVRA that has challenged the conversion has either lost in court or settled/agreed to implement district elections and been forced to pay at least some of the plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs”

The staff report indicated those fees could be as high as $4.5 Million and also listed several jurisdictions that had already capitulated to Shenkman’s demands. Of those listed, however, only one (the City of Palmdale) had actually lost at trial. All of the other jurisdictions listed appeared to have either settled the case out of court or voluntarily moved to a district based model.

Not all California cities share such a bleak outlook of legal success as that portrayed in the staff report. Santa Monica and Huntington Beach, for example, both received letters from Shenkman, but unlike the other jurisdictions listed in the staff report they refused to give in to Shenkman’s demands. These cities, however, were curiously omitted from the staff report.

The omission of Santa Monica, in particular, is odd considering that Santa Monica is actively fighting the lawsuit and actually filed a motion to have it dismissed as recently as 29 March 2018. That motion stated that:

“To prevail on their California Voting Rights Act claim, plaintiffs must prove, among other things, that vote dilution is caused by the City’s at-large electoral system. Plaintiffs must therefore demonstrate that some permissible electoral scheme other than the City’s current system would enhance Latino voting power. But expert demographic analysis confirms that plaintiffs cannot do so, because no constitutionally or statutorily permissible remedy could enhance Latino voting strength. Absent proof of vote dilution, there is no constitutional basis on which to supply any remedy at all, much less a race-conscious one.  Governments are authorized to separate persons into voting districts predominantly on the basis of race only when they have a compelling interest in doing so, and only where their actions are specifically and narrowly tailored to further their legitimate purposes.”

It was reported in May of last year that the City of Huntington Beach was also pushing back against Shenkman and was prepared to go to court if necessary. The City Attorney for that city was quoted as saying, “We’re going to push back. And we’re going to push back hard.”

Both Santa Monica and Huntington Beach have a comparable percentage of Latino voters  to Torrance.

Torrance must hold a series of public meetings before officially making the change to District based elections. Should the Council opt to do so they can back out of their intention to change the election model and revert back to the At-Large method.

At its most recent meeting, the School Board adopted a Resolution on Student Safety that was recommended by the California School Boards Association (CSBA). The Resolution was largely symbolic urging the United States Congress and the State of California to take broad based actions such as:

• Investing in wraparound services to prevent bullying, harassment, discrimination and violence in our schools and to provide funding for programs and staff such as counselors, nurses and psychologists, that support students’ mental, physical and emotional health.
• Passing specific legislation that reduces the risk and severity of gun violence on school campuses and repeals the prohibition against data collection and research on gun violence by the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC).
• Implementing common sense measures that prioritize student safety and environments where all students have the opportunity to learn, grow and thrive.

The passage of the resolution came on the heels of a nationwide student walkout that occurred March 14th, 2018. That walkout was organized by the Women’s March Youth Empower group. The aims of that group are to:

• Ban Assault Weapons & High Capacity Magazines
• Expand Background Checks to All Gun Sales
• Pass Gun Violence Restraining Order Law
• Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act

The group also opposes:

• Conceal Carry Reciprocity HR 38 / S 446
• Any legislation that would aim to fortify our schools with more guns

In addition to recommending passage of the Resolution, the CSBA also offered guidance on how to address student walkouts. In a memo entitled “Legal Guidance: Student Protests and Walkout” the CSBA advised the following:

“A walkout is considered symbolic speech and protected under the First Amendment, but student speech can be limited if it disrupts the educational process, and generally students leaving class would be considered disruptive to the education environment and schools can regulate this activity. Courts have previously ruled that student absences for a political demonstration walkout should be treated in the same way as any other unexcused absence … Schools should communicate clearly with students any consequences for leaving class, consistent with district policy and different consequences should not be applied based on political viewpoint.”

TUSD took a different tact, however, from the recommended approach by CSBA instead opting to fully embrace the movement by supporting the walkout and assisting with organizing planned events at many of the local high school and middle school’s. Congressman Ted Lieu spoke at South High while students at other schools participated in a variety of organized protest events. Students could remain in their classrooms or join the planned walkout events without consequence.

TUSD’s support of the walkout sparked a flurry of activity on social media as the action was vigorously debated. Below is a sampling of that debate:

Poster at West High

“Its not OK for the schools to use the children as a political tool for ANY agenda. School is for learning.  It’s set up by the schools as a remembrance of the 17 lives lost. But its actually an anti-gun march. Its not up to the schools to decide how anyone feels about guns. Kids should be going to school to learn.” – Scot Crofut

“I am proud of our west High School students for their awareness of larger, social issues appearing on a broader scale. I am also impressed with the administration’s decision to support this 17 minutes of expression, provided the students remain on campus. The first amendment rights of free speech will be recognized as well (with conditions that it be done with respect, isn’t disruptive or dangerous). What a great moment for these children to get a hands on lesson in first amendment constitutional law in real practice” – Linda Gottshall-Sayed

“Where does this stop? If we start letting a walk out for every single cause, pretty soon our schools are going to look like Italian airports- which are shut down every other week for a strike … They want to walk out, fine. But treat it like every other occasion where a student chooses to walk out in the middle of class. That’s the message.” – Nathan Mintz 

“Slippery slope. Schools got involved where they should not have. Causing more problems for themselves.” – Sandra Goetz

By not treating the walkout like any other school day, the District has put themselves in a position where they will now have to decide what walkouts they will support and where they will draw the line. That could prove to be a major headache for the District as the slippery slope, referenced by Sandra Goetz, will soon be put to the test.

Another school walkout is planned for April 20th, 2018 the 19th anniversary of the Columbine High School shooting. This time, however, organizers are calling for an all day walkout beginning at 10:00 am versus only a 17 minute demonstration.

If TUSD supports it as they did the prior walkout, students could miss an entire day of classroom instruction without consequence. If TUSD does not support it, students who do walkout could claim unequal treatment if they are disciplined.

Thus far, TUSD has provided no information on how they plan to handle the upcoming April 20th walkout.

The agenda for next Tuesday’s City Council meeting includes a discussion with regard to a threat to public services or facilities. The public will not have the opportunity to comment on the matter as the potentially worrisome issue will be heard in closed session.

California Government Code section 54957 allows for a legislative body to meet in closed session to discuss “a threat to the security of essential public services, including water, drinking water, wastewater treatment, natural gas service, and electric service, or a threat to the public’s right of access to public services or public facilities.”

The agenda discloses no details as to the nature of the threat.

In recent months, however, the City has implemented enhanced security measures at City Council meetings and hired armed guards to patrol City libraries.