Organizing Municipal Elections
Which is better: at-large or district elections? In an at-large election, all voters select five members representing the entire city. In a district-election system, the municipality is divided into five geographic districts, and voters in each district choose a council member who only represents their constituents. In the early twentieth century, the at-large system was favored because it reduced the power of party machines that were often based on ethnically defined neighborhoods. The belief was that at-large elections would encourage city council members to think of the good of the entire city rather than just single neighborhoods. However, we can anticipate the problem that may result; a neighborhood, whether because of prejudice or poverty, could be easily neglected by a governing council. In contrast, district elections have the virtue of potentially avoiding this problem. If districts are drawn fairly, the probability is that governing bodies will draw representatives from all areas of a city and thus better represent the demographic characteristics of all voters.
These concerns led the California State Legislature to pass the California Voting Rights Act of 2001, making it illegal for local governments to organize elections so that minority groups would have difficulty obtaining descriptive representation in local governing bodies. Local governments did not immediately make any changes in response to this law; instead, voting rights groups such as the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project have sued or threatened to sue local governments. The response has varied. Some local governments have fought the lawsuits and usually lost; others are more sympathetic to the law and changed to district elections, or pragmatically, some did not want to engage in litigation and abandoned at-large elections. Cities, school districts, and special districts are changing electoral rules across California, especially in the last ten years. Over four hundred local governments have switched to district elections since the Act's passage ("Updated Counts of CVRA-Driven Change").
The logic of these lawsuits is straightforward. If there is a disparity between the racial or ethnic makeup of a governing board and that of the voting population, then the at-large system of elections is suspect. Confirmation of this descriptive representation gap is shown by evidence that cities that have switched to district elections have experienced an increase in minority representation by about ten percent or the equivalent of one seat for every two city councils (Collingwood and Long). Thus, the California Voters Rights Act embodies the argument that greater descriptive representation leads to better representation of constituency needs and increased legitimacy for local governments.
Once local governments have switched from at-large to district elections, the next step is to divide up the municipality into five districts. Districts must be reasonably equal in population and comply with the 1965 US Voting Rights Act. Local governments also strive for the geographic compactness of districts and to keep "communities of interest" (based on, for example, culture or economic concerns) intact within a district. In some local governments, the existing governing body supervises redistricting after the federal census (which occurs every ten years). In others, non-politician citizen volunteers are solicited for the task. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has a Citizens Redistricting Commission, which operates similarly to the statewide commission. Citizens of Los Angeles County volunteer to serve, and then, following a review of requirements and qualifications, fourteen are randomly selected. They then draw the map with influence from local citizens and groups that voice their concerns during local hearings (Los Angeles County Redistricting"). The growth of citizen redistricting commissions reflects the concerns that if local government leaders draw districts, they may be gerrymandered or biased to favor particular factions or parties.
In summary, the growth of district elections accompanied by citizen redistricting commissions at the local level has at least two consequences: first, it is likely to increase the racial and ethnic diversity of governing bodies of local governments. Second, ensuring that more geographic areas of a municipality are represented will enrich democratic deliberation.
