City Of Martinez Embarks On Process To Redraw Council Election Districts

In the first of what will be a series of workshops centered on redrawing the City of Martinez’s council district map boundaries, early sentiment has favored establishing an independent commission to create a map, with no direct City Council involvement.

A redraw of California’s various county supervisorial, school district board, city council and other elected-official district boundaries is required using updated population information based on the 2020 Census.

These various redistricting efforts have an October deadline, pushed back from August by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The City of Martinez was among the earliest cities to change its City Council elections from five members elected at-large to a system in which only the mayor would still be elected at-large, and the other four council members would represent geographical districts.

The move by officials in Martinez and other cities and counties was driven by demands by Malibu attorney Kevin Shenkman that elected bodies make that change or face lawsuits for violating the California Voting Rights Act of 2001. That act asserts local at-large voting systems are discriminatory if they “impair the ability of a protected class … to elect candidates of its choice or otherwise influence the outcome of an election.”

That “protected class,” as defined by Shenkman, is Latinos, whom he has said would have more voting influence in districts with intact Latino neighborhoods. The Martinez City Council then adopted council district boundaries drawn specifically to give each of the four districts a section of downtown and of the waterfront area.

Many other Bay Area cities, and school districts and special districts, soon followed suit.

The city was sued in November 2018 by two residents, Felix Sanchez and Nancy Noonan, who contended that map “cracks the Latino community, dividing Latino voters nearly equally between each of the four districts.”

Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Charles Treat in January 2020 ruled the city’s district boundaries didn’t need to be changed, as they were legally created by the rules as they were at the time, before Assembly Bill 849 was passed in September 2019 to bolster protections against boundary gerrymandering.

Treat did say, though, that the Martinez boundary lines were “about as uncompact and barely contiguous as geographically possible.”

At the Martinez redistricting workshop last week, resident Dan Barrows told the council that the 2018 Martinez redistricting effort, specifically, helped spur the AB 849 changes.

Councilman Mark Ross added that the redistricting likely hurt Latinos’ political clout in Martinez, in part because Latino residences are widely scattered throughout the city.

“The aim of it was to empower Latino voters,” Ross said. “The result is, by trying to split everything fair and equally, it diluted (their power).”

Councilwoman Lara DeLaney asked a city consultant helping with redistricting how the city could comply with the California Voting Rights Act — which prohibits “at-large” elections that impair the ability of a “protected class,” and at the same time comply with federal codes that expressly prohibit empowering specific groups.

That consultant, attorney Chris Skinnell, told DeLaney that Martinez, or any city, will have to do a sensible balancing act between the two stances and focus on the basics of redistricting.

“One of these days the Supreme Court is going to need to sort it out,” Skinnell said.