Watsonville: a Beginning for Latino Aspirations

California’s Latinos received a significant boost toward full political participation on the local level as a result of a recent landmark decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ruling struck down the city of Watsonville’s at-large system for local elections. Latino leaders have long been aware that communities utilizing at-large systems for city council elections weaken Latino voting influence and prevent the election of Latinos to political office.

Federal courts in other states, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, have consistently overturned at-large systems that deprived minority candidates of a fair chance to win elections. But the Watsonville decision is the first time that a California city has been ordered to change its election system in order to permit minority voters and candidates the opportunity to exercise their constitutional right to an effective role in local politics.

The Watsonville ruling could have a revolutionary effect in California: 95% of California’s 450 cities have at-large elections. Communities like San Diego, Chula Vista, Pomona and Stockton currently have at-large election systems. Moreover, 95% of California’s 1,000 California school districts have at-large elections. Although many of these cities and school districts have large minority populations, few minority individuals are elected to city councils or school boards.

The Watsonville decision underscores the current political impotence of the Latino community in California. Latinos account for more than 21% of California’s population. They will be the dominant ethnic minority by the beginning of the 21st Century. Yet they represent a dismal 6.5% of city council members and only 6% of school board members in California. In total, there are only 22 Latino mayors and only 134 council members in the state. There are 115 cities in California where Latinos make up at least 10% of the population but hold no elected office.

Are at-large elections that bad? Do they truly discriminate against Latinos?

Initially, at-large elections were part of a progressive trend in American political life to limit the power of local political machines. But, like some other reforms, they have had unintended negative consequences. In communities where the majority of the voting electorate is white, at-large elections mean that Latino candidates have a tough time winning any office.

Supporters of at-large elections often claim that it is not the system that keeps Latinos from being elected to local office, but rather the fault of Latinos too apathetic to register and vote, or the fault of unqualified Latino candidates. The court correctly rejected these arguments. Instead, it said Latinos are often reluctant to register and vote because their candidates have no chance of winning. This is especially true when an at-large system is combined with a history of discrimination and racially polarized voting. “Discrimination against Latinos in California and the Southwest has pervaded nearly all aspects of public and private life,” Judge Dorothy W. Nelson wrote for the three-member court.

District elections, on the other hand, provide a fairer chance for Latinos to be elected from Latino-dominated areas. In Corpus Christi, Tex., for example, which is 47% Latino, three Mexican-Americans were elected to a previously all-white city council after a 1982 ruling that created five separate voting districts. And in Stockton no minorities were elected to the city council before the city changed from at-large to district elections in 1971. Since then there has been at least one minority member on the council. Other California cities with district elections--like Los Angeles, Oakland and Sacramento--now have minority council members.

District elections also will increase Latino voter turnout. From 1976 to 1984, at-large elections in Texas were replaced by district elections in most cities. Latino voter turnout increased by 75% during that period, while voter turnout for the population as a whole increased by only 32%.

Although I applaud the Watsonville decision, now it is appropriate for the Legislature to take the lead in implementing this policy. Last year I introduced a legislative proposal that would have required district elections for most large cities and school districts. The bill failed, but I expect the Watsonville case to make the Legislature take a closer and more sympathetic view of district elections next year.

California is made up of multiple ethnic communities. For years minorities in California have lacked political power. City councils and school boards have not fairly represented the true demographic nature of the state. I am optimistic that the Watsonville decision will represent a turning point in the history of our state. This case, which clearly argues that minorities must be given the opportunity to be part of local political leadership, could be the instrument whereby Latinos get a fairer slice of the American political pie.