From the Publisher

A hero appeared at the October 26 City Council meeting. In his 2000-plus word address to the Council, I believe he answers the recent shakedown letter threatening to sue Fillmore to force compliance with the California Voting Rights Act, costing us at least $37,000. His name is Paul Conrad Copley. He is Ventura County Coordinator for the California Ranked Choice Voting Institute.

He believes this threat is an abuse of the CVRA and that the solution here is Proportional Ranked Choice Voting. After a thorough study of Fillmore's voting system, he "strongly urges the city to pursue the settlement outlined in his third described option." [online].

Mr. Copley's printed statement is far too long to include in its entirety this week, so it has been posted online at www.FillmoreGazette.com. I urge everyone to read it. Here is a small part:

"Kevin Shenkman, the most experienced and aggressive attorney in the state pursuing CVRA litigation, contacted the city of Fillmore, asked for demographic information and information about the City Council, and, upon reviewing the data, decided not to take any action against Fillmore. It can be speculated that some of the attorneys in California sending CVRA threat letters are looking for a quick payday and don’t intend to sue if the city calls their bluff. Kevin Shenkman is not one such attorney. He does his homework, and he truly believes in the CVRA and the work he is doing. He doesn’t bluff, and he doesn’t blow smoke. He would likely have sent a CVRA threat letter if he felt there was a violation worthy of a potential lawsuit. Options: Given the established background information and the need for the City Council to decide, I would like to enumerate three options facing the City of Fillmore for the benefit of the City Council, its staff, and the residents: Concede, Resist, or Settle."

***

Distinguished Council Members and Staff,

Thank you for taking the time to hear and receive my public comments today and for your open
and thoughtful manner in addressing this admittedly stressful process. As many have
commented, I don’t envy your position and the decisions you will have to make in the coming
weeks and months, and I hope that whatever path you choose works well for the citizens of
Fillmore and the Fillmore City Council.

I acknowledge that I am not a resident of Fillmore. I live in Oak Park, a small unincorporated
community in the eastern part of Ventura County, about 30 minutes south of here through the
winding orchards. When my boys were babies, I used to take long drives through the farming
communities, including Fillmore, so that they would nap and I would have something peaceful
and beautiful to stare at while I wandered aimlessly through Ventura County. I hold a special
place in my heart for small towns, and I’m very interested in the things happening in our County.
When I read about Fillmore’s intention to move to districts due to a CVRA threat letter in the
Ventura County Star, it piqued my interest as I volunteer for an election reform nonprofit, The
California Ranked Choice Voting Institute, and have a particular passion for voting reform. I
believe that our current voting systems are at the root of many of our political problems and that
reform is helpful and necessary in most cases.

It is my opinion, and the stated opinion of the group that I volunteer with, that the California
Voting Rights Act is an extremely important and beneficial law that has helped
underrepresented groups in California attain political power and representation in many areas
where they had previously been unable to win seats as a result of Plurality At-Large (PAL)
electoral systems. The district transition has often helped disenfranchised groups, especially
Latinos, achieve much-deserved representation. These are important wins and justify the
existence of the CVRA and the need for its enforcement.

However, I believe the CVRA can be abused, and not every city is served by the transition to
districts. Plurality At-Large is an inherently flawed system, but, like a broken clock, it
occasionally gets things right. Fillmore’s Plurality At-Large system has recently produced
representation that aligns with its California Voting Age Population, or CVAP, but historically it
has not. Therefore, I propose that the best solution for providing just representation and bringing
the city into compliance with the California Voting Rights Act is a Proportional At-Large system,
such as Proportional Ranked Choice Voting.

There are several options the city could take in responding to the CVRA threat letter, but before
we address those options, let’s establish a little background to give perspective to the available
options.

Important Background Items:
● The City may request a 90-day extension to the timeline in accordance with California
Elections Code 10010(e)(3)(C)
○ Any reasonable attorney should grant this extension, and doing so would allow
the city more time to carefully evaluate its options, draw maps, or seek a
settlement with the plaintiff.
● The recent California State Supreme Court decision regarding Pico Neighborhood
Association v. City of Santa Monica overturned the city’s appeal victory, but in doing so, it
added an important condition requiring that the plaintiffs pursuing a CVRA case not only
demonstrate “racially polarized voting,” but now must also demonstrate “voting dilution.”
○ This adds additional research and cost to prosecuting and defending a CVRA
case by raising requirements that the plaintiff must prove.
○ Specifically, the plaintiffs must show that there is a system that would improve the
situation for the injured group.
● Fillmore’s California Voting Age Population, or CVAP, is roughly two-thirds Latino and
one-third white. Given that the injured party in this CVRA threat letter has a 2:1 majority
over the next largest group, it sets a high bar to prove there has been voting dilution.
○ While historically underrepresented, Latino’s lack of representation does not
appear to be due to the mathematical inability to elect representatives.
○ If Latino voter turnout were higher than 50%, based on Fillmore’s CVAP statistics,
they would have the voting power to elect all five seats and all other elected
offices under a Plurality At-Large system.
● On October 24th, Mr. Leonard of VP National Demographics Corporation stated that no
city in California has successfully fought a CVRA letter and that all other cities in Ventura
County have moved to districts. However, many cities and governing bodies have
resisted CVRA threat letters, and in many cases, they never hear back from the attorney.
A few examples are:
○ Port Hueneme (no CVRA threat letter, still using PAL)
○ Ojai (conceded, immediately voted to dissolve districts)
○ Richmond, CA (refused)
○ Fort Bragg, CA (settled)
○ Palo Alto School District (refused)
○ San Luis Obispo (refused, received another letter)
○ Burbank (refused, entering litigation)
○ Santa Monica (refused, litigating)
● The attorney who issued the CVRA threat letter to Fillmore has sent a number of threat
letters to different cities, resulting in cities conceding and transitioning to districts.
Recently, he sent a nearly identical threat letter to the one Fillmore received to the city of
Burbank. The Burbank city council voted unanimously to ignore the letter and transition
their city to a Proportional System.
○ Mr. Dominguez has filed suit (Nicholas Gutierrez v. City of Burbank; Case No.:
23STCV25587), and the parties will meet soon for their first hearing.
● Kevin Shenkman, the most experienced and aggressive attorney in the state pursuing
CVRA litigation, contacted the city of Fillmore, asked for demographic information and
information about the City Council, and, upon reviewing the data, decided not to take
any action against Fillmore.
○ It can be speculated that some of the attorneys in California sending CVRA threat
letters are looking for a quick payday and don’t intend to sue if the city calls their
bluff. Kevin Shenkman is not one such attorney.
○ He does his homework, and he truly believes in the CVRA and the work he is
doing. He doesn’t bluff, and he doesn’t blow smoke.
○ He would likely have sent a CVRA threat letter if he felt there was a violation
worthy of a potential lawsuit.
Options:

Given the established background information and the need for the City Council to decide, I
would like to enumerate three options facing the City of Fillmore for the benefit of the City
Council, its staff, and the residents: Concede, Resist, or Settle.
Option A: Concede

In option A, the city chooses to concede to the threat letter sent by Attorney Jason Dominguez
and moves forward with district elections beginning in 2024. The City pays Mr. Dominguez
roughly $37,000 to cover his “fees,” hires a demographer to draw up maps for the city’s
proposed districts, and absorbs an array of additional costs that come about as a result of
moving to district elections. All told, it can easily cost $100,000 to make the initial transition.
Once transitioning to districts, the city will face a redistricting process after every census and the
associated costs involved with such a process.
Aside from the costs associated with the transition to districts, the city must contend with the
possibility of uncontested elections or elections where no candidate can be found to represent a
district. In similar circumstances, small towns forced to move to districts have trouble fielding
candidates and have uncontested races 30% of the time. This is not good for voters and not
good for democracy.

If nobody comes forward seeking office, a district is left with no candidates, and a representative
has to be appointed.
So, while conceding and moving to districts might protect the city of Fillmore from future CVRA
threat letters, it is not necessarily in the best interest of the City, its voters, or its budget.
Option B: Resist
In Option B, the city decides to contest Mr. Dominguez’s CVRA threat letter and responds with a
stern letter from the city’s attorney stating that the city does not believe that it is in violation of
the California Voting Rights Act and asks Mr. Dominguez to provide further details and analysis
into the plaintiff’s claim. This letter could include that Kevin Shenkman, a noted CVRA lawyer
with a very successful track record, looked into Fillmore’s situation and decided there was no
case.

The city could argue that given the current makeup of the City Council and the demographic
composition of the City’s CVAP, there is no case to be made that the injured party is unable to
achieve acceptable levels of representation on the council. Latinos make up roughly two-thirds
of the CVAP and two-thirds of the City Council. Whites make up roughly one-third of the CVAP
and roughly one-third of the City Council. Where is the violation?
If the City decided to resist Mr. Dominguez’s CVRA threat letter, it would either see Mr.
Dominguez drop his case against the City, and there would be no additional expenses, or Mr.
Dominguez would make good on his threat and file suit against the city. Should Mr. Dominguez
file suit, the City would be responsible for all its related legal costs. If it loses, it would be liable
for damages and fees incurred by Mr. Dominguez. If the City wins, it would still be responsible
for its legal costs, unable to recoup those costs from Mr. Dominguez as the CVRA protects the
plaintiff and the plaintiff’s attorney from damages in the instance of a loss.
If the City were to win its case, it would set a precedent that might discourage other attorneys
from sending CVRA threat letters, and in the event that another threat letter was sent, the City
would be likely to win again, denying future attorneys who send letters the prospect of
recovering any costs or fees. But it would not provide safe harbor from such threat letters, so it
is entirely possible that another attorney could come along and start the whole process over.
Option C: Seek Settlement

In Option C, the City decides to seek a settlement with Mr. Dominguez and the plaintiff. The City
is not conceding to Mr. Dominguez’s threat letter and, as such, is not liable for the $37,000 in
fees to the attorney but is able to negotiate an acceptable settlement that sees Mr. Dominguez
able to recover his legal costs as well as sparing the City from having to transition to
district-based elections.
A proposed settlement would include an admission from the City that its Plurality At-Large
system is a weak system for guaranteeing representation for protected groups. The City would
state that although it is not currently in violation, it has been historically, and it wishes to
transition to a better, more just system as defined by the CVRA. Because district elections result
in uncontested elections as much as 30% of the time in similarly sized cities, the City proposes
moving to a modified at-large system, such as Proportional Ranked Choice Voting, as allowed
for in the CVRA. The similarly sized city of Albany (population 19,000) recently negotiated a
similar settlement with attorney Kevin Shenkman and, in 2022, held its first Proportional Ranked
Choice election, which yielded fantastic results.
A settlement such as this provides a number of significant advantages over conceding to or
resisting the CVRA threat letter. It allows a city to avoid transitioning to districts, it replaces an
antiquated and unjust system of Plurality At-Large elections with a much better proportional
system, and it provides protection from future CVRA threat letters for at least a few election
cycles while the method is proven to produce just and representative electoral results. If the suit
and the settlement are filed in conjunction and ruled on by a judge, the ruling allows the city to
move to a proportional election system without having to adopt a city charter and shields the city
from future CVRA threat letters until such time as historical data can either confirm or disprove
the effectiveness of the settled upon solution.
Conclusion
The City of Fillmore, its city council, and its residents have difficult decisions ahead of them. Of
the three options I’ve presented, none will be easy, and none will be without cost or headache,
but I believe there is a clear winner. I strongly urge the City to pursue a settlement with the
plaintiff that includes the implementation of a Proportional At-Large system such as Proportional
Ranked Choice Voting.
Ranked Choice Voting is the fastest-growing voting reform in the county, and for good reason. It
encourages more candidates to run, provides voters with more options, and, when implemented
in a proportional form to elect representative bodies, produces the most just and equitable
results of any voting system in use today.
There is an opportunity for the Fillmore City Council to turn this lemon into lemonade and
emerge from this stressful situation with a new and improved election system that both satisfies
the requirements of the California Voting Rights Act and prevents the city from being forced to
transition to an unwanted and likely ineffective district model.
I wish you, the City Council, and the people of Fillmore the very best as you navigate this
process, and I will be rooting for you the entire time!
Thank you again for your time.

Sincerely,

Paul Conrad Copley
Ventura County Coordinator
California Ranked Choice Voting Institute
(424)214-9622
paul@calrcv.org
www.CalRCV.org