- 1
- 2
- next
- | single page
FILE - This Feb. 5, 2009 file photo shows Joaquin Avila, an assistant professor of law at Seattle University, posing for a photo in his office in Seattle. A law, drafted mainly by professor Avila, makes it easier for lawyers to sue and win financial judgments in cases arising from claims that minorities effectively were shut out of local elections, while shielding attorneys from liability if the claims are tossed out. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, File) (Ted S. Warren, AP / February 5, 2009) |
E-mail
Print
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Every lawsuit filed or even threatened under a California law aimed at electing more minorities to local offices — and all of the roughly $4.3 million from settlements so far — can be traced to just two people: a pair of attorneys who worked together writing the statute, The Associated Press has found.
The law makes it easier for lawyers to sue and win financial judgments in cases arising from claims that minorities effectively were shut out of local elections, while shielding attorneys from liability if the claims are tossed out.
The law was drafted mainly by Seattle law professor Joaquin Avila, with advice from lawyers including Robert Rubin, legal director for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. Avila, Rubin's committee and lawyers working with them have collected or billed local governments about $4.3 million in three cases that settled, and could reap more from two pending lawsuits.
That's only a fraction of what might come. Dozens of cities and school boards have been warned they could be sued under the 2002 California Voting Rights Act.
All the cases have been initiated by Rubin's committee or Avila, who also is a member of the lawyers' group, according to an Associated Press review of legal documents, correspondence and legislative records, and interviews with lawyers, school and government officials, current and former legislators and voting-rights experts.
There is nothing illegal about the lawyers profiting from a law they authored and state lawmakers approved. But it is unusual that after seven years all legal efforts are so narrowly focused, especially since Avila told lawmakers when he testified for the bill in 2002 that he expected other attorneys would take on cases because of favorable incentives written into the measure.
Avila said the complexity of the litigation and the fact few attorneys are experts in voting rights have limited the number involved so far.
"I anticipate there will be more cases filed by other parties," he said.
Avila and Rubin say their roles in crafting the law shouldn't overshadow its importance and the need to use lawsuits and threats to end years of injustice at the polls. Those they target dispute the need for the law. The number of minority officeholders was climbing even before it was enacted, and they claim the lawyers are using the statute to shake down local governments.
"It's a money grab," charged John Stafford, superintendent of the Madera Unified School District that was slapped with a $1.2 million attorneys' bill even though it never contested a lawsuit.
The California statute targets commonly used "at-large" elections — those in which candidates run citywide or across an entire school district. Avila said that method can result in discrimination because whatever group constitutes the majority of voters can dominate the ballot box and block minorities from winning representation. As a remedy, the law empowers state courts to create smaller election districts favoring minority candidates.
Officials in several California communities said they never heard complaints of voter discrimination until the lawyers stepped forward. In one case, the Tulare Local Healthcare District, now known as Tulare Regional Medical Center, was sued even though its five-member governing board is a rainbow of diversity — two emigres from India, a Hispanic, a black and a white. The lawsuit argues Hispanics, who make up about a third of local voters, have been shortchanged.
That case could go to trial as early as January and is being closely watched by communities around the state. If the law is upheld, it could lead to a massive recasting of local election district boundaries, or more lawsuits.
Critics like Stafford see themselves as railroaded by lawyers armed with a law that's flawed and unnecessary. They say even if there's no discrimination, cash-strapped communities see little choice but to settle, given the risks of costly litigation and unwelcome publicity that comes with it.
A judge is reviewing the bill submitted to Madera. To pay, Stafford said the district would have to slash money for books and lunches for its mostly Hispanic students, an odd consequence for a law intended to aid Hispanics.
Though Hispanics constitute 76 percent of the city's population and a thin majority of its registered voters, according to court documents, the lawsuit claims Latinos are deprived of "the ability to meaningfully voice their preferences."
"To say that a majority can vote and say they have been discriminated against by a minority, when the majority has the power to elect whomever they want, is ridiculous," said Hans von Spakovsky, a former assistant attorney general for civil rights in the George W. Bush administration.
"The California law essentially requires that the ethnic group be guaranteed that its choices be elected. This is a clear violation of 14th Amendment. It makes race a predominant factor in elections."
Attorney Marguerite Mary Leoni represented the Hanford Joint Union High School District in a lawsuit the community settled for about $100,000, which it saw as cheaper than a court fight.
"It's a baffling law," she said. "I'm not quite sure it does anything to remedy discrimination."
The law makes it easier for lawyers to sue and win financial judgments in cases arising from claims that minorities effectively were shut out of local elections, while shielding attorneys from liability if the claims are tossed out.
The law was drafted mainly by Seattle law professor Joaquin Avila, with advice from lawyers including Robert Rubin, legal director for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. Avila, Rubin's committee and lawyers working with them have collected or billed local governments about $4.3 million in three cases that settled, and could reap more from two pending lawsuits.
That's only a fraction of what might come. Dozens of cities and school boards have been warned they could be sued under the 2002 California Voting Rights Act.
All the cases have been initiated by Rubin's committee or Avila, who also is a member of the lawyers' group, according to an Associated Press review of legal documents, correspondence and legislative records, and interviews with lawyers, school and government officials, current and former legislators and voting-rights experts.
There is nothing illegal about the lawyers profiting from a law they authored and state lawmakers approved. But it is unusual that after seven years all legal efforts are so narrowly focused, especially since Avila told lawmakers when he testified for the bill in 2002 that he expected other attorneys would take on cases because of favorable incentives written into the measure.
Avila said the complexity of the litigation and the fact few attorneys are experts in voting rights have limited the number involved so far.
"I anticipate there will be more cases filed by other parties," he said.
Avila and Rubin say their roles in crafting the law shouldn't overshadow its importance and the need to use lawsuits and threats to end years of injustice at the polls. Those they target dispute the need for the law. The number of minority officeholders was climbing even before it was enacted, and they claim the lawyers are using the statute to shake down local governments.
"It's a money grab," charged John Stafford, superintendent of the Madera Unified School District that was slapped with a $1.2 million attorneys' bill even though it never contested a lawsuit.
The California statute targets commonly used "at-large" elections — those in which candidates run citywide or across an entire school district. Avila said that method can result in discrimination because whatever group constitutes the majority of voters can dominate the ballot box and block minorities from winning representation. As a remedy, the law empowers state courts to create smaller election districts favoring minority candidates.
Officials in several California communities said they never heard complaints of voter discrimination until the lawyers stepped forward. In one case, the Tulare Local Healthcare District, now known as Tulare Regional Medical Center, was sued even though its five-member governing board is a rainbow of diversity — two emigres from India, a Hispanic, a black and a white. The lawsuit argues Hispanics, who make up about a third of local voters, have been shortchanged.
That case could go to trial as early as January and is being closely watched by communities around the state. If the law is upheld, it could lead to a massive recasting of local election district boundaries, or more lawsuits.
Critics like Stafford see themselves as railroaded by lawyers armed with a law that's flawed and unnecessary. They say even if there's no discrimination, cash-strapped communities see little choice but to settle, given the risks of costly litigation and unwelcome publicity that comes with it.
A judge is reviewing the bill submitted to Madera. To pay, Stafford said the district would have to slash money for books and lunches for its mostly Hispanic students, an odd consequence for a law intended to aid Hispanics.
Though Hispanics constitute 76 percent of the city's population and a thin majority of its registered voters, according to court documents, the lawsuit claims Latinos are deprived of "the ability to meaningfully voice their preferences."
"To say that a majority can vote and say they have been discriminated against by a minority, when the majority has the power to elect whomever they want, is ridiculous," said Hans von Spakovsky, a former assistant attorney general for civil rights in the George W. Bush administration.
"The California law essentially requires that the ethnic group be guaranteed that its choices be elected. This is a clear violation of 14th Amendment. It makes race a predominant factor in elections."
Attorney Marguerite Mary Leoni represented the Hanford Joint Union High School District in a lawsuit the community settled for about $100,000, which it saw as cheaper than a court fight.
"It's a baffling law," she said. "I'm not quite sure it does anything to remedy discrimination."
Digg
Twitter
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Save more than