Appellate court allows canceled Palmdale election to proceed

The city of Palmdale, one of several cities being sued under the California Voting Rights Act, can be seen in the foreground.
(Anne Cusack / Los Angeles Times)

A divided California Court of Appeal has cleared the way for the city of Palmdale to hold its Nov. 5 City Council election, which a trial court had canceled late last month.

Two of the three justices of the 2nd District Court of Appeal in effect overruled the election-barring preliminary injunction issued Sept. 30 by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mark V. Mooney. 

Mooney’s injunction said the city was enjoined from holding an at-large election, counting the ballots or certifying the result. If Mooney had meant to stop the election, he should have written and, according to the order signed Tuesday by Presiding Justice Paul J. Turner and Associate Justice Richard M. Mosk.

The ruling left the certification issue in the appellate court’s hands.


Associate Justice Sandy R. Kriegler disagreed with his colleagues’ interpretation that the preliminary injunction did not halt the election.

“The text of the written order plainly enjoins all aspects of the election -- voting, tabulation and certification,” Kriegler wrote.

Technically, the appellate court rejected Palmdale’s request to overturn the trial court’s injunction. But, due to the wording, the city got what it wanted anyway -- permission to hold the election.     

Palmdale is one of several cities being sued under the California Voting Rights Act. Plaintiffs in the separate cases are seeking to have the cities’ at-large election systems overturned, saying the systems harm minority voters’ opportunities to elect a representative of their choice.


Various activists suing Palmdale, Whittier and Anaheim are pressing for council members in those cities to be elected by geographic district. Combing through past election results, they offer evidence of polarized voting -- different outcomes in minority precincts than in largely white ones.

In July, Mooney ruled that Palmdale’s at-large system was discriminatory and said he would provide direction later for remedying the situation. In the meantime, he granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction to halt the election.

Palmdale officials, whose election preparations had been thrown into disarray by Mooney’s injunction, hailed the appellate court ruling.

“We strongly believe that the citizens of Palmdale have a right to vote for every elected official,” City Atty. Matthew Ditzhazy said in a statement defending the at-large system. He added that the city also will appeal the trial court’s July ruling.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs could not be reached for immediate comment Wednesday. But they said earlier that Palmdale had had plenty of notice that its elections systems was illegal and likely to be overturned.

Palmdale, with a population that is nearly two-thirds minority, has elected only one Latino and no blacks to its council since incorporating in August 1962. But Ditzhazy noted that three of the four candidates vying for two council seats are minorities, ensuring that at least one minority will be elected.


Supreme Court refuses prison appeal


Brown gets an extra month to relieve crowding

Skelton: For Brown, third term seems the charm

Twitter: @jeanmerl

The stories shaping California

Get up to speed with our Essential California newsletter, sent six days a week.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.