Complaint alleges Glendale Unified violating California Voting Rights Act

Malibu attorney Kevin Shenkman has filed a complaint against the Glendale Unified School District for allegedly violating the California Voting Rights Act, 10 days after voters rejected Glendale Unified’s measure that would have paved the path for them to adopt a district-based voting system.

The school district asked voters in the city’s April 7 election if they would approve Measure E, giving Glendale Unified the ability to hold their own election so they could separate themselves from the city charter. The charter requires school board members to be elected under an at-large system, meaning they can live anywhere in the district boundaries.

The voters’ approval of the measure would have paved the path for Glendale Unified to switch to a district-based voting system before the April 2017 election, but it was struck down after 10,349 residents voted against it and just 5,557 were in favor.

Ten days later, Shenkman filed a complaint against the school district in Los Angeles County Superior Court on April 17 alleging that the district’s current at-large election method “prevents Latino residents from electing candidates of their choice” or influencing school board member elections.

The move comes about 16 months after Shenkman notified the Glendale school district, Glendale Community College and the city of Glendale that all three government entities were on his radar because of their at-large systems.

His notice spurred city, college and school officials to launch into a series of public discussions over switching to a district-based voting system to avoid litigation costs.

The complaint states that “the obstacles posed by the Glendale Unified School District’s at-large method of election, together with racially polarized voting, impair the ability of people of certain races, color or language minority groups, such as Latino voters, to elect candidates of their choice or to influence the outcome of elections conducted in the Glendale Unified School District.”

It also states that for several years, Latino voters “have been harmed by racially polarized voting.”

“If they wanted to change this, they would have put it on the ballot in November 2014,” an election that draws more voters, Shankman said in a phone interview on Monday.

Despite Glendale Unified asking voters to change the school district’s voting system on the latest ballot, Shenkman believes the reasoning behind it, and the city’s effort to do the same, has more to do with an attempt to attain political credibility among residents, should they be sued.

City officials, also during the April 7 general election, asked voters to approve switching from an at-large system to a district-based one. The measure was defeated with 10,711 residents voting against the change and 6,508 supporting it.

“You don’t get to say, from a municipal election, ‘We opt out of the law,’” Shenkman said. “It’s state law and it’s what’s required.”

Asked whether Shenkman plans to file a complaint against the city, he replied, “Maybe.”

City Atty. Mike Garcia said he has not heard from Shenkman since Measure D was shot down, but added that his office is analyzing and preparing for the issue.

Garcia has said in recent months there is no racially polarized voting in Glendale and that having districts in place will not be enough to give Latinos the likelihood of electing one of their own to the City Council.

Latinos make up about 17% of the city’s population, according to the U.S. Census.

There have been Latino council members in the past including Rick Reyes and Gus Gomez.

The Glendale school board, currently made up of three Armenian Americans and two Anglos, is slated to discuss the complaint in closed session during a board meeting on Tuesday, and Glendale Unified Supt. Dick Sheehan, citing pending litigation, said he could not comment on the case except to say, “The district is disappointed.”

Last October, Glendale Community College trustees, made up of one Latina, two Armenian Americans and two Anglos, sought permission from state college officials to switch to a district-based system to avoid litigation.

Although they unanimously voted to change the system, the trustees themselves were outspoken in their belief that the current at-large method does not dilute any one population’s vote.

College officials are now in the midst of considering how they will draw district boundaries, which are expected to be in place by the April 2017 election.

Arin Mikailian contributed to this story.