On Wednesday morning, the Los Angeles County Committee on School District Organization will be holding its March meeting, with an update on the petition scheduled as part of its agenda. The agenda reads that the committee “may decide if it will render a decision on the petition.” The petition was initially submitted by Malibu attorney Kevin Shenkman in 2022 on behalf of residents, claiming that SMMUSD’s current at-large voting system is unfair to minority voters.
In January and February, the committee held two hearings focusing on the legality of the voting map submitted as part of the petition, which would create two non-contiguous districts merging parts of Santa Monica and Malibu. One of the seven proposed trustee areas would combine the eastern half of Malibu with Santa Monica’s Sunset Park neighborhood, while another would fuse the western half of Malibu with Santa Monica’s North of Montana and Wilmont neighborhoods.
During the meeting, the committee will hear from petitioners, SMMUSD representatives “and any members of the public who want to address it,” after which the committee “may make a determination on the sufficiency of the map submitted … or may require additional information to make its decision on approval of the map.”
In what may be a precursor to the committee’s decision, the Los Angeles County Office of Education Business Advisory Services staff prepared a report to the committee, appearing on the committee’s website on March 2. After conducting a feasibility study on the petition, the staff recommended that the committee “determine the map as submitted does not comply with existing state law,” and “recommends that the committee disapprove the petition to implement trustee areas and trustee area voting within the district.”
The staff report “identified several ways” in which the petitioners’ map “does not conform to the mandatory criteria listed in Elections Code Section 21130,” including the non-contiguity of trustee areas, the intent of the petition and the electoral influence of Malibu in SMMUSD matters.
Staff analysis of the petition’s map stated that in the case of the district, it is “practicable” to have each trustee area (in a hypothetical move to area voting) be contiguous by itself “because the Malibu portion of the school district can serve as a single trustee area and still comply with the population equality requirements” of state and federal Constitutions. Malibu population data indicates that the population of the city falls within 10 percent “of the ideal trustee population” of 15,719 persons for SMMUSD, a permissible variation under law. Therefore, since Malibu could be kept “whole” as a single trustee area, staff notes that the petition’s map fails to comply with Elections Code.
On the intent of the petition, Elections Code Section 21130 states that “the districting body shall not adopt election district boundaries for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against an incumbent, political candidate, or political party.” The staff report notes that multiple speakers supporting the petition, including Chief Petitioner Jennifer deNicola, stated a desire to unseat incumbent SMMUSD Board of Education members, something specifically prohibited by the Elections Code. “According to the SMMUSD, three current Board members reside in the two non-contiguous, majority-Malibu districts (in the petition’s map), both of which would be slated for the first election under the petition’s proposed sequencing,” the staff report states.
The staff report also pointed to speakers at the committee hearings advancing “their perception that residents of one neighborhood controlled the school board, and had for many years, to the detriment of residents in Malibu.” However, the report states that “evidence adduced during the hearings” confirmed that Malibu “has historically successfully elected representatives to the SMMUSD Board,” and that Malibu residents have served on the board for the past decade and beyond.
Justification of approving a trustee area petition on the grounds that it protects voting rights, the report continued, “depends on the demography of the neighborhood at issue and, critically, whether the neighborhood is comprised of residents who meet the definition of a ‘protected class.’” The California Voting Rights Act uses the federal Voting Rights Act definition of protected classes, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color or membership in a language minority group. The report states that “petitioners have not shown that residents in the Malibu portion of SMMUSD are primarily members of any racial or language minority,” and that the residents of Malibu are not a protected class, as US Census data lists the City of Malibu at 79.8% white.
Shenkman recently told the Daily Press that CVRA litigation against the district separate to the petition may be pursued in the future, a decision reliant on the pending committee ruling on the petition. The committee’s meeting agenda also makes note of a potential update on a petition to form a Malibu Unified School District from territory within SMMUSD.
thomas@smdp.com
