46 Cal.App.5th 902
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 2015 California enacted the California Voter Participation Rights Act (VPRA) to reduce low turnout in off‑cycle local elections by requiring consolidation with statewide on‑cycle elections when a jurisdiction’s turnout for a regularly scheduled local election is at least 25% below that jurisdiction’s average turnout in the prior four statewide general elections.
- The VPRA defines “political subdivision” broadly ("including, but not limited to, a city, a school district...") but does not expressly say whether it applies to charter cities.
- Redondo Beach is a charter city whose charter schedules municipal elections on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of odd‑numbered years; its school board adopted a resolution to move board elections to November beginning 2020 to comply with the VPRA after data showed off‑cycle turnout drops and large cost differences between on‑ and off‑cycle elections.
- Redondo Beach sued the Secretary of State seeking a writ of mandate and declaratory relief to prohibit enforcement of the VPRA against the City; the superior court issued a writ restraining enforcement and declared the VPRA unconstitutional as applied to charter cities.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the writ insofar as it bars enforcement of the VPRA against Redondo Beach, holding the Legislature failed to clearly demonstrate intent that the VPRA apply to charter cities and therefore the statute should not be construed to displace charter cities’ election‑timing authority without clearer expression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the VPRA applies to charter cities (statutory scope) | VPRA’s definition of “political subdivision” includes cities, so it applies to charter cities | Plain language shows VPRA applies to all political subdivisions, including charter cities | Legislature did not clearly express intent to include charter cities; statute ambiguous on that point, so court will not infer displacement of charter authority |
| Whether the VPRA conflicts with charter cities’ constitutional home‑rule power to set election timing | Redondo Beach: VPRA intrudes on municipal affairs (election timing) protected by Article XI, §5 | Secretary: even if conflict exists, Legislature can regulate and increase turnout—VPRA serves statewide interest | Court did not reach full CalFed/Vista conflict analysis because lack of clear legislative intent to apply statute to charter cities; enforcement barred against Redondo Beach |
| Whether legislative history shows clear intent to include charter cities | City: contemporaneous amendment to CVRA to expressly include charter cities shows Legislature knew how to do so and did not do so in VPRA | Secretary/AG: plain meaning and prior AG opinion support inclusion | Legislative history is ambiguous; contemporaneous acts (e.g., amendment to CVRA and a failed bill seeking to remove charter exemptions) suggest Legislature left the question unresolved |
| Remedy and constitutional avoidance | City sought writ and declaration of unconstitutionality as applied | Secretary argued statute valid and applicable | Court issued writ prohibiting enforcement against Redondo Beach and avoided deciding VPRA’s constitutionality by construing statute as not clearly applicable to charter cities |
Key Cases Cited
- State Building & Construction Trades Council of California v. City of Vista, 54 Cal.4th 547 (explains home‑rule doctrine and four‑part test for when state law can supersede charter city municipal affairs)
- Johnson v. Bradley, 4 Cal.4th 389 (lists "conduct of city elections" and plenary authority over manner/timing as municipal affairs)
- California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 54 Cal.3d 1 (framework for evaluating whether state law overrides charter city authority)
- Ector v. City of Torrance, 10 Cal.3d 129 (courts should avoid construing statutes to raise constitutional doubts where a limiting construction is plausible)
- Jauregui v. City of Palmdale, 226 Cal.App.4th 781 (treated CVRA as applying to charter cities but did not resolve statutory‑scope threshold issue)
- Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino, 11 Cal.4th 220 (courts avoid constitutional questions when other dispositive grounds exist)