Kevin I. Shenkman (SBN 223315)
Mary R. Hughes (SBN 222622)
Andrea A. Alarcon (SBN 319536)
SHENKMAN HUGHES PC
28905 Wight Road

Malibu, California 90265
Telephone: (3 10) 457-0970

R. Rex Parris (SBN 96567;
Elle Gordon SBN 3166 5)
LA FIRM
43364 10th Street West
Lancaster, California 93534
Telephone: 661 949-2595
Facsrmile: 661 949-7524

Milton Grimes (SBN 59437

VENTURA
SUPERIOR COURT

DEC 524 2013

D. PLANET
Executive Dinner anu? ?lerk
sv: IQAN FOSTER Dem,

LAW OFFICES OF MIL ON C. GRIMES

3774 54th St
Los Angeles, California 90043
Telephone: (323) 295-3023

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF VENTURA
- U-CR-VTA
SOUTHWEST VOTER Case No.: 55 2018 0052,2031 0
REGISTRATION EDUCATION 
PROJECT COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ACT OF
Plaintiff, 3 2001 
V. 9
CITY OF CAMARILLO, I
and DOES 1400,
inclusive, 

Defendants. 

i

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT 8

1
COMPLAINT CC XIXA 50

 





 

 

COMES NOW Plaintiff Southwest Voter Registration Education Projelct (hereinafter
or ?P1a1nt1ff) and alleges as follows. 
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This action is brought by Plaintiff for injunctive and declaratory relief against
the City of Camarillo, California, for its violation of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001
(hereinafter the Cal. Elec. Code 14025, et seq. The imposition of at-large

elections by the City of Camarillo has resulted 1n vote dilution for the Latino residents and

 

has denied them effective political participation in elections to the ?Ve-member Camarillo
City Council. The City of Camarillo' at-large method of election for electing members to its
City Council prevents Latino residents from electing candidates of their; choice or in?uencing
the outcome of Camarillo's City Council elections.

2. The effects of the City of Camarillo's at-large method of! election are apparent
and compelling. Despite a Latino population of approximately 23% in ithe City of Camarillo
according to the 2010 Census (and likely higher today), no Latino serveb on Camarillo?s City
Council. Nor has any Latino served on Camarillo?s City Council in the recent past, or
perhaps ever. Rather, in Camarillo?s recent elections for example 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010,
2014 and 2018, Latino candidates, often preferred by the Latino electoriate, were all defeated
by the bloc voting of the non-Latino electorate. The current absence if any Latinos on the
Camarillo City Council reveals a lack of access to the political process. i

3. Camarillo' at-large method of election violates the Plaintiff brings this
action to enjoin the City of Camarillo' 3 continued abridgment of Latino voting rights.
Plaintiffs seek a declaration from this Court that the City of Camarillo lat-large elections, for
all or any portion of its city council, violates the CVRA. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief
enjoining the City of Camarillo from further imposing or applying an at-large method of
election. Further, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring the City of Camarillo to
implement district-based elections or other alternative relief tailored toi remedy Camarillo's

violation of the CVRA. Moreover, Plaintiff and, more generally, thie voters residing in

2

COMPLAINT CC XIX 7K 511

 

 






 

 

Camarillo are entitled to the prompt implementation of district-basedi elections employing
districts tailored to remedy the years of dilution of the Latino vote in Cainarillo.

4. Plaintiff attempted to avoid the need for litigation by erigaging in a dialogue
with the City of Camarillo. Speci?cally, Plaintiff, through their counseil, brought the City of
Camarillo?s violation of the CVRA to the attention of the City df Camarillo through
correspondence sent months prior to the ?ling of this Complaint. iThat letter, sent via
certi?ed mail pursuant to section 10010 of the Elections Code, was received by Defendant on
or about August 29, 2018. Despite that correSpondence, the CamarilloiCity Council has not
taken the actions necessary to end its violation of the CVRA, content to lbontinue violating the
CVRA and their constituents? voting rights while justifying its delayi with representations
about how it is studying the issue. Section 10010 of the Elections lCode establishes the
amount of time a political subdivision has to study the issue prior to taking action, and

Defendant is well beyond that time.

PARTIES

5. SVREP, founded in 1974, is the largest and oldest non-partisan Latino voter
participation organization in the United States. SVREP was founded ate ensure the voting
rights of Latinos in the Southwest United States, and continues thati mission today, now
Operating in various states, including California. Over the course of the last few decades,
SVREP has been at the forefront of major social and political gains for Latinos in the U.S.
and throughout Latin America. While its primary mission is voter registration and education,
SVREP is also involved in ensuring fair elections, community organizing, and education,
accountability and training of community leaders and elected of?cials. 

6. Currently, SVREP has a network of tens of thousands elf Latino leaders and
voters who ?irther mission through activities such as voter registration projects,
nonpartisan get-out?the-vote drives, and advocacy at the local, state, and national levels to
raise awareness and support voting rights issues. Through its efforts in and around Camarillo,

SVREP has developed a close relationship with Latino registered voters residing in Camarillo

3
COMPLAINT CC XIX A 52

 






 

 




a relationship particularly focused on protecting the voting rights of the Latino residents of
Camarillo. The Latino leaders and voters who ?irther missiori, including those who
are registered to vote in Camarillo, in?uence the priorities and activitiesi of SVREP. SVREP,
as an organization, is essentially de?ned by those Latino leaders and voiters they work with
leadership to achieve their collective mission; they ?nanc' much of 
activities, including in Camarillo; and, as a practical matter, they selectiSVREP?s leadership.
SVREP leadership constantly obtains feedback from its network of leaders and voters,
and adjusts activities according to the desires of those individuals.

7. SVREP has been, and continues to be, at the forefront of ihe struggle for equal
voting rights for Latinos 1n California and throughout the United States. 3 work in
that respect has included strong advocacy in the courts of California and other states to
protect voting rights, whether it be litigating against poll taxesi disguised as voter
identi?cation laws, litigating against legislative districts ithat dilute the Latino
vote, or litigating for fair district-based elections to replace the at-large ielection systems that
are well known (indeed, intended) to dilute the minority vote. will bring that same
resolve to litigating this case to require Defendant to comply with the a law enacted
almost sixteen (16) years ago but Defendant has still not seen ?t to col ply with. In recent
years, network of Latino leaders and voters in California, incluiding Camarillo, have
urged SVREP to focus on the structures of municipal elections 1n California, in addition to all
of work 1n voter registration. After all, increasing Latino voter registration from
15% to 20%, for example, in a particular jurisdiction, may have little or no effect on the
outcome of at-large elections 1n the face of racially polarized voting, arid 1n turn the ?itility
that deveIOps ultimately ?'ustrates efforts to improve registration and turnout. By
changing the electoral structures employed by municipalities in California, SVREP can
change that cycle of futility. In response to the urging of its Latinol leaders and voters,
SVREP has taken action to bring fair and legal elections to several jmiisdictions, including

Camarillo.

4

 

 






 

 

8. With the assistance, and at the request of some of its Latinip voters in Camarillo,
SVREP has engaged, in voter registration projects within the City of {Camarillo However,
SVREP has found that a signi?cant obstacle to those projects in Camalrillo has been a sense
of futility among Latinos in Camarillo. Speci?cally, due to their lack of representation on the
Camarillo City Council, and their inability to obtain such representation under the current at-
large election system, Latinos in Camarillo have less reason to vote or register to vote.
Therefore, the City of Camarillo?s at-large method of electing its City Council impairs
efforts to register Latino eligible voters, as well as get-out-the-vote and
advocacy projects in Camarillo.

9. By de-incentivizing the registration of Latinos eligible to ;vote, Camarillo?s at?
large election system obstructs efforts to register Latino voters and cause Latino
registered voters to actually vote. The disparity between the Latirflo proportion of the
population in Camarillo - approximately 23% as of 2010, and likely higher today - and the
Latino proportion of the registered voters in Camarillo is a clear indication of the harm
caused by Camarillo?s unlaw?il at-large election system. i

10. In crafting its Latino voter registration and participation 1? efforts in California
and elsewhere, SVREP seeks to capture Latino eligible voters? interest by pointing to current
issues that can be affected by a strong Latino electorate. Sometimes statewide issues are so
in?ammatory that they can be effective motivators; for example, Proposition 187 in 1994 led
to a signi?cant increase in Latino voter registration. Local issues are often even more
effective, as they tend to have a greater impact on residents? lives,? and eligible voters
understand that their votes have a greater impact on local issues because of the smaller
electorate in municipal elections. However, when an at?large election has consistently
prevented Latinos from electing candidates of their choice or in?uenbing the outcome of
municipal elections, as in Camarillo, any appeal to Latino eligible voterits about an ability to
impact local government justi?ably falls on deaf ears. Unable to convince some Latino
eligible voters in Camarillo that their votes matter in municipal elections, because of the

unlawful at-large election system, SVREP is forced to spend far greater resources (both time

5
COMPLAINT CC XIX A 54

 

 





 

 

and money) in Camarillo in order to achieve even close to the saHie results in its voter
registration and participation efforts.

11. The Latino citizens of Camarillo whose voting rights arei immediately harmed
by the City of Camarillo? adherence to an unlawful at-large system of electing its city
council are hindered from protecting their own interests. Many of the Latino citizens of
Camarillo do not recognize that their voting rights are being violiated by the City of
Camarillo?s adherence to an unlawful at-large system of electing its (iity council, and still
others fear reprisal by the City of Camarillo if they were to seek redress for the City of
Camarillo imposing its unlawful election system. In other cases brought under the CVRA,
individual plaintiffs have faced reprisal from defendants and their alliiss. For example, the
City of Palmdale attempted to pressure a non?pro?t organization witiil signi?cant ?nancial
connections to the city government to terminate the employment of a iplaintiff?s mother-in-
law' 1n order to convince that plaintiff to back out of that case; the City of Highland caused the
plaintiff?s residence address to be published in the local newspaper sd that its allies could
harass her at her home and perhaps convince her to back out of that ceise; the City of Santa
Monica eliminated funding for the plaintiffs youth and family celiter. By having an
organizational plaintiff, like SVREP, involved in this case, Defendantis motivation to take
inappropriate action against an individual plaintiff IS reduced. i

12. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant City of (iamarillo, California
(hereinafter "Camarillo") IS and has been a political subdivision subjecti to the provisions of
the CVRA.

13. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities, i whether individual,
corporate, associate, or otherwise, of defendants sued herein as Dpes 1 through 100,
inclusive, and therefore, sues said defendants by such ?ctitious names and will ask leave of
court to amend this complaint to show their true names and capacities iwhen the same have
been ascertained. Plaintiff' IS informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendants Does

1 through 100, inclusive, are responsible on the facts and theories herein ialleged.

6
COMPLAINT cc XIXA 55

 






 

 

14. Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are Defendants that havei caused Camarillo to
violate the CVRA, failed to prevent Camarillo's violation of the CVRA, or are otherwise
responsible for the acts and omissions alleged herein.

15. Plaintiff 1s informed and believes and thereon alleges that; Defendants and each
of them are in some manner legally responsible for the acts and omissioiis alleged herein, and
actually and proximately caused and contributed to the various injuries land damages referred
to herein.

16. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein
mentioned each of the Defendants were the agent, partner, predecessorgin interest, successor

in interest, and/0r employee of one or more of the other Defendants, and were at all times

herein mentioned acting with the course and scope of such agency and/oi: employment.

JURIDICTION AND VENUE
17. All parties hereto are within the unlimited jurisdiction; of this Court. The

unlawful acts complained of occurred 1n Ventura County. Venue 1n this Court 1s proper.

FACTS

18. The City of Camarillo contains approximately 65,201 persons, of which
approximately 23% are Hispanic or Latino, both based upon the 2010 United States Census.

19. The City of Camarillo is governed by a city council. The Camarillo City
Council serves as the governmental body responsible for the operations of the City of
Camarillo. The City Council is comprised of ?ve members.

20. The Camarillo City Council members are elected purs1i1ant to an ?at-large
method of election,? as that term is de?ned by Section 14026 of the Election Code. In all
past elections, all of the eligible voters of the entire City of Camarillo have elected all of the
members of the City Council.

21. Vacancies to the City Council are elected on a staggered basis; as a result, every

two years the city electorate elects either two or three City Council members.

7
COMPLAINT CC XIX A 56

 

 

 






 

 

22. Upon information and belief, none of Camarillo's city: council members is
Latino.

23. Elections conducted within the City of Camarillo are characterized by racially
polarized voting. Racially polarized voting occurs when members of a protected class as
de?ned by the CVRA, Cal. Elec. Coed 14025(d), vote for candidates; and electoral choices
that are different ?ora the rest of the electorate. Racially polarized vesting exists within the
City of Camarillo because there is a difference between the choice of candidates or other
electoral choices that are preferred by Latino voters, and the choice of candidates or other
electoral choices that are preferred by voters in the rest of the electorate; with the result being
that Latino-preferred candidates usually lose. i

24. Racially polarized voting is legally signi?cant in Camarillo's City Council
elections because it dilutes the opportunity of Latino voters to elect candidates of their choice
or in?uence the outcome of those elections. 

25. Patterns of racially polarized voting have the effect of irrilpeding opportunities
for Latino voters to elect candidates of their choice to the at-large city ccj>uncil positions in the
City of Camarillo or in?uence the outcome of those elections, Wihere the non-Latino
electorate dominates elections. For several years, Latino voters have been harmed by racially
polarized voting. I

26. The at-large method of election and repeated racially i olarized voting has
caused Latino vote dilution within the City of Camarillo. Where Latinos and the rest of the
electorate express different preferences on candidates and other eleictoral choices, non-
Latinos by virtue of their overall numerical majority among voters, defeat the preferences of
Latino voters. I

27. The obstacles posed by at-large elections in the City of Camarillo, 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 choide or to in?uence the

outcome of elections conducted in the City of Camarillo. I



8 
COMPLAINT CC XIX A 57

 

1?1




a?g?oBNHoowoamomNHO

 

 

28. An alternative method of election, such as district-basedi elections, exists that
will provide an opportunity for the members of the protected classes as {de?ned by the CVRA
to elect candidates of their choice or to in?uence the outcome of the Cfamarillo City Council

i
I

elections.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of California Voting Rights Act of 200i)
(Against All Defendants)
29. Plaintiff mcorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 through 28 as though fully
set forth herein. 

1
30. Defendant City of Camarillo is a political subdivisioni within the State of

California. Defendant is a general law city. .

31. Defendant City of Camarillo has employed an at-largeE method of election,
where voters of its entire jurisdiction elect all ?ve members to its City quiuncil.

32. Racially polarized voting has occurred, and continues to dccur, in elections for
members of the City Council for the City of Camarillo and in elections incorporating other
electoral choices by voters of the City of Camarillo, California. Absent remedial measures
ordered by this Court, racially polarized voting will continue to pla elections held in
Camarillo. AS a result, the City of Camarillo's at-large method of elej?t?ion is imposed in a
manner that impairs the ability of protected classes as de?ned by [the CVRA to elect
candidates of their choice or in?uence the outcome of elections.

33. An alternative method of election, such as district-based ielections, exists that
will provide an opportunity for the members of a protected class as de?hed by the CVRA to
elect candidates of their choice or to in?uence the outcome of the Cainarillo City Council
elections.

34. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties relating to
the legal rights and duties of Plaintiff and Defendant, for which Plaintiff desire a declaration
of rights.

9 .
COMPLAINT CC XIX A 58

 

 






 

 

35. Defendants' wrongful conduct has caused and, unless eriljoined by this Court,
will continue to cause, immediate and irreparable 1njury to Plaintiff, ,and all residents of the
City of Camarillo. .

36. Plaintiff and the residents of the City of Camarillo have adequate remedy at

law for the injuries they currently suffer and will otherwise continue to suffer.

 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as
follows: I
1. For a decree that the City of Camarillo's at-large method of election for all or

any portion of the City Council violates the California Voting Rights Ac! of 2001;

2. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the City of Camarillo
from imposing or applying an at?large method of election; i

3. For injunctive relief mandating the City of Camarillo to imjplement district-
based elections, as de?ned by the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 ,employing a district
map tailored to remedy Defendant violation of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001;

4. For injunctive relief mandating the prompt election of city council members
through district-based elections, or another election method tailored to relinedy Defendant?s
Violation of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001, i

5. For injunctive reliefprohibiting anyone who has not been ljaw?illy elected,
through an election that complies with the California Voting Rights Act (if 2001, from acting
as a member of the Camarillo City Council;

6. Other relief tailored to remedy the City of Camarillo's Violation of the
California Voting Rights Act of 200 1;

7. For an award of Plaintiff attomeys' fees, costs, litigation expenses and
prejudgment interest pursuant to Elec. Code 14030 and other applicablei law; and

8. For such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

10
COMPLAINT CC XIXA 59

 






 

 

DATED: December 23, 2018

Respectfully submitted:

SHENKMAN HUGHES 
PARRIS LAW FIRM, and
LAW OFFICES OF MILTON c. GRIMES

Kevin Shenkman
Attorneys for Plaintiff

By:

 

11
COMPLAINT CC XIXA 6O