LIVE OAK, CA (MPG) - The Live Oak City Council held a closed‑session discussion on April 1 about how to respond to a warning that its at‑large election system violates the California Voting Rights Act. 

The meeting was called specifically to address the demand letter the city received in mid‑March, which gives Live Oak until May 5 to decide whether it will voluntarily move to district elections or face a lawsuit.

The warning came from voting rights attorney Kevin Shenkman, who represents the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project and Live Oak resident Cruz Mora. In a March 13 letter, Shenkman said the city’s current system “dilutes the ability of Latinos to elect candidates of their choice,” pointing to racially polarized voting patterns and the absence of Latino representation on the council.

Mora has run for City Council four times, most recently finishing third in a five‑candidate race behind Aaron Pamma and Nancy Santana. Shenkman wrote that election results show consistent patterns in which Latino‑preferred candidates do not prevail, a key factor in CVRA cases.

Before the council went behind closed doors on April 1, Mora addressed the council directly. He said he expected resistance to his December demand letter but not what he described as secrecy. He criticized the city’s Jan. 21 closed‑session meeting on the issue, saying it was improperly noticed and undermined public trust. Mora also pointed to disparities between neighborhoods, arguing that families in areas like Garden Glen lack representation and basic services. 

“Single‑member districts would transform Live Oak from a city of few to a city of all,” he told the council.

Marcus Frazon also urged the city to comply with the CVRA rather than fight it. He noted that Latinos make up 49.5 percent of Live Oak’s population but hold no seats on the council. He warned that other cities that resisted district elections, such as Palmdale and Santa Monica, spent years in court and millions in legal fees before ultimately being ordered to adopt district systems anyway.
“Please do not waste Live Oak’s taxpayer money on a losing legal battle,” Frazon said.

The legal framework behind the Shenkman’s demand is well‑established. Courts have repeatedly held that racially polarized voting can be demonstrated through precinct‑level election results and “citizen voting‑age” population data. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Gingles decision (1986) approved statistical methods to estimate how different racial groups vote, and California courts have applied the same approach in CVRA cases, including Modesto and Palmdale. Turnout is not part of the analysis; cities cannot argue that minority voters simply do not participate. And in 2023, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed that plaintiffs do not need to show that a majority‑minority district can be drawn. 

“The CVRA was intended to make it easier, not harder, for plaintiffs to challenge at‑large election systems that dilute the votes of protected classes,” the California Supreme Court wrote in Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica (2023). The law applies to cities of all sizes, with no exemption for smaller or rural communities.

Shenkman, who litigated the Santa Monica case, has sued or threatened more than 175 jurisdictions under the CVRA, and cities that chose to fight rarely prevail. Under the law’s one‑way fee‑shifting rules, plaintiffs who win can recover attorney fees, while cities that win cannot. Shenkman warned that Live Oak previously ignored the earlier demand from Mora but said this challenge now carries the full backing of his firm. 

“We have demonstrated our ability to compel cities like Live Oak to comply with the CVRA,” he wrote.

If the council adopts a resolution of intent within 45 days, the city can enter a 90‑day safe‑harbor period to hold hearings, draw maps and adopt an ordinance with limited financial exposure. If it does not, Shenkman said he will seek judicial relief.

Live Oak officials have not yet announced how they plan to proceed.