Sonoma City Council adopts resolution to begin transition to district-based elections

The Sonoma City Council on Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2024, voted 4-0-1 to adopt a resolution declaring the city’s intent to transition from at-large elections to district-based elections and authorized the city manager to select and execute an agreement with a professional demographer in an amount not to exceed $50,000.

The resolution, approved to avoid potential litigation costs under the California Voting Rights Act, also included a tentative timeline that calls for public mapping hearings and aims to return to the council with district maps in March. Councilmember Dean was absent for the vote.

City Attorney David Ruderman told the council that the resolution starts a process allowed under the California Voting Rights Act and the state Elections Code. Ruderman said the move would let the city use the act’s “safe harbor” provisions: by initiating the districting process and completing it within a shortened timeline, the city can limit exposure to payment of an attorney who sends a demand letter to about $30,000 and avoid the greater costs of litigation. “I do want to emphasize that the city has no evidence that its election system violates the California Voting Rights Act,” Ruderman said, adding that the resolution is “only a preemptive measure to avoid... a demand letter and the extra cost.”

Under the approved resolution, the city manager may hire a demographer to identify communities of interest, produce proposed district maps and lead a series of public hearings. Ruderman said demographers typically walk the public through mapping tools and that the process generally includes five hearings. He also said about half the demographers he has consulted work with cities that move to districts before receiving any demand letter.

Several council members expressed reluctance about the change. One councilmember called the situation “crazy” and warned it could amplify divisions between different parts of the city. Councilmember Wallander said he was troubled by being “in essence, forced” to consider districts and described weighing the fiscal and community costs: he discussed the option of commissioning additional analysis to document whether the city could defend staying at-large in court, but said that could be expensive. “I’m afraid that it would be quite costly,” Wallander said, while also noting a fiduciary duty to manage the city’s risk.

Councilmembers also agreed to clarify the funding source for the demographer. The motion was amended to specify that the budget for the demographer will come from a budget amendment moving funds from the general fund reserve account to the city clerk elections account; the seconder accepted the amendment. The council then voted in favor of the resolution, 4-0-1.

Next steps specified in the staff report and discussed at the meeting include the city manager executing a contract with a demographer not to exceed $50,000, conducting the mapping process with public participation, and returning to the council with proposed district maps and an ordinance to adopt them, with a tentative milestone in March. The council did not take additional formal actions beyond adopting the resolution and the budget-source amendment at the Dec. 4 meeting.