Capitola council adopts resolution to explore district elections, sets hearing schedule

The Capitola City Council voted unanimously April 30 to adopt a resolution declaring the city—ouncil oes intent to begin procedures to transition from at‑large to district‑based elections in response to a March 19 demand letter under the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA).

The resolution approves a tentative schedule of public hearings and milestone dates designed to meet statutory safe‑harbor deadlines while preserving the council—lexibility to slow or stop the process. The council recorded the first hearing for May 28, with additional hearings on June 11 and June 25, a fourth hearing on July 9 and a contingency fifth hearing on July 23; staff said final maps would be adopted before the July 29 safe‑harbor cutoff if needed.

The council and staff framed the action as a procedural step to preserve the city—rom potential litigation while continuing outreach and legal review. Mark, the presenter for the item, told the council the notice letter was received March 19 and explained the CVRA timeline: "Using March 19 as the receipt date, state law allows a safe harbor window of 45 days," and if the council adopts the resolution it would open an additional 90‑day window tied to model timelines. He also cautioned the council that the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision the office had reviewed "does not deem the federal Voting Rights Act unconstitutional" and "does not modify the statutory deadlines contained in the California Voting Rights Act," adding, "That much remains undisturbed." (Mark was identified in the record as the presenter.)

Public commenters urged different approaches. One resident argued the recent Supreme Court decision reduced the need to change Capitola—lection law and recommended the city seek an opinion from the state attorney general before hiring a demographer; another said the CVRA exists to prevent minority vote dilution and urged the council to maximize minority electoral power when drawing maps. Theresa Green, a resident, said the timeline felt rushed and warned that districts could make it harder for people to run for office: "Take the time to get it right."

Council members discussed alternatives to the staff timeline and emphasized robust community outreach, including an informational town hall before the first formal hearing, an FAQ on the city website and a portal for residents to submit questions. Vice Mayor Jensen said staff should try to negotiate an extension with the opposing counsel to give the city more time for outreach. Councilmember Westman proposed a revised calendar that would still keep the council within the safe‑harbor window while moving some dates later to allow more public education and participation.

A councilmember motioned to adopt the resolution and the motion passed by unanimous roll call vote (Councilmember Clark: aye; Councilmember Orbach: aye; Councilmember Westman: aye; Vice Mayor Jensen: aye; Mayor Morgan: aye). The council emphasized repeatedly that adopting the resolution does not bind the council to complete a move to district elections; it grants staff authority to begin the public process and map development while leaving the ultimate decision to a future council vote.

Next steps: staff will post an informational item for the May 14 meeting, set up a dedicated districting webpage and FAQ, and organize the advertised public hearings beginning May 28. The council also directed the city attorney to attempt to negotiate a potential extension with the opposing counsel and to keep the council updated on legal developments.