Civil Rights,
Civil Litigation,
California Supreme Court
Aug. 13, 2021
Both sides respond to many amici in voting rights case
Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an amicus brief for neither side, saying it was important for the Supreme Court to clarify for the first time how the California Voting Rights Act is supposed to work when it comes to voter dilution and how it relates to a city’s chosen voting system.
Santa Monica and a lawyer suing the city for allegedly violating the California Voting Rights Act in city council elections, filed a flurry of briefs Wednesday night responding to many amicus briefs filed in the California Supreme Court.
Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an amicus brief for neither side, saying it was important for the Supreme Court to clarify for the first time how the California Voting Rights Act is supposed to work when ...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In
Enewsletter Sign-up
Related Content
Government, Constitutional Law
Scholars urge influence districts in city of Santa Monica
By Sara Sadhwani
Constitutional Law, Civil Litigation
Advocates filed amicus briefs on both sides of voting rights appeal
By Blaise Scemama
Government, Civil Litigation
Plaintiffs file state high court brief in Santa Monica voting case
By Blaise Scemama
Government, Constitutional Law
Court of Appeal decision may lead to increased California Voting Rights Act litigation
By Derek P. Cole
Judges and Judiciary
Panel overturns ruling that Santa Monica's at-large voting system violated law
By Blaise Scemama
