SACRAMENTO REGION, CA (MPG) - On October 14, the San Juan Water District (SJWD) Board of Directors held the fourth and final public hearing to approve a division map and election sequencing for their transition to division-based elections.

In response to a threatened lawsuit claiming the established at-large election system violated the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA), the District is now working to meet the legal requirements of the CVRA: the new divisions must be compact and contiguous with reasonably equal populations, and communities of interest must be considered. Racial gerrymandering is prohibited.

During previous public hearings, multiple residents of Granite Bay expressed concern that the reasonably equal population requirement would lead to a lack of representation for their area, and for rural properties and retail customers generally. They asked that their area be combined with other similar communities of interest.

According to the staff report, the California Constitution defines a community of interest as a contiguous population with “common social and economic interests.” Urban, rural, industrial, and agricultural areas are also considered communities of interest.

According to the Board, they considered the following communities of interest: city/county boundaries, zip codes, existing election boundaries, urban and rural areas, official community associations, special districts, and the retail service area. The staff report cited an “imperfect ability to keep all portions of all identified communities of interest together” while creating compact, contiguous, reasonably equal divisions.

But District Legal Counsel Jennifer Buckman said the proposed map met all the legal requirements. The map also met the Board’s priorities of respecting community associations and following the rural/urban divide. The map also refrains from packing the retail customers into one division, which would have diluted the voting power of this group.

Ahead of the meeting, the Citrus Heights Water District (CHWD) and the Fair Oaks Water District (FOWD) submitted a joint letter to the Board in opposition to the proposed map. The letter stated that the map “ignores any existing county, city, or neighborhood boundaries. These communities of interest, especially the City of Citrus Heights, are divided to the maximum extent possible,” which they said was “bad policy.”

The letter stated that “Constituents have the right to expect clean district lines that make sense in relation to the community,” and they saw “no obvious reason for the oddly shaped” divisions.

In an interview prior to the meeting, Ray Riehle, president of the CHWD Board of Directors, said that while the proposed map is likely legal under the CVRA, it “missed the spirit of the law dramatically.”

The staff report specified, “Districts are considered compact when they do not bypass nearby population for people farther away.” But Riehle pointed out that most of Granite Bay is included in Division 2, except for a small urban area that is excluded.  But Division 2 then extends down into Sacramento County to include parts of Orangevale, including the more densely populated areas along Greenback Lane. Bypassing nearby urban populations for far-away urban populations doesn’t seem to meet the spirit of the compactness requirement, and Riehle said “the geography doesn’t make sense.”

Riehle said that people living in rural areas of Granite Bay probably don’t have a whole lot in common with people living along Greenback, so he is skeptical of the claim that the Board prioritized the urban/rural divide.

According to Riehle and the Citrus Heights and Fair Oaks water districts, the eastward projection of Division 1, which cuts into central Granite Bay in Division 2, is an obvious sign the map has been gerrymandered in an effort to protect at least two seats for Granite Bay—where four of the current Board members reside. Riehle believes “political calculus” was involved in the decision-making process.

Legal Counsel Buckman responded to the joint letter at the October 14 meeting: “The commenter is incorrect when they indicate that the map ignores existing neighborhood boundaries. In fact, the commenters would just prefer some different boundaries to have been selected.”

Regarding the claim that the map attempts to protect incumbent seats, Buckman said, “There’s absolutely no evidence in the record to support that statement.” She further stated that she “expressly advised” that the Board not take incumbent addresses into account, and that the Board followed her advice.

Mike McRae, a director on the FOWD Board and a candidate in the upcoming election for SJWD Board, spoke at the October 14 meeting, stating that the map is “designed to bring long-term disharmony to the San Juan family.” He said the primary communities of interest in SJWD are the water districts (CHWD, FOWD, Orange Vale Water Company, and the San Juan retail division): “This map appears to be purposefully created to fragment across those retail water agencies.”

McRae pointed out that while Placer County makes up only 13% of the SJWD population, it will have a shot at two Board seats—or 40% of the Board—under the new division boundaries.

Two Granite Bay residents, Amber Beckler and Sandy Harris, both spoke in support of the proposed map. Beckler said, “It preserves the community of interest and representation.”

The Board voted unanimously to move forward with the proposed map and the election sequencing—elections for Divisions 1, 3, and 5 will be held every four years starting in 2022 and for Divisions 2 and 4 starting in 2024. The final vote for official approval will be held at the November 9 regular meeting.