Since the CVRA applies to the 58 counties, over 480 cities, and over 1,000 school districts in California, it is difficult to list all of the jurisdictions that have gone to districts or are in the process of doing so in response to the CVRA. Several sources list a selection of jurisdictions that have moved to districts but as the legal issues are clarified by court decisions and state laws, the number of cases brought and settled has increased. The
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (SVREP) has a partial list published in 2016. The
Rose Institute of State and Local Government of
Claremont McKenna College in a "White Paper" analysed the effect of the CVRA with a partial list of cities that have gone to districts as of 2016. The
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights lists over 118 school districts that have gone to districts as of 2014 because of the CVRA. The
League of California Cities has a set of PowerPoint Slides which describe the CVRA process after AB350 amended California elections Code 10010 which includes some case studies. After the 2016 modifications to Section 10010, settlements became simpler and less expensive.
City of Visalia In May 2014, the City of Visalia settled a CVRA lawsuit two months after it was filed for $125,000. A ballot measure to move to district elections failed and a settlement was soon thereafter reached with a stipulated judgement. The court ordered single member districts.
Madera Unified School District In 2008, Maria Esther Rey, Jesse Lopez, and Carlos Uranga filed a suit against the Madera Unified School District under the CVRA. Plaintiffs contended that the at-large system of elections diluted the Latino vote. Although the district immediately moved to remedy the situation, the plaintiffs also argued that the upcoming 2008 "at-large" elections should be enjoined which was ordered by the trial court. The 5th District Court of Appeals awarded $162,500 in legal fees to the plaintiffs in 2012.
Newport-Mesa Unified School District In 2017, the Newport-Mesa Unified School District settled out of court with Eloisa Rangel for $105,937. Ms. Rangel sued the district in Orange County Superior Court to promote greater representation of Latino members. Kevin Shenkman, a Malibu-based attorney represented Rangel.
Hanford Joint Unified School District A suit brought by the
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights in 2003 was settled in 2004. The first case to use the CVRA did not go to court. Plaintiffs were paid $110,000. Although 40% of the district was Latino, no Latino had been elected to the school board in over 20 years.
Ceres Unified School District In 2009, the Ceres Unified School district was reported to have paid $3,000 to settle with plaintiffs, who were also permitted to draw the district boundaries.
Compton Community College District On March 31, 2012, the Compton Community College District (CCCD) agreed to pay Joaquin Avila $40,000 "in settlement of all fees and costs associated with the" litigation. Mr. Avila was a professor of law at Seattle University. The National Demographics Corporation describes it as a "friendly" lawsuit.
Sanchez v. City of Modesto In 2004, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights filed a suit under the CVRA against the
City of Modesto on behalf of three Latino residents. The committee claimed that racially-polarized voting was keeping Latinos out of office; the city had had only one Latino council member since 1911 even though the Latino population exceeded 25 percent. The city appealed the case to the California Supreme Court, claiming that the law allowed reverse racism and constituted unconstitutional affirmative action. The case ended in settlement after the city voted on a ballot measure to use district voting by 2009. Although the city settled, they were still responsible for paying $3 million in fees for the defendants' lawyers. It was the first case to be settled under the CVRA. Although the case never went to trial, the district had to pay $110,000 in attorney's fees to the plaintiffs as a part of the settlement. The plaintiffs pointed out that while 82 percent of students in Madera were Latino (though only 44 percent of those eligible to vote were Latinos), only one out of seven board members was Latino. The city, instead of going to trial, agreed to draw district lines. The district spokesman, Jake Bragonier, said the decision to avoid trial was a "business decision" in reference to the possibility of having to pay attorney's fees. This was the first case under the CVRA that was decided by a judge, not a settlement. As of 2025, the Supreme Court's decision has yet to be applied to the case, nor has a settlement been reached.
AC Transit In 2023, the
AC Transit Board of Directors voted to transition from hybrid ward-based and at-large elections to solely ward-based elections. This decision was based upon a March 27, 2023, letter received by the District from "lawyers alleging that the District’s method of electing two of the seven members of the District’s Board of Directors in at-large elections instead of by-ward elections violates the California Voting Rights Act". ==References==