California voting rights advocates secured a major victory with the passage of the updated California Voting Rights Act (CVRA), signed by Governor Gavin Newsom last month. The bill strengthens protections for voters, and paves the way for more innovation from municipalities as they seek to address local challenges. 

This is the most significant update to the CVRA in years and, for advocates of proportional representation, it’s a notable breakthrough. For the first time, California law explicitly recognizes proportional and semi-proportional voting methods such as proportional ranked choice voting, cumulative voting, and limited voting (i.e. “share-based methods”) as remedies. The act makes those remedies available to all local jurisdictions, including cities without a charter, sometimes known as “general law cities.” 

FairVote was proud to support the coalition that won this substantial expansion of voting rights. Our legal team offered suggestions to help strengthen the language, and liaised between the California Democracy Partnership and our California reform partners.

Let’s take a look at the latest California Voting Rights Act updates, and what we can expect next. 

The old problem: Districts were the only answer

Under the old CVRA, if a city, county, or school district faced a CVRA challenge, the law largely pointed in one direction: adopt single-member districts. Because the CVRA did not apply to district-based elections, this was the only method jurisdictions could use to fully avoid the risk of litigation, even if the community on the ground might have preferred another approach. Moreover, cities without a charter lacked the ability to adopt other approaches entirely.

Since the original CVRA passed in 2002, hundreds of jurisdictions switched to district-based elections. While this remedy worked well in some cases, it underperformed for communities of color in others. 

In other words, districts were often selected by default – not because they were the best option to secure fair and equitable representation, but because they were typically the only option on the table.

What’s different in the updated California Voting Rights Act? 

The new CVRA doesn’t hand every city a blank check to experiment with new election systems. General law jurisdictions still can’t unilaterally adopt proportional systems. But the new CVRA does offer all localities a clear legal pathway to those methods. 

• The act names proportional systems as legitimate remedies. It redefines “method of election” to include “share-based methods of election” – multi-seat systems in which different groups of voters each elect candidates in proportion to their share of the vote. Proportional RCV, cumulative voting, and limited voting all fit that definition.
• The act overrides any contrary state-law barriers. A locality that receives a CVRA notice letter and wants to adopt an alternative remedy can now petition the court for an order authorizing it, even without an admission of liability. And the court “shall issue” that order as long as the remedy meets the CVRA’s standards. This gives general law cities a lawful route to proportional remedies that didn’t exist before, and gives charter cities a faster and easier route to such remedies. 
• The act removes the permanent “shield” for single-member district remedies. The act acknowledges that vote dilution can happen under any type of election system, including single-member district plans. What matters is finding a method that ensures fair representation, whether that’s a district-based method or a share-based method.
• The act fixes the administrative pipeline. The California secretary of state must test and certify voting systems for any method adopted as a CVRA remedy within 180 days of a complete application. This directly addresses the practical obstacle that has derailed some efforts by communities to adopt share-based methods in the past. 

What do the California Voting Rights Act updates mean for democracy?

This update to the California Voting Rights Act is a genuine inflection point. With the federal VRA no longer providing adequate protection against vote dilution after the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana vs. Callais, California is leading the way in showing how states can adapt and shore up crucial safeguards so all communities have a voice in government. And with these critical updates, the CVRA creates a new pathway for cities, counties, and school boards to find an approach that is tailored to the specific needs of their community.