Case 5:22-cv-01366-SSS-KK Document 28 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:579

J S -6

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

12 Case No. 5:22-cv-01366-SSS-KKx 13 INLAND EMPIRE UNITED; EVELYN

ARANA; ELIZABETH AYALA;

14 ARACELI CALDERA; EDGAR ORDER GRANTING CASTELAN; ROBERT GARCIA, and PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 15 DAISY LOPEZ, REMAND [Dkt. 12]

16 Plaintiffs, 17 v. 18 RIVERSIDE COUNTY; RIVERSIDE

COUNTY BOARD OF

19 SUPERVISORS; KEVIN JEFFRIES, in his official capacity; KAREN SPIEGEL, 20 in her official capacity; CHUCK WASHINGTON, in his official capacity; 21 V. MANUEL PEREZ, in his official capacity; JEFF HEWITT, in his official 22 capacity; and REBECCA SPENCER, in her official capacity, 23 24 Defendants.

25

26

27 28 Case 5:22-cv-01366-SSS-KK Document 28 Filed 01/23/23 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:580

1 On June 14, 2022, Inland Empire United (“IE United”)1 and six 2 individual Latino voters residing in Riverside County (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) 3 filed this action in Riverside Superior Court. [Dkt. 1-1]. Riverside County, its 4 Board of Supervisors, each member of the Board in his or her official capacity, 5 and the Riverside County Registrar of Voters in her official capacity 6 (collectively, “Defendants”) removed to federal court on August 3, 2022. [Dkt. 7 1]. 8 Plaintiffs challenge Riverside County’s newly adopted supervisory 9 districts under the California Fair and Inclusive Redistricting for Municipalities 10 and Political Subdivisions (“Fair Maps”) Act and the California Constitution. 11 Defendants nevertheless assert that this Court has federal question jurisdiction 12 over the case. 13 Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand. [Dkt. 12]. The 14 motion is fully briefed. [Dkt. 15; Dkt. 17]. Pursuant to this Court’s order issued 15 September 28, 2022 [Dkt. 20], the parties have also provided supplemental 16 briefing [Dkt. 23; Dkt. 24; Dkt. 26]. 17 The Court previously found the motion appropriate for resolution without 18 a hearing and vacated the hearing set for December 2, 2022. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 78; L.R. 7-15. [Dkt. 27]. The Court now GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and 20 REMANDS this action to Riverside Superior Court. 21 22

23

24 1 Per their Complaint, IE United is a nonprofit organization comprised of 25 multiple member organizations that “represent or have members who are Latino voters in Riverside County, including Latino voters who reside in” the contested 26 supervisory districts. IE United asserts that it devoted significant time, energy, and resources to advocacy and community organizing around redistricting and 27 voting rights during the County’s 2021 supervisory redistricting process and diverted its limited resources from other projects to this effort. [Dkt. 1-1 at ¶ 8- 28 11]. -2- Case 5:22-cv-01366-SSS-KK Document 28 Filed 01/23/23 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:581

1 I. BACKGROUND 2 The California Elections Code, as amended by the Fair Maps Act, 3 establishes requirements that the local government bodies tasked with 4 redistricting following each decennial census must follow. First, it underscores 5 that all maps must comply “with the United States Constitution, the California 6 Constitution, and the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.” Cal. Elec. Code § 7 21500(b). 8 Then, “to the extent practicable,” each county board is to adopt district 9 boundaries according to four criteria, listed in order of priority: 10 (1) Contiguity of districts; 11 (2) Geographic integrity of “any local neighborhood or local 12 community of interest,” where “community of interest” is defined as 13 “a population that shares common social or economic interests that 14 should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective 15 and fair representation”; 16 (3) Coincidence with “natural and artificial barriers,” “streets,” or 17 “boundaries of the city,” so that district boundaries may be “easily 18 identifiable and understandable by residents and 19 (4) Geographical compactness, so that “nearby areas of population are 20 not bypassed in favor of more distant populations.” 21 Finally, the statute specifies that “the council shall not adopt council 22 district boundaries for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against a 23 political party.” Cal. Elec. Code § 21500(c). 24 Plaintiffs bring four claims under the Fair Maps Act and a fifth cause of 25 action under the California Constitution. Defendants’ arguments in support of 26 federal question jurisdiction pertain only to these first four. 27 Plaintiff’s first and second Fair Maps Act claims both assert that the 28 chosen supervisory map disparately impacts Latino voters' ability to elect -3- Case 5:22-cv-01366-SSS-KK Document 28 Filed 01/23/23 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:582

1 candidates of their choice to the County Board of Supervisors. Plaintiffs allege 2 that the 2020 Census showed that Riverside County contained two 3 geographically compact Latino communities, each large and politically cohesive 4 enough to form an effective voting bloc in its own supervisory district. 5 Nevertheless, Defendants selected a map which ‘cracks’ these two populations 6 across three predominately non-Latino districts and denying the Latino residents 7 of Riverside County an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice to 8 the Board of Supervisors. 9 Plaintiffs assert that this dilution of Latino voting strength contravenes the 10 Fair Maps Act’s requirements that any redistricting plan comply with both 11 Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) (“Violation 1”) and the 12 California Constitution’s equal protection provisions (“Violation 2”). [Dkt. 1-1 13 at ¶ 87-92; ¶ 93-95]. They also contend that in choosing amongst potential 14 maps, Defendants failed to consider the mandatory ranked criteria in the 15 designated order (“Violation 3”) and improperly considered incumbency 16 (“Violation 4”). [Id. at ¶ 96-97]. 17 Although Plaintiff’s causes of action arise only under state statutory and 18 constitutional provisions [Dkt. 1-1 at ¶ 87-110], Defendants maintain that 19 federal question jurisdiction is proper because the resolution of Plaintiff’s Fair 20 Maps Act claims will “necessarily turn on” on the construction of federal law – 21 specifically, Defendants’ obligations under Section 2 of the VRA. [Dkt. 15 at 22 13]. 23 II. LEGAL STANDARD 24 Under 28 USC § 1441(a), any civil action over which the federal district 25 courts have original jurisdiction is removable. In turn, district courts have 26 original federal question jurisdiction of actions “arising under the Constitution, 27 laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 28 -4- Case 5:22-cv-01366-SSS-KK Document 28 Filed 01/23/23 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:583

1 The basis for federal question jurisdiction must be found in plaintiff’s 2 well-pled complaint. A federal issue that arises only as part of defendant’s 3 anticipated defense is “not part of a plaintiff’s properly pleaded statement of his 4 or her claim,” and so cannot confer jurisdiction. Rivet v. Regions Bank of 5 Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 470-72 (1998). 6 Although the “vast majority of cases brought under the general federal- 7 question jurisdiction of the federal courts are those in which federal law creates 8 the cause of action,” a claim based upon state law may also be said to “arise 9 under” federal law for the purposes of removal jurisdiction “where the 10 vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of 11 federal law.’” Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 12 808 (1986). 13 Because it is “presumed that a cause lies outside [the] limited 14 jurisdiction” of the federal courts, the burden of establishing that removal is 15 proper rests with the defendant. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 5 F.3d 1039, 16 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). To establish federal question jurisdiction over a state law 17 claim on removal, the defendant must demonstrate that the purportedly 18 embedded federal issue is “(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) 19 substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the 20 federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 21 258 (2013). 22 III. DISCUSSION 23 The parties dispute only the first and fourth factors set forth in Gunn v. 24 Minton. Because neither of Defendants’ two arguments in support of the first 25 Gunn factor are persuasive, the Court concludes that federal jurisdiction does 26 not attach without reaching the remainder of the parties’ arguments. 27 First, Defendants assert that all of Plaintiffs’ four Fair Maps Act 28 “violations” necessarily raise a federal question, because the statute establishes -5- Case 5:22-cv-01366-SSS-KK Document 28 Filed 01/23/23 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:584

1 compliance with Section 2 of the VRA as a redistricting requirement which 2 supersedes any consideration of the ranked criteria [Dkt. 15 at 14, 15]. 3 Defendants therefore maintain that “any determination of whether [they] have 4 violated these…provisions of the Fair Maps Act… must necessarily take into 5 account the degree to which Defendants’ choices and actions in that regard were 6 constrained by or were the result of its obligation to first comply with federal 7 law.” [Dkt. 15 at 14]. 8 But despite the strategic use of passive voice in their briefing, what 9 Defendants describe is their own expected invocation of the VRA’s constraints 10 as a defense to Plaintiffs’ first, third, and fourth FAIR MAPS Act claims. See, 11 e.g., Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, 6-7 (2009) (where plaintiffs alleged an 12 electoral district was drawn in violation of a state law “whole county” 13 requirement, “state authorities… invoke[d] the Voting Rights Act as a 14 defense… [arguing] that [Section 2] required them to draw the district in 15 question in a particular way.”). Plainly, a federal issue raised only in defense 16 cannot confer jurisdiction. 17 Alternatively, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ Violation 2 under the Fair 18 Maps Act – alleging that the redistricting plan violates Section 2 of the VRA – 19 constitutes a “discrete and independent ‘claim’ that ‘necessarily raises’ an issue 20 of federal law.” [Dkt. 15 at 20]. 21 A state law claim “necessarily raise[s]” a federal issue only if the federal 22 “right or immunity… [is] an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s 23 cause of action.” Gully v. First Nat. Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112 (1936); see also 24 Franchise Tax Board v. Const. Laborers Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983). Where a 25 “state-created cause of action can be supported by alternative and independent 26 theories – one of which is a state law theory and one of which is a federal law 27 theory” federal question does not attach because federal law is not a necessary 28 -6- Case 5:22-cv-01366-SSS-KK Document 28 Filed 01/23/23 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:585

1 element of the claim.” See Rains v. Criterion Systems, Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 346 2 (9th Cir. 1996). 3 Here, Plaintiffs’ Violation 2 (invoking the federal VRA) and Violation 3 4 (invoking the California constitution’s equal protection provisions) offer two 5 “alternative and independent theories” on which a court may find Defendants 6 liable for unlawful vote dilution. 7 Section 2 of the VRA proscribes any “voting or standard, practice, or 8 procedure…imposed or applied…in a manner which results in a denial or 9 abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of 10 race or color.” It is well-established that the “right to vote” protected by Section 11 2 encompasses not only the individual right to cast a ballot, but also the right of 12 politically cohesive and geographically compact minority groups to fair and 13 equal opportunity to elect the representatives of their choice. See, e.g., 14 Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 47 (1986). A redistricting body may 15 therefore be found liable under the VRA for adopting an electoral map that 16 splits such a group across two or more districts so that they nowhere constitute 17 an effective electoral majority. 18 In Violation 3, Plaintiffs identify state constitutional provisions that they 19 credibly assert “can and [do] serve the same purpose” as the federal law 20 described above. These portions of the California Constitution prohibit 21 government policies that infringe upon the ability of a protected class (here, 22 Latinos) to enjoy any fundamental right (here, the right to vote). See Board of 23 Supervisors v. LAFC, 3 Cal. 4th 903, 913 (1992) (under the California 24 Constitution, the right to vote is a fundamental right). Like the VRA, 25 California’s equal protection clause proscribes policies that have discriminatory 26 effect, regardless of the defendants’ motive or intent. See Vergara v. State, 246 27 Cal. App. 4th 619, 648 n.13 (2016). 28 -7- Case $:22-cv-01366-SSS-KK Document 28 Filed 01/23/23 Page 8of8 Page ID #:586

l Because Plaintiffs may establish liability for vote dilution based upon the 2 || California constitution alone, Violation 2 merely offers an “alternative” theory 3] of liability and not an “essential element” of Plaintiff's claim. As such, its embedded Section 2 issues are not “necessarily raised” and cannot confer 5 || federal question jurisdiction. 6 Defendants have failed to demonstrate that any of Plaintiffs’ four Fair 7 || Maps Act claims satisfy the first Gunn factor. Thus, this case is properly 8 || returned to the state court where it was originally filed. 9 IV. CONCLUSION 10 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion and 11 || ORDERS this case remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California in 12 || and for the County of Riverside. Finding that Defendants’ grounds for removal 13 || were mistaken but not objectively unreasonable, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ 14 || request for attorney fees.” 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: January 23, 2023 18 SUNSHINE ¥SYKES United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 || ? Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a court has wide discretion to grant or deny attorney fees when remanding case. Moore v. Permanente Medical Group, 27]| Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 1992), Attorney fees should be granted only where the removing party lacked any obj ectiyely reasonable frounds for 28 | removal. Martin v. Franklin Capitol Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). -8-