(Editor’s note: This article is reprinted by permission of Fresnoland.)
In a contentious decision that has divided the community, the Clovis City Council voted last month to abandon its at-large voting system, a practice that has defined local elections for more than a century.
The move comes in response to allegations from a Malibu-based law firm that said the City was violating the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) of 2002.
Starting in November 2026, the Clovis City Council will transition to district-based elections, a change that will not affect the upcoming 2024 ballot. The decision marks a significant shift in the political landscape of the city of approximately 120,000 residents.
“This was a law passed in 2001. So we’ve done a pretty good job of putting it off for 23 years,” said Mayor Lynne Ashbeck, highlighting the reluctance with which the Council approached the change.
The catalyst for this transition was a letter in August from the law firm Shenkman and Hughes, which alleged that Clovis’s existing system potentially violated the CVRA by causing elected officials “to ignore minority interests without fear of political repercussions.”
The firm pointed out that while Latinos account for 30.5% of the city’s population, their representation on the Clovis City Council has been “sparse to nonexistent.”
The threat of costly litigation loomed large in the Council’s decision. With potential court fees exceeding $20 million and the law firm’s undefeated record in such cases, the City opted to avoid a protracted legal battle.
“We are being divided against our will, held hostage due to the budgetary challenges,” said Council Member Diane Pearce. “Clovis is not allowed to govern ourselves according to our beliefs, our values, our best interests.”
At the Oct. 7 meeting, public comments were overwhelmingly critical of the change, with many viewing it as a harbinger of declining living standards in the city.
“We are going to lose our city. It won’t be the same,” said John Walker, a longtime Clovis resident. “Let’s not give in. Let’s fight back. If we don’t take a stand, it’s all over.”
The City’s transition is part of a broader trend across California, driven largely by legal pressure from Shenkman and Hughes. Last year, the Clovis Unified School District made a similar change following a letter from the same law firm.
While proponents argue that district-based systems strengthen minority representation, the results in other cities have been mixed.
Clovis has long delayed addressing this issue. Since at least 2020, City leaders have claimed to be studying and evaluating the need for district elections, never reaching a definitive conclusion that their election system truly complied with the state’s Voting Rights Act.
The resistance to change is deeply rooted in the community. Mike Cunningham of the Clovis Planning Commission had previously said that he would resist the switch to district elections with his “last fiber,” arguing that district-based elections lead to “tribalism,” pointing to Fresno as an example.
Ashbeck expressed frustration with the process, calling it “legalized bullying” and noting the “weak” evidence of racial polarization in the City’s electoral system. However, fellow Council Member Drew Bessinger acknowledged the financial reality: “It would be irresponsible of us to waste several million dollars on a battle we can’t win.”
As the City moves forward, City Attorney James McCann outlined the next steps, including public hearings to discuss potential district boundaries and the hiring of a demographer to assess their fairness.
The controversy even sparked some creative problem-solving from Clovis residents. In the coming years, said Clovis resident Neil Stollard, the City Council could hold out for a potential Trump presidency to try to reverse the Oct. 7 vote.
“After the elections, reach out to our Congress people because this appears to me a coordinated effort by various activist groups that want to destroy our republic.”
