A recent article by Matthew Hall published by Santa Monica Daily Press is headlined, "Judge Dismisses Landmark Voting Rights Lawsuit Against Santa Monica." The final sentence stated, "Once signed and entered by the judge alongside a final judgment, it formally starts the statutory clock for postjudgment motions and appeals."
After more than 10 1/2 years, $16MM+ PAID by the City to Gibson Dunn law firm and likely at least a similar amount incurred by the Pico Neighborhood Association's attorneys, what do you think is the likelihood that PNA will file an appeal?
WHY are the members of the Santa Monica City Council so opposed to giving district voting to their neighbors, in their own neighborhoods?
In 1842, the United States adopted district voting for each state's members of the US House of Representatives, in 1925 the City of Los Angeles adopted district voting for its City Council. As of May 2025, 80% of CA Cities with populations of 75,001 - 200,000 and 100% of all CA Cities with populations over 200,000 use district voting.
"Cui Bono" Who Benefits by keeping At-Large voting? The Citizens of Pico Neighborhood certainly didn't over the nearly 30 years when young Hispanic boys were abused by Eric Uller, even though there had been rumors and supposed reports provided to the SMPD during the terms of more than four police chiefs and seven At-Large voted City Councils.
Appeals to this most recent ruling will most likely be filed by the PNA. The legal meters will continue running up the millions of dollars in legal costs for the City of Santa Monica in its "Fiscal Distress."
STOP THE BLEEDING.
Adopt District Voting.
POWER TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS!
John Medlin
Santa Monica