Ojai council hears hours of debate and demographic analysis on proposed return to at‑large elections

The Ojai City Council on Tuesday received a legal and demographic briefing and hours of public testimony about whether to return to at‑large elections from the current by‑district system, but took no action to change the method.

City Attorney Bethany Burgess opened the discussion by summarizing the options and legal constraints, saying the council could repeal the 2018 ordinance that established by‑district elections or refer the question to voters, but that either path carries procedural and litigation risks. Burgess told the council that "there's a high probability that the city would face a legal challenge" from voting‑rights litigators if it attempts a shift back to at‑large voting and that recent U.S. Supreme Court guidance (referred to in materials as Louisiana v Cala) has left uncertainty about the California Voting Rights Act's application.

The council then heard a technical presentation from demographer Doug Johnson of the National Demographics Corporation. Johnson said the city’s most commonly used measures—citizen voting age population (CVAP), voter registration and turnout—show Ojai’s Spanish‑surname or Latino registered voter share at roughly 11–13% and noted that, in this small jurisdiction, margins of error are large. He concluded that the city's district map has not created a reliably Latino‑majority district and that the available election precinct data do not show clear racially polarized voting patterns that would indicate districts were enabling Latino voters to elect preferred candidates. Johnson cautioned that small sample sizes and legal uncertainty mean the analysis is not definitive.

The presentation prompted extended questions from council members about timing, litigation exposure, and implementation mechanics. Burgess described two legal paths—an ordinance or a voter referral—and warned that no general‑law California city that shifted from district to at‑large has successfully executed a reversal without legal controversy. She also said the city could choose to wait and see how pending litigation elsewhere (including Huntington Beach) is decided before acting.

More than a dozen residents testified during the public‑comment period. Speakers took sharply opposing positions. Several longtime residents argued the city should restore at‑large elections to give every registered voter a say in every seat and to increase competition: "I want my vote back," one speaker said. Others warned that returning to at‑large elections risks "voter dilution" and could make the city an early precedent for other communities reversing district elections. Several commentators urged the council to either draft an ordinance now and proceed or to let a citizen‑led referendum build public consensus; others urged the council to delay while legal questions are resolved.

After extended discussion, no council member moved to adopt an ordinance or to refer the question to voters. Council members signaled differing priorities: some want to pursue ordinances or a voter measure; others said that, given legal uncertainty and potential litigation costs, the city should maintain the status quo and allow a future council or citizen petition to revisit the issue. Burgess confirmed that without a motion to change the system, the current by‑district system remains in force.

What’s next: staff will return with more information if asked, and a citizen petition (referendum) could also be circulated, which several council members said would be an appropriate path for a change of this magnitude. Several speakers and council members said they would watch pending litigation in other California cities closely before taking further action.

The council did vote later in the meeting on separate administrative items (consent calendar and assessment proceedings), but the elections question was deferred for further study or public action rather than decided at the meeting.