This page is an archive of the City’s change to by-district Council elections in 2018.

Below you will find an archive of the previous election history, maps, and schedule.

Districting History

The City of Livermore had an at-large election system. Each of the City’s four Council Members and the Mayor were elected by the entire City. Council Members were elected for a four-year term, while the Mayor was elected for a two-year term. In 1978, a ballot initiative was passed, calling for the Mayor to be directly elected by the voters for a two-year term, rather than selected by the City Council.

The City received a letter from the Shenkman & Hughes law firm on May 29, 2018 alleging “racially polarized voting” in Livermore and threatening litigation if the City declines to voluntarily convert to district-based elections. “Racially polarized voting” means voting in which there is a difference in the choice of candidates or other electoral choices that are preferred by voters of a protected class, and in the choice of candidates and electoral choices that are preferred by voters in the rest of the electorate.1

Specifically, the letter asserts that the City’s at-large electoral system dilutes the ability of Latinos, a protected class, to elect candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of Livermore’s council elections, and that, as a result, Livermore’s at-large election system violated the CVRA.

The City Council met in closed session on June 11 and June 25, 2018 to consider the threatened CVRA litigation and, after weighing the legal implications and potential costs of such litigation, directed staff to move forward with drafting the resolution of intention to transition from at-large to district-based elections in order to take advantage of the “safe harbor” allowances under Elections Code Section 10010. As discussed in more detail below, the “safe harbor” allowances require the City to hold at least four public hearings within the allotted time frame to give the community an opportunity to weigh in on the composition of the districts and provide input regarding the content of the draft maps and proposed sequence of elections.

On July 9, 2018, the Livermore City Council initiated the process to transition from an at-large to district-based election system to comply with the California Voting Rights Act of 2001. The City of Livermore currently uses an at-large election system that allows all voters in the City to elect council members and the mayor. In a district-based election system, the City is physically divided into separate council member districts, and the voters that live within each district get to elect a candidate from that district. The number and make-up of the council member voting districts will be decided by the Livermore City Council after a series of public hearings held over the next few months. The Mayor will continue to be elected at-large.

The first two public hearings gave the Livermore community an opportunity to weigh in on the composition of the districts. The two subsequent public hearings will give the community an opportunity to provide input on the draft maps for the district boundaries. At the final public hearing, the City Council will vote to consider an ordinance establishing the districts and shifting to a district-based election system that will start with the 2020 election.

The CVRA was signed into law in 2002. The CVRA prohibits an at-large method of election that impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election. The law’s intent is to expand protections against vote dilution over those provided by the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“FVRA”). The law was also motivated, in part, by the lack of success by plaintiffs in California in lawsuits challenging at-large electoral systems brought under the FVRA. The passage of the CVRA made it easier for plaintiffs to prevail in lawsuits against public entities that elected their members to its governing body through “at-large” elections. A plaintiff need only prove the existence of “racially polarized voting” to establish liability under the CVRA. Other factors are also relevant in determining liability. Proof of intent on the part of voters or elected officials to discriminate against a protected class is not required.

As a result, cities throughout California have increasingly been facing legal challenges to their “at-large” systems of electing city council members. Almost all cities that have received a legal challenge settled claims out of court by agreeing to voluntarily shift to district-based elections. Those that have defended CVRA challenges in courts have ultimately either voluntarily adopted, or have been forced to adopt, district-based elections. The CVRA grants a prevailing plaintiff the right to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees. This has resulted in payment of huge amounts of money in attorneys’ fees by cities that have chosen to litigate the CVRA challenge. For example, in February 2015, the City of Santa Barbara reportedly paid $900,000 in attorneys’ fees and expert costs to settle their CVRA lawsuit. The City of Palmdale incurred expenses in excess of $4,500,000 in its unsuccessful attempt to defend against a lawsuit brought under the CVRA. On the other hand, even if the City prevails, it cannot recover either attorneys’ fees or costs. Also, the City would remain vulnerable to subsequent litigation brought under the CVRA by different plaintiffs. To date, staff is unaware of any city that has prevailed in defending its “at-large” system of election under a claim filed by any individual or group under the CVRA.

On September 28, 2016, the Governor signed AB 350 into law . This legislation attempts to provide a “safe harbor” from CVRA litigation for cities that choose to voluntarily transition to a district-based election system. If a city receives a demand letter, such as in Livermore’s case, the city is given 45 days of protection from litigation to assess its situation. If within 45 days a city adopts a resolution declaring the Council’s intent to transition from at-large to district-based elections, outlining specific steps to be undertaken to facilitate the transition, and estimating a time frame for action, then a potential plaintiff is prohibited from filing a CVRA action for an additional 90 day period. Thus, the legislation provides time for the city to assess and implement a transition to a district-based system before a lawsuit may be filed. The legislation sets out a number of steps a city must take in the effort to assess and transition to a district-based election system, which is laid out in further detail below. Under AB 350, a city’s liability is capped at $30,000 if it follows this process after receiving a threat, and the plaintiff must show financial documentation that these costs were actually incurred.

For further information on the CVRA, see City Attorney Jason Alcala’s March 26, 2018 staff report to City Council.

Under AB 350, the City is required to hold at least four public hearings within the allotted 90 day “safe harbor” period. However, Kevin Shankman, counsel for the proposed plaintiff, has agreed to extend the safe harbor period by another 90 days. The first two public hearings will give the community an opportunity to weigh in on the composition of the districts. Subsequently, draft district maps will be drawn and two additional public hearings (hearings three and four) will be held for the public to provide input regarding the content of the draft maps and proposed sequence of elections. The maps must be published at least seven days before the public hearings. The fifth, and final, public hearing will be for Council to consider an ordinance that establishes Livermore’s district-based elections. By law, there is no ability to cut short or extend the terms of sitting Council Members through this process.

To create your own plan for the 4 Livermore districts, use the following tools. You may submit your plan via email to districtelections@cityoflivermore.net or drop off in person or mail to City Clerk at 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, Livermore.

  • Interactive Google Maps: Online interactive Google maps that allow users to review proposed district maps.
  • Redistricting Calculator (download): Excel spreadsheet for assigning districts to each slice. Includes printable map of slices. Does not include interactive map.

Round 2

These draft maps have been prepared per Council’s direction at the Public Hearing held on September 10, 2018 and were considered at the Public Hearing held on October 8, 2018.

All Round 2 draft maps were variations of the Emerald Plan from Round 1.

Round 1

Five draft maps were prepared based on public and Council feedback and were reviewed at the Public Hearing held on September 10, 2018.

Public Submissions

Representations of publicly submitted maps reflect best, good-faith effort to represent the submitter’s intent, while conforming to census geography.

Livermore Baseline Maps

Baseline maps for the City of Livermore were created by the City’s demographer. These maps served as the starting point for the discussions on district composition.

City Voting Population by Race and Ethnicity

Livermore Population Voting Age Population^ CITIZEN VOTING AGE POPULATION+
# % # % # %
Total 81,560 100% 60,753 100% 60,521 100%
White* 52,807 64.7% 41,554 68.4% 43,222 71.7%
Latino 16,989 20.8% 10,890 17.9% 8,830 14.7%
Asian* 8,521 10.4% 6,120 10.1% 6,608 11.0%
Black* 1,875 2.3% 1,252 2.1% 918 1.5%

* Does not include Latinos. Calculated pursuant to OMB BULLETIN NO. 00-02.
^ 2010 Census Redistricting Data [P.L. 94-171] Summary File, U.S. Census Bureau.
+ Citizen Voting Age Population Special Tabulation from the 2012-2016 5-Year American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau

Livermore Incumbent Locator

First Last Position Term Slice Block Group Block
Total 81,560 100% 60,753 100% 60,521 100%
White* 52,807 64.7% 41,554 68.4% 43,222 71.7%
Latino 16,989 20.8% 10,890 17.9% 8,830 14.7%
Asian* 8,521 10.4% 6,120 10.1% 6,608 11.0%
Black* 1,875 2.3% 1,252 2.1% 918 1.5%

1 Elections Code section 14026(e)

2 Codified as Elections Code section 10010 (effective January 1, 2017)

Districting – Public Hearing Timeline (2018)

All public hearings were held at Livermore City Hall, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, in the Council Chambers, at 7:00 pm, as part of regularly-scheduled Council meetings.

Date Event
July 9, 2018 Resolution of Intention:
City Council adopts Resolution declaring its Intention to transition from at-large to district-based elections.
July 23, 2018 1st Public Hearing
August 13, 2018 2nd Public Hearing
September 10, 2018 3rd Public Hearing
October 8, 2018 4th Public Hearing
October 22, 2018 5th Public Hearing and Introduction of an Ordinance of the City of Livermore to transition from at-large to district-based elections
November 26, 2018 Second reading and adoption of the ordinance (Ordinance 2078).
December 26, 2018 Effective date of ordinance establishing district elections

2018 District Elections & Map

District Map Description
District 1 All the portion of the City of Livermore lying westerly of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of E Stanley Boulevard and the westerly boundary of the City of Livermore, and proceeding easterly along E Stanley Boulevard to the Arroyo Mocho, and proceeding southeasterly along the Arroyo Mocho to Arroyo Road, and proceeding southerly along Arroyo Road to Robertson Park Road, and proceeding easterly along Robertson Park Road to the easterly boundary of the City of Livermore, and proceeding northerly along the boundary of the City of Livermore to S Livermore Avenue, and proceeding northwesterly along S Livermore Avenue to N Livermore Avenue, and proceeding northerly along N Livermore Avenue to Portola Avenue, and proceeding westerly along Portola Avenue to the northern boundary of the City of Livermore.
District 2 All the portion of the City of Livermore lying northerly of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of Portola Avenue and the northerly boundary of the City of Livermore, and proceeding southerly along Portola Avenue to N Livermore Avenue, and proceeding southerly along N Livermore Avenue to Junction Avenue, and proceeding southeasterly along Junction Avenue to rail line, and proceeding easterly along rail line to First Street, and proceeding northeasterly along First Street to Interstate 580, and proceeding easterly along Interstate 580 to the point directly south of the intersection of Altamont Pass Road and the boundary of the City of Livermore, and proceeding north to the easterly boundary of the City of Livermore.
District 3 All the portion of the City of Livermore lying easterly of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of S Livermore Avenue and the easterly boundary of the City of Livermore, and proceeding northwesterly along S Livermore Avenue to N Livermore Avenue, and proceeding northerly along N Livermore Avenue to Junction Avenue, and proceeding southeasterly along Junction Avenue to rail line, and proceeding easterly along rail line to First Street, and proceeding northeasterly along First Street to Interstate 580, and proceeding easterly along Interstate 580 to the point directly south of the intersection of Altamont Pass Road and the boundary of the City of Livermore, and proceeding north to the easterly boundary of the City of Livermore.
District 4 All the portion of the City of Livermore lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at the intersection of E Stanley Boulevard and the westerly boundary of the city of Livermore, and proceeding easterly along E Stanley Boulevard to the Arroyo Mocho, and proceeding southeasterly along the Arroyo Mocho to Arroyo Road, and proceeding southerly along Arroyo Road to Robertson Park Road, and proceeding easterly along Robertson Park Road to the easterly boundary of the City of Livermore.