Last June, the Palm Desert City Council unanimously voted to transition from just two electoral districts—with District 1 represented by one council member, and District 2 represented by four—to five single-representative districts in time for the November 2024 election.
This action was taken after a majority of Palm Desert voters indicated a preference for five evenly sized districts during the November 2022 election.
That June vote was followed by six months of public meetings, resident input and council discussions about the pros and cons of various districting approaches offered up by residents as well as the staff of the National Demographics Corporation (NDC), a firm hired by the city to help guide the process. Then at the Dec. 14 City Council meeting, Councilmember Kathleen Kelly put forth a motion for the city to further consider just one map, No. 109—a map which would split the portion of Palm Desert north of Country Club Drive, which has generally gone unrepresented on the City Council.
The motion passed, 4-1, with only newly appointed Mayor Karina Quintanilla in opposition. The vote all but guarantees that Map 109, and its proposed election sequence, will be finalized at the next City Council meeting on Jan. 11.
The vote occurred after numerous public comments at the Dec. 14 meeting that called for the council to consider another redistricting option, a map created by north Palm Desert resident Stephen Nelson. Nelson’s map, No. 102c, was determined to be compliant with both NDC requirements and the necessary population balance—but the council has refused to consider that map “officially,” because the city’s administrative staff concluded it was submitted too late in the process.
Nelson spoke during the public comments portion of the Dec. 14 meeting. He brought up a common concern expressed by City Council members that the northern portion of the city is primed for development that could make it grow faster than the rest of the city.
“To split the north in two … it would be irresponsible to do so,” Nelson said. “Furthermore, the proposed growth that’s been talked about—I have to let you know … there are several communities that were started in 2008 that until this day remain unfinished. Using the calculus that you would do today, you would be factoring in those said communities for the purposes of splitting the north. We don’t have construction schedules as to when these ‘future residents’ may appear. This should be handled by the people of the north when the time comes … not by this council.”
Quintanilla voiced her opposition by explaining that most residents from whom she’s heard wanted the council to consider Map 102c.
“I did attend those (public redistricting) workshops,” Quintanilla said, “… It is a 60-40 split of people asking the council to please consider 102c. As a council, we drive policy, and we have the option to say, ‘You know what? Let’s take a step back.’ … I think that here and now, we would be ignoring the voice of our current residents in favor of idealized future residents.”
North Palm Desert resident Michael Stafford expressed disappointment in his comments as well.
“(Residents) provided a lot of comments to you,” he said. “But frankly, it looks a little disingenuous if you don’t take those comments forward. … You limit it to one (map), and it totally discounts all the questions and concerns we have in the north.”
The Independent contacted City Clerk Anthony Mejia to find out the proposed districts in which the current council members live. He responded with the following list:
- District 1: Karina Quintanilla (term ends December 2024)
- District 2: Kathleen Kelly (term ends December 2024) and Jan Harnik (term ends December 2026)
- District 3: Gina Nestande (term ends December 2024)
- District 4: Evan Trubee (term ends December 2026)
- District 5: None
According to the proposed election sequence, districts 1, 2 and 3 would be up for election in 2024, with districts 4 and 5 in 2026.
In a recent interview, longtime five-district supporter, former City Council candidate and recently announced 2024 candidate Gregg Akkerman talked about the complicated and confusing way in which upcoming elections would take place.
“Districts 4 and 5 on the Map 109 proposal would not have (direct) district representation at all until 2026,” Akkerman said. “They would essentially continue with the at-large representation with Harnik and Trubee. So, for two years, we will have a blended City Council … with two leftover “at-large” representatives (Trubee and Harnik).”
Trubee lives in would become District 4, and his term does not end until December 2026, so he would become the “de facto” District 4 representative. That would leave only District 5 with no direct representation until 2026. Wouldn’t it therefore be logical to allow a District 5 election to take place in 2024, instead of District 2? Kelly’s term ends in 2024, and Harnik could represent the district until 2026—but such a change would leave Kelly unable to run again in 2024, if she chose to do so, whereas she can run under the current proposed schedule.
“As far as choosing how to roll out districts, they will favor the incumbents when they can … and they said as much at the council meeting,” Akkerman said. “And that’s what they’re doing. Each of the districts being rolled out in 2024 has an incumbent whose term is ending in 2024. That was clearly done on purpose to allow them to have a district to run in if they want to.”
Palm Desert moved from at-large elections to its current two-uneven-district system only because two plaintiffs—Quintanilla being one of them—sued them under the California Voting Rights act. Akkerman said during his public comments at the Dec. 14 meeting that he feared Map 109 and the current proposed elections sequence could lead to another lawsuit.
“That would also be very expensive if it happened,” Akkerman said. “So I hope we get this right.”
In our subsequent interview, Akkerman elaborated on those concerns.
“There are many lawyers who are willing to take up the California Voting Rights Act and find reasons to sue cities that don’t seem to be complying,” Akkerman said. “I think the Map 109 that they’re choosing is open to challenge. I think it’s very possible that a lawyer will take up the case down the road.
“Many residents spoke up,” Akkerman continued. “They gave their opinions. They responded to the call for participation—and it feels like the City Council invited them to the table and then ignored the responses they heard. That’s frustrating. It feels disingenuous (on the council’s part) to say, ‘Please participate—unless your opinions are different from what ours are.’”