GALT, CA (MPG) - And then there was one.
 

Following some slight tweaks, the Galt City Council selected the potential final map for its districting process, signaling the end of nearly three months of deliberation and setting the stage for a new era in Galt politics. 

The map, and the city’s change to “by district” elections, is part of a response to a demand letter sent on behalf of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project by Malibu-based law firm Shenkman & Hughes. The letter claimed the city’s at-large voting system was in violation of the California Voting Rights Act, which attempts to prevent the disenfranchisement of protected voting groups. 

The letter, which is considered a prerequisite to a potential lawsuit, specifically claimed that Galt’s Latino voters were being disenfranchised by the city’s at-large voting system and required the city to present a district map by April 1. 

While some governmental bodies have tried, no agency has successfully defended itself against a similar lawsuit. 

Ones that have attempted to fight them have faced millions in legal costs. 

In response to the letter, the council opted to begin the process to switch to district elections. Tuesday was the council’s fifth meeting on the matter. At the fourth meeting, the council voted against picking an at-large mayor, opting to stay with a system that allows council members to select a mayor from the council on a one-year term. 

The city contracted with Sacramento-based Redistricting Partners to work on a set of draft maps, whittling down nearly a dozen maps to five, including one submitted by a resident. 

Mayor Shawn Farmer suggested the council tweak a map submitted by the resident, dubbed “The Speer Map.” The map in its original form was outside of the allowable population deviation, but by moving census blocks, the map fell into compliance with Fair Maps Act requirements. 

Under the Fair Maps Act, each district is required to be within 10% deviation in population from one another, in Galt’s case, about 5,150 residents per district. The districts also had to be contiguous, maintain “communities of interest,” be easily identifiable and understandable and keep district “compact.”

The result was a “very balanced map,” Elizabeth Stitt, Redistricting Partners’ redistricting manager, said.

Because the map was not posted at least seven days prior to the meeting, the council must reconvene, likely next week, to approve an ordinance selecting the map. 

The council will also pick a sequencing order for the district elections. 

Currently, it is proposed that odd-numbered districts, 1, 3 and 5, would be up for election in 2026, with the remainder following suit in 2028.