In a series of moves set to shape Gilroy’s elections for years to come, the City Council has chosen the final map for its districts and laid the rules for how elections will take place in Gilroy.
The map creates six districts and splits the city’s heavily-Latino East Side into two districts — the culmination of a months-long process that wrestled with how best to represent the city and its majority Latino population.
“Overall, I’d say it’s a positive move. It’s one long time coming,” said Kevin Shenkman, the Malibu-based lawyer who sent the initial letter that sparked Gilroy’s districting process, in an interview. “I think it’s a good thing that Gilroy has moved to districts and done so with a map that is decent – I’ve seen a whole lot worse.”
The council voted to begin the districting process in late February. The move came after Shenkman sent a letter threatening Gilroy with legal action under the California Voting Rights Act if the city did not move to district-based elections, where residents in different sectors of a city vote for a single city councilmember to represent their district.
No city has won a lawsuit against districting under the state election law, and some, including Santa Clara, have paid out millions in legal fees after attempting to fight it.
Under the state voting law, the city can avoid those hefty legal fees by creating voting districts in a 90 day window — by May 27 for Gilroy.
Over four months of meetings and public workshops, most of the public attention has centered on how districting would affect Gilroy’s heavily-Latino East Side, which was cited in the letter threatening a lawsuit as the impetus for moving to districts.
Gilroy City Council decided earlier this week on the final map for its six districts, when those districts would be up for election, and how long candidates should be residents before running. Each of the six districts will elect a single council member with the mayor chosen by the entire city, and three districts voting every two years.
At their last meeting, the council narrowed down their choices to two maps: Draft D, which kept the East Side in a single district and Draft F, which outlined two districts in the East Side.
Several advocates and residents of the city’s East Side called for keeping the East Side united, arguing that best ensures representation of the majority-Latino community.
“The East Side has been, historically, left out of key decisions that take place in the city,” said East Side resident Tanaya Stumpf. “This is an opportunity to give the neighborhood and families like mine a real chance of representation. It reflects who we are.”
East Side resident Jesus Becerra argued that representation on the council could have repercussions for future generations. “I want to see kids inspired by someone from the city council, from their neighborhood … I want them to dream that they can make their community better.”
Others claimed that supporting the creation of the two districts on the East Side goes against the spirit of the law that set Gilroy’s districting process in motion.
“East Side Gilroy is a vibrant, culturally-rich community where blue-collar Chicano and immigrant families have called home for generations,” said Rebeca Armendariz, former city councilmember and whose family has lived in the East Side for generations. “We are unequivocally a community of interest, and map F would break it up in violation of the California Voting Rights Act.”
Even so, several on the council, and a heavy majority of email comments, argued for the map ultimately chosen.
“(East Side is) almost a third of the city, I think it’s only fair that it be represented by more than one person,” said Councilmember Dion Bracco, who argued that the two districts actually gave the East Side more representation by allowing them two representatives. Bracco — who lives in the East Side and whose family has resided there for generations — also held that the map connected communities across the railroad that divide the city. “When I was in school, I remember they’d say, ‘Oh, you’re from the other side of the tracks.’ And there’s always been that stigma of the East Side of Gilroy.”
Despite the apparent split in public opinion, the council voted unanimously on the map with two East Side districts.
The map will apply for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 elections, after which the city will have to redraw its districts following the 2030 census.
The council also voted unanimously to put districts 4, 5, and 6 up for election in 2026, since no councilmember currently lives in District 4 and the councilmembers who live in Districts 5 and District 6 will already be up for re-election. The districts represent the city’s East Side and downtown core. The remaining districts — 1,2 and 3 — will vote for representatives in 2028.
Finally, the council set a rule requiring candidates to be residents of the district 30 days prior to filing their papers nominating them as a candidate.
Shenkman said the City Council’s decisions apparently rested on whether keeping communities in tact was more important than the potential effects of packing that community into a single vote. Determining whether the final map ultimately strengthens or dilutes Latino vote could require complicated analysis, he said, adding, “What is more likely to tell us whether that (map) was appropriate or not, is the election results over the next one or two cycles.”