The Oakdale City Council voted 3-1 on Sept. 21 to begin moving from citywide council elections to voting districts, with protecting the city’s $8 million reserve from potentially costly litigation driving the decision.
Council member Jarod Pitassi cast the dissenting vote. Council member Kayleigh Gilbert was absent.
“Although I definitely do not want to go to district elections, I do want to protect our $8 million reserve so I hate saying yes but I want to protect that,” Mayor Cherilyn Bairos said.
The resolution presented under agenda item 11.4 calls for declaring the city’s intent to transition to district-based elections, establishing a tentative public hearing schedule and authorizing the hiring of a demographer to help develop district maps. Boundaries and the sequence of district elections would be established through a later ordinance.
Under the proposed system, Oakdale would be divided into four geographic districts. Each would elect one council member who lives within that district, with only voters in that district casting ballots for the seat. The mayor would continue to be elected citywide.
The decision follows written notice alleging that Oakdale’s current at-large election system violates the California Voting Rights Act. According to the staff report, the law allows challenges to at-large elections when they impair a protected class’s ability to elect preferred candidates or influence election outcomes, typically demonstrated through racially polarized voting.
The resolution included in the packet expressly denies that Oakdale’s election system violates the law and denies wrongdoing in its council elections. It identifies the uncertainty and potentially substantial expense of defending a voting-rights lawsuit as the reason for beginning the transition.
City Attorney Tom Hallinan advised that moving toward districts was the prudent course to avoid unnecessary litigation fees, according to the report prepared by City Manager Jerry Ramar.
For the council majority, the financial risk weighed heavily despite reluctance to change the election system. Council member Rich Murdoch described the decision as a responsibility to protect the city’s interests, even when that conflicted with personal preferences.
“We’re watching out for the city of Oakdale’s best interest, not for what we want personally,” Murdoch said.
He also emphasized the work council members had put into understanding the issue and consulting the city attorney before reaching a decision.
The transition itself will carry costs. The staff report says demographer services and related legal work for an accelerated process commonly range from the mid-five figures into the low-six figures, depending on the number of hearings, map revisions and whether litigation is avoided. That range describes typical costs, rather than a finalized Oakdale contract amount.
The report notes that judgments and attorney-fee awards against cities that fight California Voting Rights Act cases and lose have frequently been substantially higher.
Funding for Oakdale’s transition is proposed from the city attorney and professional-services contingency, with a midyear budget adjustment if needed.
Residents will have opportunities to help shape the districts before a final map is adopted. The tentative schedule calls for public hearings Oct. 5 and Oct. 19 to gather input on district composition and communities of interest before maps are drawn.
At least one draft map and a proposed election sequence would be published by Nov. 9, followed by hearings Nov. 16 and Dec. 7. The schedule anticipates a special meeting on or before Dec. 18 for final ordinance adoption, with an overall target of completing the process by Dec. 20.
That deadline appears in Sept. 10 correspondence from an attorney representing a prospective plaintiff, according to the resolution.
The correspondence called for the city to declare its intent, establish hearings and adopt an ordinance to avoid a lawsuit.
Dates remain tentative and may be adjusted within the procedural requirements described in the packet. Draft maps must be available at least seven days before consideration, and a map revised after a hearing must be published at least seven days before adoption.
The staff report says the council can adopt the change by ordinance without submitting it to a citywide vote. Because the planned adoption would occur after the Nov. 3, 2026, municipal election, district elections are expected to begin with the subsequent regular municipal election cycle, unless a different lawful schedule is later approved.
