Last night, the City of Laguna Hills demonstrated what responsible governance looks like.
The City Council voted to honor the financial obligation it assumed when it properly invoked the safe harbor provision of the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA). By doing so, Laguna Hills upheld its commitment to pay the $40,000 capped attorney’s fees owed—thereby avoiding unnecessary, wasteful, and entirely predictable litigation.
With Councilmember Wheeler as the lone dissenting voice—taking a position that can only be described as fiscally careless—the Council chose prudence over posturing. Their decision spared residents from spiraling legal costs and reaffirmed that public funds should be protected, not gambled for political theatrics.
In stark contrast, neighboring cities Laguna Niguel and Rancho Santa Margarita chose a very different path—one marked by hubris, negligence, and disregard for their residents’ wallets.
Like Laguna Hills, both cities initially availed themselves of the CVRA’s safe harbor protections, agreeing to transition to district elections in exchange for a capped payment obligation. And like Laguna Hills, they avoided immediate litigation. That is where the similarities end.
After benefiting from the safe harbor, both Laguna Niguel and Rancho Santa Margarita reneged on their payment obligations—an inexplicable decision that virtually guaranteed litigation and massive legal bills.
Rancho Santa Margarita’s situation is particularly egregious. Instead of paying approximately $35,000 under the statutory cap, RSM now faces legal exposure exceeding $400,000—more than $200,000 for its own attorneys and another $200,000-plus for the CVRA plaintiffs’ counsel. TEN TIMES what it would have cost to follow the law! This financial disaster did not occur by accident; it was the direct result of conscious choices made by city leadership.
Why would a city choose this path? Maybe this costly litigation serves as a convenient distraction from allegations involving Mayor Tony Beall—allegations that include claims of dishonesty and even perjury. While those matters play out elsewhere, RSM residents are left holding the bag.
Adding insult to injury, RSM hired the high-priced Sacramento firm Merksamer, Nielsen—despite its lack of success as the final prevailing firm in CVRA litigation. The result? A hollow trial court ruling already under appeal, ensuring even higher costs ahead.
Laguna Niguel has followed a similarly wasteful and irresponsible path, despite entering into a settlement agreement promising to pay the capped CVRA fees in exchange for additional time. It’s time to stop making residents pay for its Council’s own immature missteps.
Leave a Reply