Come November, Cypress residents will begin to choose who will represent them on the City Council based on where they live.
The switch to by-district elections is the culmination of a years-long lawsuit challenging how residents have elected their councilmembers.
Now, after the City Council in a split decision has approved a map for how the city will be carved into districts and a sequencing system for when seats will appear on the ballot, voters will choose only one councilmember who lives in their district every four years, starting with the November election.
Cypress is split into five districts with the new map, with District 1 being in the northwest corner from Acacia Circle down to Orange Avenue, including Forest Lawn Cemetery, Evergreen Park and Willow Park.
District 2, in the northeast, picks up Arnold Cypress Park and Cypress College, ending at Orange Avenue.
A rectangular shaped District 3 is in the middle of the city, its boundaries including Orange Avenue to the north, Holder Street to the east, Ball Road to the south and Denni Street to the west. This district includes Veterans Park, Cypress High School and Oak Knoll Park.
District 4 zigzags down the southwestern portion of Cypress, picking up Los Alamitos Race Track, Costco and Cedar Glen Park.
District 5 juts around the southeastern corner of the city and wraps back west to include a portion of the city just to the south of District 4, from Orangewood Avenue south to Apia Drive and Eucalyptus Park. Along with that corner, it includes everything east of Valley View Street and south of Cerritos Avenue before coming back across to pick up neighborhoods around Laurel Park all the way up to Ball Road and Walker Street.
Residents can find an interactive version of the map online and determine which district they will cast a ballot for.
Councilmember David Burke said he believes transitioning to district elections will net some positives for the city — like making it easier for candidates to meet more people who they represent and cutting back on how much it costs to run for office — but he wants to see some city engagement to inform residents about getting involved in City Council elections with this change.
“One of the concerns people have in going to districts is it might be more difficult to find good candidates to run in every district,” said Burke. “The city needs to do a lot of outreach to engage residents in the political process, and I encourage any residents who are interested to get involved and learn as much as they can if they are interested in being a representative.”
On the ballot in November will be elections for the District 3 and District 4 council seats. Districts 1, 2 and 5 will be on the November 2026 ballot.
Putting an end to a lawsuit
The map, dubbed Map 146, is part of a settlement agreement OK’d by the city resolving a years-long legal dispute challenging how local elections are held.
In 2022, Malibu-based attorney Kevin Shenkman sued on behalf of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project and residents Kathryn Shapiro and Malini Nagpal, who routinely speak at City Council meetings. The lawsuit alleged that racially polarized voting occurs in Cypress elections and the at-large system — where voters decide on all five council seats — impairs the ability of minority voters in Cypress to elect candidates of their choice.
The settlement agreement required the plaintiffs to participate in the map selection process, according to a staff report, and allows the city to transition back to at-large districts should California law change to permit that. It does not change councilmembers’ term limits of two, four-year terms.
While the map ultimately picked by the City Council this week in a 3-2 vote was approved by the plaintiffs, Shenkman said that doesn’t mean it was their preferred map.
“That should not be misconstrued as a belief by plaintiffs that Map 146 is necessarily the best, regardless of being accepted, nor should that be construed as an indication that the plaintiffs believe the process … was ideal,” Shenkman said.
“The map is legal, compliant with the Elections Code and we believe ultimately will give Cypress voters — and in particular, Cypress’ minority community — a fair and equitable chance at achieving representation, and so that’s why, all other things aside, we believe Map 146 is acceptable,” he said.
The map was created by the City Council during a Feb. 26 meeting. After a public hearing discussing several maps, Mayor Scott Minikus suggested combining the top half of one proposed map with the bottom half of another, saying it created a “much better balance” for the proposed district boundaries.
And that was the map up for a vote May 11.
“I’m supporting the map that I think is the best representation of the districts moving forward, not because I think it benefits me,” said Councilmember Anne Mallari, one of the three who approved it.
More Cypress conflict
Councilmembers bickered for more than an hour, accusing one another of having “self-serving interests” by picking maps that would make it easier for them to keep their seats. There were allegations of clandestine meetings in a dark parking lot.
The few residents who did speak during the meeting expressed concerns about how the map breaks up neighborhoods. There was not enough community involvement, they said.
Burke, who voted no, said he was concerned the city may face another lawsuit because of the way it went about selecting Map 146.
The final map was not published seven days before a hearing as required, he said, since it’s an amalgamation of two other versions.
“I think it was wrong to approve a map that our residents never got to see or comment on before we voted on it,” he said. “At the very least, I think to choose Map 146 at a hearing when it wasn’t published seven days in advance was legally questionable, and even if was technically legal, I think it violated the spirit of the law.”
But City Attorney Fred Galante, when asked by another councilmember about the possibility of another legal challenge, said: “I have not heard or seen any reason that the council’s action violated the law.”
Galante said draft maps could not be crafted from scratch and approved without that seven-day review period, but making changes to existing proposals is allowed.
Mallari rebuffed suggestions to postpone a vote on the map, noting that the settlement agreement stipulated March 11 as the deadline to approve a map.
“It’s been a long process,” she said.
Burke and Councilmember Frances Marquez were the only two no votes.
