Unlike the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which is a federal law, the CVRA does not require plaintiffs to demonstrate a specific geographic district where a minority is concentrated enough to establish a majority.

[2] Advocates argue that at-large elections allow bloc voting, which effectively keeps minorities out of office.

[1] In 2016, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill 350, which amended Section 10010 of the elections code to provide a 45-day "safe harbor" limit after the receipt of a letter from potential plaintiffs in CVRA cases.

[6] By 2009, three cases had been successfully brought against local governments; all three resulted in the elimination of at-large elections (and the drawing of district lines).

[14] When district lines are drawn with purpose by using census data, it is important to ensure that minority votes are not further fractured and diluted.

[2] John McDermott, the defense attorney for the City of Modesto in its case under the CVRA, claimed that the CVRA is a radical departure from the federal Voting Rights Act and argued that at-large elections can be threatened under the law even if there is no proof that a minority group either suffered a disadvantage or would benefit from districts.

[10] General supporters of at-large elections say they encourage candidates to encompass many viewpoints and represent diverse groups.

[14] Another criticism arose from the section of the act maintaining that if a government loses or settles, it is required to pay the attorney's fees of the plaintiffs.

Several sources list a selection of jurisdictions that have moved to districts but as the legal issues are clarified by court decisions and state laws, the number of cases brought and settled has increased.

[17] The Rose Institute of State and Local Government of Claremont McKenna College in a "White Paper" analysed the effect of the CVRA with a partial list of cities that have gone to districts as of 2016.

[23][24] In 2008, Maria Esther Rey, Jesse Lopez, and Carlos Uranga filed a suit against the Madera Unified School District under the CVRA.

Although the district immediately moved to remedy the situation, the plaintiffs also argued that the upcoming 2008 "at-large" elections should be enjoined which was ordered by the trial court.

Ms. Rangel sued the district in Orange County Superior Court to promote greater representation of Latino members.

[19][31] On March 31, 2012, the Compton Community College District (CCCD) agreed to pay Joaquin Avila $40,000 "in settlement of all fees and costs associated with the" litigation.

[32][33] [34][35] In 2004, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights filed a suit under the CVRA against the City of Modesto on behalf of three Latino residents.

[36] The city appealed the case to the California Supreme Court, claiming that the law allowed reverse racism and constituted unconstitutional affirmative action.

[38] In August 2008, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights filed suit against the Madera Unified School District on behalf of three Latino residents.

[41] The ruling meant that the school district was officially the losing party and was required to pay the $1.2 million in attorney's fees to the plaintiffs,[40] but a Superior Court judge later reduced the amount by 85% to $162,500.