The California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA) is a State Voting Rights Act (SVRA) in the state of California. It makes it easier for minority groups in California to prove that their votes are being diluted in "at-large" elections by expanding on the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. In Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that there are certain conditions that must be met in order to prove that minorities are being disenfranchised: that the affected minority group is sufficiently large to elect a representative of its choice, that the minority group is politically cohesive, and that white majority voters vote sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the minority group's preferred candidates; the CVRA eliminated one of these requirements. 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. Certain cities that have never had minority representation or have a history of minority candidate suppression can be liable for triple damages and be forced to make changes within 90 days. That makes it easier for minority voters to sue local governments and eliminate at-large elections. The Act was eventually signed into law on 9 July 2002.

In 2006, California's Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled the act constitutional in Sanchez v. City of Modesto. The city claimed that the act was unconstitutional because it inherently favored people of color. The court concluded that the act was not racist in nature and returned the case to the trial court.

Critics of the act argue that it inappropriately makes race a predominant factor in elections and that it does not make sense to eliminate the requirement to establish a geographic district in which there is a minority concentration. Advocates argue that at-large elections allow bloc voting, which effectively keeps minorities out of office.

The bill was introduced to the California State Senate by Democratic Senator Richard Polanco. The bill was endorsed by both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. The bill passed on the Senate floor with a vote of 22 to 13, and passed on the assembly floor with a vote of 47 to 25. The Act was signed into law by Governor Gray Davis on July 9, 2002.

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. The amendment took effect on January 1, 2017, and prevents lawsuits during the 45-day period. If the city makes legal moves towards district elections during that 45-day period, it cannot be sued for an additional 90 days after it makes a legal declaration. The city must then hold at least two public hearings on the matter within 30 days. The amendments to section 10010 also put a limit of $30,000 on the amount the city must pay to potential litigants if the city moves to district elections within the 90 day period. The CVRA and Section 10010 also apply to charter cities, but the section's application to enable charter cities to use an ordinance to go to district elections has not been tested in court.

Primarily, the CVRA makes it easier for minority groups to sue governments that use at-large elections on the grounds that they dilute the strength of minority votes. The CVRA also requires the government to pay all legal and court fees for the plaintiff if the plaintiff win, including cases in which the government chooses to settle before a verdict is reached. 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). A total of $4.3 million has been paid to compensate attorney's fees.

Supporters of the CVRA championed how much easier it made it for minority groups to dismantle at-large elections; minorities no longer had to prove that a specific minority candidate lost because of racially-polarized voting, they had to prove only that racially-polarized voting existed. Luis Artega, executive director of the Latino Issues Forum, supported the bill and claimed, "We have long been aware that at-large elections in a racially polarized electorate effectively work to dilute Latino voice and influence". The law has in practice served the Latino population, but it applies to all ethnic minorities. Regardless of whether racially polarized voting exists, some argue that at-large elections allow a majority voice to control the entire populace and therefore prefer elections by district. 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.^{[clarification needed]}

Critics of the CVRA argue that the act makes race a predominant factor in elections and that eliminating at-large elections does not make sense if a minority cannot occupy and establish a majority in a specific geographic area. 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. Others say the law is unnecessary and argue that the number of minorities holding office was on the rise before the act passed and that the law is being used to "shake down" local governments. General supporters of at-large elections say they encourage candidates to encompass many viewpoints and represent diverse groups.