A Larger Council? Two Sides to the Ethnic Question

On May 6, 1924, moviegoers were flocking to the Million Dollar Theater in downtown Los Angeles to watch Cecil B. DeMille’s new epic “Triumph” and were buying 60-cent matinee tickets at another nearby movie house to laugh through Harold Lloyd’s “Girl Shy.”

New car owners were enticed with the latest balloon tires. Newspaper ads pushed sales of 49-cent blouses and straw boaters for $2.50. Sports-page addicts read about Babe Ruth’s game-winning home run against the Philadelphia Athletics. And Republican voters in California pondered whether to cast their primary ballot for incumbent President Calvin Coolidge or their home state’s Sen. Hiram Johnson.

It was also a day that Los Angeles city voters went to the polls to adopt a new Charter and to pass a ballot measure increasing the City Council from 11 to 15 members--moves that supporters championed as a way to help propel a municipality of nearly one million into the modern era.

Today, Los Angeles’ population has tripled, and the City Charter has been amended nearly 300 times.

People still line up at the Million Dollar Theater--but to enjoy Spanish-language movies. Steel-belted radials have replaced balloon tires. Straw hats and cheap blouses have become thrift-shop items. And “The Babe,” Harold Lloyd and Calvin Coolidge have given way to millionaire ballplayers, ethnic comedians and another Republican President.

But in those 61 years, the council makeup of 15 members has remained constant. And even as the city’s ethnic communities have burgeoned, most of those council seats have been filled by whites.

However, that too may change when city voters go to the polls next month.

On the April 9 ballot is Charter Amendment 2, which would increase the number of council districts from 15 to 17. And if voters approve the measure, the city will have two more council districts in 1987.

For many political activists in the Latino and Asian-Pacific communities--which are the two fastest growing segments of Los Angeles--those two new seats are the key to electing council members from their ethnic groups.

“This expansion of the City Council does not guarantee anybody a seat . . . but it certainly does give an opportunity for these two major ethnic communities to be represented,” said Mayor Tom Bradley, who had pushed for council expansion in 1970, only to see voters reject it at the polls.

Bradley, who joined council President Pat Russell in writing the pro-expansion ballot argument this time around, has lent the weight of his own reelection campaign to try to pass the Charter amendment. And that stance has pitted him squarely against Bradley’s chief mayoral challenger, John Ferraro, who is among five council members signing the ballot argument against the proposal.

“I don’t see any substantial reason for the change,” said Councilman Marvin Braude, another opponent. “I don’t think it’s going to enhance the prospects of minority groups, and I don’t think that’s the way to get more citizen participation.”

Local business groups, including the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and the Los Angeles Taxpayers Assn., have joined in opposing the ballot measure, claiming that the expansion will merely increase the cost and size of government, with little benefit to taxpayers.

Cost Factor Argued

They also argue that since there is no guarantee that the proposal would mean more minority representatives on the council, the expansion is a costly, clumsy way of trying to achieve more ethnic participation. But supporters of the expansion plan disagree.

In the spacious hall of an East Los Angeles community services center recently, about 50 members of the Los Angeles Coalition for Fair Representation gathered to map out political strategy and discuss how to push the expansion idea to an indifferent electorate.

“The biggest problem is getting the people to know about this amendment,” said Lupe Obiols, a secretary who works in Boyle Heights and a treasurer of the coalition.

Many of those at the meeting had come from various political campaigns or community groups involved in different social issues. They included neighborhood activists and members of such organizations as the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Meeting at City Hall

The coalition had appeared earlier with Bradley and County Assessor Alexander Pope on the steps of City Hall to boost the pro-expansion amendment before news reporters. And now they were debating ways to fuel their campaign and to mount a get-out-the-vote drive--all on a shoestring budget of no more than $10,000.

Craig Wong, a co-chairman of the group, said the coalition has tied its efforts closely to the mayor’s reelection drive by relying on phone banks supplied by Bradley’s campaign staff.

“We’re not identical,” Wong said of the two campaigns, “but it was Bradley’s proposal initially, and we’re happy that he proposed it.”

In pushing for the council expansion, Bradley is resurrecting a Charter amendment proposal that he helped shape in 1970 calling for two additional council members. During the debate on that proposal, proponents voiced the same arguments they are using 15 years later: the need for broader representation, the prospects for improved service and the difference from other big cities that have far more council members.

But in 1970, voters spurned that Charter amendment by a 58%-42% vote.

What makes supporters of the current expansion plan feel they will fare better this time?

No Opposition in Sight

“At this point there isn’t any organized opposition that we’re aware of,” said Ron Baca, co-chairman of the coalition. “I think the stronger we get, in the time remaining, the opposition will begin to surface. But that’s not going to deter us from going all the way.”

Bradley and other supporters also point to the recommendations of an ad hoc commission--known as the Reining Commission after its chairman Henry Reining Jr.--that endorsed the idea of a 17-member council in 1970. A year earlier, however, the commission discouraged any expansion after noting that “increasing the size of the council will not guarantee representation for any minority.” A few months before the election the commission reversed itself, citing only further study as the basis for its change of position.

That argument is now echoed by opponents, including some from the business community and some council members skeptical about the need for additional colleagues.

“We don’t need more council members,” scoffed Gilbert Lindsay, one of three blacks on the council. “If anything, we need fewer people up here.”

Demographics Cited

“We cannot argue with the basic concept that ethnic populations in the city should have representation,” said Ray Remy, executive director of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and former deputy mayor under Bradley. “But from the basic numbers that we see, the demographics of the city will bring about this (goal). . . .”

The demographics of Los Angeles reveal a city that has shifted dramatically from being predominantly white to having a population that is more than half composed of minority members. In the 1980 census, the ethnic breakdown of the city was 48.3% white, 27.5% Latino, 17% black, 6.6% Asian and less than 1% American Indian and other racial categories.

While Remy and opponents of the Charter amendment say those figures point to the eventual election of more minority council members, the coalition’s Baca said the wait has been much too long.

“There hasn’t been a Latino in City Council since 1963, when Councilman (Edward R.) Roybal left office to become a congressman,” he said. “Nearly a quarter of a century has gone by, and he’s the only one who’s been on the council. There’s never been an Asian-Pacific person on the City Council. It’s time to change that.”

Council Would Decide

But even if the Charter amendment passes, the district lines would have to be drawn by the council. And some council members with large concentrations of ethnic voters probably would feel the greatest impact. For example, in the 13th District, where Peggy Stevenson is running for reelection, Asians and Latinos make up nearly half the population. In the 14th District, where Councilman Arthur K. Snyder has survived several recall attempts, Latinos represent more than 74% of the population. And in Ferraro’s 4th District, Latinos and Asians make up nearly 60% of the district.

Craig Wong of the coalition said Latino and Asian-Pacific activists would need to watch closely how new boundaries were drawn.

“A lot of people are concerned that there will be a similar type of gerrymandering as has existed in the past that has kept minorities from being represented,” Wong said. “We don’t have a specific set of lines that we’re proposing at this point . . . but we will encourage the communities to get involved in the redistricting.”

Council redistricting already is a sensitive issue around City Hall.

Justice Department Probe

Last month, the U.S. Justice Department confirmed that it has launched an investigation into the council’s 1982 redistricting plan to determine whether it abridged the voting rights of Latinos, Asians and blacks.

Earlier, the California advisory committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights had issued a report sharply criticizing the reapportionment plans and asserting that it violated the Federal Voting Rights Act by effectively excluding minorities, particularly Latinos, from the council. The panel had similar complaints in 1972.

Supporters of the current expansion plan, including Bradley, insist that the Justice Department investigation did not lead to the April 9 ballot measure. However, it is clear that last year’s politically charged and unsuccessful recall campaign against Snyder--a white who has long represented the predominantly Latino 14th District--was an impetus.

As proposed, the new districts would contain about one-seventeenth of the city’s population. Presently, council members represent about 200,000 constituents. Although backers of the measure say the added costs would be minimal because expenses and staffing could be shared by other council offices, opponents claim that the price tag for two new council seats could approach $2 million.

Ways to Spend Money

“The principal reason for our opposition is cost,” said Paul E. Shay, executive vice president of the Los Angeles Taxpayers Assn. “If there’s extra money lying around the city . . . there are better uses for it.”

Each council office is now allotted about $675,000 to pay for salaries, office supplies, travel and such items as pensions and employee benefits, according to Council President Russell’s office. Still, critics of the measure contend that two new committees may have to be formed--each council member now chairs a committee--and other expenses could mount.

During the council debate on the proposed expansion, Ferraro had suggested reducing the budgets of each office by 12% to compensate for the additional districts. But that proposal failed--losing such potential supporters as Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores.

“If people want that extra representation and they’re willing to pay for it, it’s in their hands,” Flores said.

Backers of the measure know that in order to have a chance for its passage, they will have to get a large voter turnout in minority communities as well as a good percentage of white support to get the necessary majority. If they accomplish that, then the council will expand for the first time since that 1924 vote.

“The city’s ethnic diversity was 90% white back then, and now it’s 52% minority” said Bill Gallegos, who has been working on behalf of Charter Amendment 2. “If people are in favor of democracy, they should be in favor of this.”

CHARTER AMENDMENT 2

The proposal would add two new City Council seats, increasing the council from 15 to 17 members, starting in 1987.

Proponents say the number of council members has not changed in more than 60 years and additional seats are needed to better represent a growing and diverse population. Supporters include Mayor Tom Bradley, Council President Pat Russell and the Los Angeles Coalition for Fair Representation.

Critics contend this change will add to the cost and size of city government and would not guarantee better ethnic representation on the council. Opponents include council members Marvin Braude, John Ferraro and Joan Milke Flores, the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and the Los Angeles Taxpayers Assn.