Illegal Aliens Become Issue in Council Suit

A federal judge Friday raised a thorny, new legal question in the Los Angeles City Council reapportionment suit: Should people who are not U.S. citizens be counted in deciding whether council district boundaries are fairly drawn?

At a pretrial hearing on a federal suit accusing the City Council of gerrymandering the present boundaries of council districts, U.S. District Judge James Ideman appeared to catch attorneys off guard when he voiced concerns that a large share of the city’s growing Latino population may not be citizens.

Citing census figures that about 25% of the city’s population is Latino, Ideman said: “What if I order redistricting (using those figures) . . . and only 10% or 15% . . . are American citizens.”

Ideman said that if he relies on existing census data in determining whether new council districts are warranted, he is afraid he might “overcorrect” and undermine the rights of other ethnic groups. Without being specific, Ideman suggested that he may want to determine “the true percentage of voters affected” by allegations of gerrymandering to protect incumbents.

Series of Lawsuits

The politically sensitive issue of whether illegal aliens should be counted flared during the 1980 census and led to a series of lawsuits. Census officials say they must count all residents and do not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens. They also say that there is no reliable data on undocumented residents other than rough estimates. “It is one of the biggest cans of worms there is right now,” said Mike Flannigan, a Census Bureau statistician in Los Angeles.

In December, the Justice Department sued Mayor Tom Bradley, the City Council and the city clerk, charging them with “fracturing” Latino communities in a 1982 redrawing of boundaries for the 15 council districts. The controversial redistricting plan was undertaken as a result of the 1980 Census, which showed that the city’s Latino population had grown from 18% to 27%. But the new boundaries varied little from the previous lines, which Latino and Asian activists had assailed for years as being unfair.

Historically, total population has been held to be the proper legal basis of political districting. If Ideman were to rule that only U.S. citizens should be counted, it could weaken the argument that Latino representation has not increased in proportion to the population.

An attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which Ideman permitted to become a party to the case Friday, said it was too early to assess how important the issue of non-citizens might be. But he said it “obviously . . . could be a problem.”

Sheila Delaney, the lead attorney for the Justice Department, which based its suit in part on census data showing the growth in the city’s Latino population, told Ideman that she would have to research the matter. Jonathan Steinberg, an attorney representing the city, said the city has taken no position on whether non-citizens should be included. He said he was unaware of previous voting rights cases that addressed the matter directly.

Rolando Rios, legal director of the San Antonio-based Southwestern Voter Registration and Education Project, a group that has been involved in more than 80 voting rights suits, agreed that the question of counting illegal aliens in redistricting “probably” has not been litigated. “It looks like an issue that’s going to be coming up in California because you have high numbers of undocumented workers,” he said.

Ideman said he intends to issue a decision in the case by Oct. 1 and strongly rejected arguments by the city’s attorneys that trial preparation would take a year and the case would not be resolved in time for the council elections in the spring of 1987.

“It can be done. It must be done,” Ideman said.

Meanwhile, Deputy City Atty. William Waterhouse said city officials have asked the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the Justice Department to provide them with proposed redistricting plans. But he denied that negotiations for an out-of-court settlement are under way.