Advertisement

Indecent Proposal

Share

Until Tuesday, rumors that Los Angeles City Council members were trying to use Councilman Howard Finn’s death to resolve their redistricting problems seemed merely grotesque. That they are true, and that that some members want to wipe out Finn’s 1st District in order to draw new boundaries for the city’s 15 council districts, elevates the reports to indecency.

This political mess began last year when the federal government sued the city under the Voting Rights Act, alleging that council members had diluted potential Latino voting strength when they reapportioned districts in 1982. The matter had seemingly been resolved early in August, as new council lines were drawn after several weeks of divisive political battles, when the council voted to create another district with a significant bloc of Latino voters. But that meant putting Councilmen Mike Woo and John Ferraro in the same district near the central city, a situation that neither of them liked. So when Finn died later in August, council members began poring over demographic data and maps to find a way to give Woo and Ferraro their old districts back and still keep the new “Latino” district intact.

On Tuesday, Woo and Ferraro formally unveiled a new redistricting proposal that would protect their respective political bases by in effect cannibalizing Finn’s former district in the northeast San Fernando Valley. The callousness of their plan is compounded by the fact that the councilman who would represent most of Finn’s old district, Joel Wachs, hardly knows the area. For all intents and purposes, part of the valley would be left without representation.

Advertisement

This sad affair is badly timed in more ways than one. The city attorney has already given the council’s earlier reapportionment plan to a federal judge for approval. It would serve the council right if the federal court forced it to stay with its first redistricting plan, which was a reasonable compromise that at least put the interests of incumbent politicians below other considerations.

If nothing else, this tactless display of political cannibalism in City Hall should provide one more bit of evidence, especially following on the bitter ethnic political battles of last month, to help persuade city voters that the way to avert reapportionment problems in the future is to expand the size of the City Council. Fifteen seats are just too few for a city with Los Angeles’ size and complexity.

Advertisement