Supervisors Must Disclose Private Remapping Talks

In a ruling that could provide a rare glimpse of the behind-the-scenes politics of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, a federal magistrate Wednesday ordered supervisors to disclose their private conversations on a redistricting plan that allegedly discriminates against Latinos.

U.S. Magistrate Charles Eick ruled that while county officials are normally protected by law from having to reveal details of closed-door discussions, “the federal interest in enforcement of the Voting Rights Act” outweighs this protection. A county attorney said he expects the supervisors to appeal the decision.

Eick issued the ruling in response to a request from the U.S. Justice Department and two civil rights groups, all of whom have sued the county over the 1981 plan for redrawing supervisors’ district boundaries. The suit contends that the board spread Latino neighborhoods among three districts, thereby diluting Latino voting power in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act.

It is not known whether there are taped or written records of the supervisors’ conversations. At the very least, the plaintiffs want the supervisors and their deputies to testify to their recollections of private talks leading up to adoption of the plan.

Of particular interest was a 1981 closed-door meeting attended by all five supervisors, “but never more than two at a time,” to discuss redistricting, according to the Justice Department. The two-at-a-time meeting, apparently held in this manner to avoid violating the state’s open meetings law, took place in a room behind the supervisors’ chambers as the board was discussing the redistricting plan in public session, according to court papers.

Justice Department attorneys learned about the private meeting while taking a deposition from an employee in the supervisors’ executive office. The employee--and subsequently the county supervisors--refused to answer questions about the meeting on the advice of county attorneys.

The county attorneys invoked what an opposing lawyer has said is the equivalent of former President Richard M. Nixon’s assertion of “executive privilege” in refusing to release the Watergate tapes.

In a 14-page opinion, Eick said county officials enjoy a “deliberative process privilege” shielding their private conversations from disclosure.

“The ironic premise of the deliberative process privilege appears to be that a democratic government functions more effectively when the electorate remains ignorant of how governmental decisions actually are reached,” Eick wrote. “This irony notwithstanding, the deliberative process privilege is too firmly entrenched in federal law for this court to question the wisdom of recognizing such a privilege.”

But, Eick said, the privilege is qualified, not absolute. He noted that “courts have overridden local officials’ privileges found to be in conflict with the enforcement of civil rights laws.”

“After balancing all of the pertinent factors, this court concludes that the supervisors’ deliberative process privilege must yield in this instance to the need for disclosure,” he wrote.

Eick said he had to balance a number of factors in determining whether to uphold or override the privilege, including whether evidence was available from other sources.

” . . . Other than the withheld communications, there is little evidence concerning the events immediately preceding the board’s adoption of the final redistricting plan,” he wrote.

Eick dismissed an argument by the county that disclosure of the private talks would “seriously impair creative debate” among public officials.

“This court is not convinced that the occasional instance in which disclosure may be ordered in a civil context will add measurably to the inhibitions already attending legislative deliberations,” Eick said.

Richard Fajardo, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said the ruling “allows us to go back and ask our questions and get answers to them.” He said the plaintiffs are also interested in one-on-one conversations between supervisors and their deputies in board offices.

The private conversations are critical to the case, the plaintiffs say, because they could show whether supervisors sought to deny Latino political representation in order to preserve their political bases.

“What the magistrate is essentially saying is that the federal interests in protecting the rights of the Hispanic community outweigh whatever interest there might be in protecting legislators in their deliberations,” Fajardo said.

Appeal Expected

County attorneys had not seen the ruling and would not comment on it. But Richard Simon, a private attorney hired by the county, said he expects the supervisors to appeal the decision to U.S. District Judge David Kenyon, who is hearing the redistricting case.

Board Chairman Ed Edelman was in Europe on vacation and could not be reached for comment.