Schabarum Rejects Remapping Settlement Before Trial

Supervisor Pete Schabarum flatly ruled out Friday a pretrial settlement of the redistricting lawsuit against Los Angeles County but left open the possibility that a compromise between the board and Latino plaintiffs, who are suing for greater political clout, could be reached sometime after the trial begins Jan. 2.

Schabarum’s comments, delivered at a Friday morning press conference called to highlight the county’s defense in the case, represented an apparent verbal loosening of his stance, as did his later acknowledgement that expanding the Board of Supervisors from five to seven members could “perhaps” have merit.

“While the board most assuredly is interested in bringing this matter to trial, that does not foreclose altogether the idea of considering in due course some other alternatives,” said Schabarum, the board chairman. “What those may be, at this point I have no idea.”

As the trial date grows closer, the supervisors have been engaged in running battles among themselves and between the board and the plaintiffs: the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

The U.S. Justice Department last year joined in filing the suit, which accused the supervisors of drawing their districts in 1981 in such a way that the voting strength of Latinos was diluted. Schabarum, a member of the board for 17 years, has sternly advocated taking the case to trial.

In a surprise move last week, the board moved against Schabarum and voted 3 to 2 to try to settle the case by redrawing the district lines so that his district incorporated more Latinos. Supervisor Deane Dana, a Republican elected in 1980 with Schabarum’s help, provided the swing vote then, earning Schabarum’s enmity.

But earlier this week, settlement talks broke down when the board rejected a counterproposal drafted by MALDEF and ACLU attorneys. Schabarum said Friday that the case will go to trial.

“And that’s not me speaking, that’s the board speaking and apparently the plaintiffs’ attorneys, who have allowed as how they haven’t any interest in finding some major move in the right direction,” he said.

But MALDEF attorney Richard Fajardo blamed the board for the stalemate.

“We have never been opposed to a settlement,” he said. “They are the ones who couldn’t take the steps necessary to get us to a settlement. . . . We know how much we can give, and we were prepared to get into the give-and-take.”

Until the board takes the next step, Fajardo said, “we are getting ready for trial.”

“We are not going to be derailed any more,” he said.

Apart from the proposed board expansion, which he has historically opposed, Schabarum declined to specify what sort of compromise could come under consideration. Political observers believe that option, unsuccessfully espoused for years by Supervisor Kenneth Hahn, could take on new popularity if the trial appears to be going against the board. The expansion, in theory, would increase the chances for election of a Latino supervisor.

Schabarum made his comments in a press conference called, as he put it, “to elevate this subject to a more intellectual level” and draw the focus away from the squabbles between board members. In keeping with the spirit, he even passed up an opportunity to criticize fellow Supervisor Dana.

“I’d just as soon leave well enough alone at the moment,” he said.

But he was less magnanimous toward the redistricting plaintiffs, who he claimed had engaged in “an unfounded witch hunt” against the supervisors. He indicated that he would be tempted to vote down a settlement if it called for the county to pay a large portion of the plaintiffs’ legal fees.

“Now that’s plain bunk as far as I’m concerned,” he said. “I for one am not interested in paying a dime to either the MALDEF people or the ACLU for having embarked on a frivolous exercise.”

According to Schabarum, county attorneys will argue that district maps should be drawn to provide supervisors with equal numbers of constituents, not taking into account the overall population. That stance would substantially weaken the plaintiffs’ case, since it would drastically cut the number of Latinos to be considered in drafting a plan.

County attorneys will also argue that they are required to redraw district lines only after each census and not more than once a decade.