‘Ornery’ Supervisor Stirs Up Battle of Wits in Courtroom

Pete Schabarum strode out of a federal courtroom Tuesday, flashed a winning smile and promptly lambasted the redistricting case that put him on the witness stand for more than four occasionally tedious, occasionally testy hours.

“It’s been a long, non-productive event,” the county supervisor said with a scowl.

When a television reporter called his testimony “unflappable,” Schabarum’s scowl disappeared, replaced instantly by a humble grin. “Oh, I don’t know,” he demurred.

Non-productive though it may have seemed to him, Tuesday’s chapter of the historic county voting rights case showcased Schabarum the politician, frowning one minute, smiling the next, sparring and feinting with attorneys, trading quips with the judge, and overall offering a show of skills honed by almost 24 years in public office.

Schabarum, testifying on his 61st birthday, perhaps described himself best.

“Ornery, I am,” he said outside court.

The redistricting suit is Schabarum’s toughest political battle in years, and on Tuesday it showed. Brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union, and later joined by the U.S. Justice Department, the suit is attempting to show that county supervisors in 1981 drew district boundaries in such a way that Latinos were spread among three districts, thus diluting their voting strength.

As the leader of the majority bloc of the board at the time, Schabarum is a central focus in the trial, now in its second week. More than that, attempts to settle the case have centered on adding Latinos to his district--a move that in theory puts Schabarum’s career in jeopardy, if he chooses to run for reelection in June.

The case’s implications had clearly left their mark on Schabarum, who inside the court was noticeably less combative than usual. But only inside the court. On his way to the courtroom Tuesday, he complained loudly about a Times article on Monday’s testimony.

“The same old baloney,” he said angrily. Then he added, in an apparent reference to the Times reporter: “What a jackass.”

But through the court’s door came a more placid Schabarum. While the plaintiffs’ attorneys framed complicated questions, he stared at the corners of the room or fiddled with his fingers. During his time on the stand, his voice never rose in anger.

Much of the earlier testimony centered on a series of “secret” meetings during which the 1981 redistricting plan was drawn. Schabarum, asking the court how long his testimony would take, could not pass up a dig at ACLU attorney Mark Rosenbaum.

“The morning’s been pretty well jammed up already, but I do have an executive session,” he said, pausing for emphasis, “a secret meeting of the board--by noon.”

Schabarum also took the opportunity to knock two of his longtime nemeses, the Los Angeles City Council and the news media.

The council came in handy as Schabarum, under questioning by a county attorney, explained his opposition to enlarging the Board of Supervisors--a move seen by some as a way to settle the case.

“The sorriest example of a city government I can think of,” Schabarum said of the council. “Fifteen people strong, and they can’t arrive at a decision any time.”

Of reporters, he groused to U.S. District Judge David V. Kenyon, “Our fair folks in the media generally paint us (politicians) as crooks to begin with, and we work down from there.”

Kenyon, for his part, also needled Schabarum occasionally, most pointedly when Schabarum declared under questioning that he considers MALDEF to be a political body and takes the group’s statements “with a grain of salt.”

“Should I do that with politicians in general?” Kenyon asked, a smile playing at his lips.

“Yes,” Schabarum answered, unsmiling.

“I appreciate the advice,” Kenyon replied.

Throughout his testimony, Schabarum repeatedly stated that he could not recall specific events that are central to the redistricting case. He kept his emotions in check most noticeably during a final exchange with ACLU attorney Rosenbaum.

“Your testimony is you don’t remember anything?” Rosenbaum asked, his voice rising in disbelief.

“That’s your statement, not mine,” said Schabarum, coolly surveying Rosenbaum.

“You’re a complete blank--is that right, sir?” said Rosenbaum, his voice louder.

“I didn’t say that,” Schabarum added evenly.

For better or worse--Schabarum certainly would argue the latter--the redistricting case has raised the supervisor’s profile markedly in recent months. And it comes at a time when friends and political foes suggest that Schabarum was himself pondering his political future.

The case’s evolution has given would-be opponents more hope than they have had in almost two decades that they might actually knock off Schabarum--for 17 years virtually unchallenged in the 1st District--if lines are redrawn before June’s election. Schabarum is playing his future close to the vest, alternately dropping broad hints that he will or will not run for another term in the San Gabriel Valley district.

He has been touting, for example, a signature campaign that would limit the number of terms legislators could serve. He said it was meant to bar “career politicians”--and said Tuesday that he included himself in that category.

“I shouldn’t have been in office 17 years,” he said. (Schabarum also served six years in the Assembly before becoming a supervisor in 1972.)

Schabarum was asked whether that was a signal that he would not run for reelection in June.

“It doesn’t imply anything at all at this point,” he replied, adding that he will not decide for several weeks whether he will run.

Political allies and competitors alike, in recent interviews, said they believe that until recently Schabarum had been bored in office and was likely to step down. But to a person, they believe the redistricting battle may have spurred Schabarum to run again.

“A large part of it is Pete likes a good fight and this is a good fight,” said one political consultant familiar with Schabarum. The consultant spoke only on the condition of anonymity.

Others suggest that Schabarum is reluctant to leave the board now because it might shift into the hands of Democrats. Schabarum fought hard for the election of a Republican majority, supplying much-needed campaign funds to Supervisors Deane Dana and Michael Antonovich in their successful bids in 1980. That election swung the balance of the board to Republicans.

If he does run, Schabarum remains a potent politician. In addition to being known within the district, he has a healthy campaign bankroll. As of June 30, 1988, his campaign accounts contained more than $860,000.