Trial Seeking New Latino Voting District in County Ends

A historic trial that could dramatically change Los Angeles County’s political configuration concluded Tuesday, leaving to a judge the decision on whether the Board of Supervisors should be required to carve out a district designed to help a Latino win a seat on the board.

“At this moment, I can tell you that I don’t know how I am going to rule,” U.S. District Judge David V. Kenyon said after hearing final arguments in the three-month-long case. He did not say when he will make a decision.

If he finds that the county’s redistricting plan dilutes Latino voting strength, Kenyon said, he will hold a hearing on what should be done. Among the options are that the judge would delay the June supervisors’ election until a new redistricting plan is drafted.

Though it has drawn few spectators, the case has high stakes, not just for the supervisors but for all county residents.

If the county loses, supervisors are likely to be shifted to new neighborhoods. A new redistricting plan also could end a decade of conservative control of the board.

The trial was triggered by lawsuits filed in 1988 by the U.S. Justice Department and civil rights groups accusing supervisors of dividing Latino neighborhoods among three districts, thereby weakening their political influence in violation of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Though Latinos make up nearly one-third of the county’s population, no Spanish-surnamed person has ever served on the five-member board.

The plaintiffs want the divided Latino neighborhoods in East Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley put into the same district so that a Latino would have an improved chance of winning a seat on the board.

If they prevail, veteran Supervisor Ed Edelman could be placed in a predominantly Latino district. Or the board could add Latinos to the district being vacated by conservative Supervisor Pete Schabarum.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund also have asked the court to consider expanding the board from five to nine members.

Kenyon last week pointed out that voters have twice rejected expansion of the board. “One thing that has always impressed (me) about power,” he said, is that “part of the wisdom of power is knowing when not to exercise power. . . . Is this an appropriate thing for a single federal judge to do, or is it something better left to a vote of the people?”

Both sides agree that if the county loses, the judge is likely to allow supervisors to draft a new redistricting plan. If supervisors cannot agree on a new plan, the judge can draw the lines himself.

The Justice Department has asked the judge to delay the supervisors’ election until a new plan is drafted.

But John McDermott, an attorney for the county, told Kenyon, “It is too late at this point to stop the election” and would be unfair to candidates who have been spending money on campaigns. “We’re past the point where (the names of candidates) can be taken off the ballot,” he added.

If the county loses, McDermott said the judge should allow the election to proceed, but shorten the terms of the winners. They could serve until a special election can be held under a new redistricting plan, he said.

Early in the trial, Edelman and Schabarum took the stand, denying allegations that they engaged in “racial gerrymandering” in order to protect their seats.

But most of the case was taken up by the highly technical testimony of demographers and statisticians on whether it is possible to create a district in which a majority of the voters are Latino.

Key to the county’s defense is that such a district could not have been created during the 1981 remapping--or today--because many Latinos are not citizens or old enough to vote.

“This is not the South,” McDermott argued, pointing out that unlike the Deep South where blacks were segregated, Latinos are spread “in every nook and cranny of the county.” He said that 67% of the Latino voters are dispersed throughout the county, “which is to say, they do not live where most Hispanics live.”

ACLU attorney Mark Rosenbaum argued that during the 1981 redistricting, Latinos became a pawn in a battle for control of the board with conservative board members wanting only to increase the Latino makeup in the liberal Edelman’s district, and liberal supervisors only wanting to shift Latinos to the conservative Schabarum’s district.

County lawyer Lee Blackman responded, “Politics will always be involved in redistricting,” adding that the 1981 redistricting was an effort by conservative supervisors to keep control of the board rather than deny representation to Latinos.

Blackman contended that Edelman opposed a plan that would have added Latinos to his district because Latino leaders at the time did not want to limit their influence to one supervisor.

“It wasn’t because of a desire on anybody’s part to keep the Hispanic community powerless,” Blackman said. “They just couldn’t find a way to do what everybody wanted to do.”

McDermott, in closing arguments, contended that the plaintiffs were “offering a future where we divide into enclaves and people get elected on the basis of their ethnicity.”

“To create ethnic districts for the purpose of achieving proportional representation . . . is a step in the wrong direction,” McDermott said. He argued that Latino candidates should do the same as Mayor Tom Bradley, a black who was elected because he “appealed to everybody.”

But ACLU attorney Rosenbaum responded Tuesday that the Voting Rights Act seeks to give minorities “an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice, not whether the candidate is palatable to their community and the white community.”

The county has spent more than $3 million on the case, mostly for fees paid to private attorneys. If the county loses, it could be liable for the legal costs of the ACLU and MALDEF, which exceed $2 million.

The judge did not indicate when he would rule. As he left the courtroom, he told the attorneys: “Don’t call us. We’ll call you.”

REDISTRICTING: JUDGE’S OPTIONS U.S. District Judge David V. Kenyon has said that if he finds the county’s redistricting plan violates the voting rights of Latinos, he will then hold a hearing to decide what should be done. His options:

Delaying the June 5 supervisorial election until a new redistricting plan is drafted. Supervisor Ed Edelman is up for reelection, and 10 candidates are running for the seat being vacated by Supervisor Pete Schabarum.

Allowing the election to proceed, but setting aside the results. A special election would then be held, using the new redistricting plan.

Permitting the election to go forward, but shortening the terms of the winners. The winners would then run in a special election, held under a new plan.

Expanding the board from five to seven or nine members.

If the county loses, the supervisors themselves could vote to enlarge the board, subject to voter approval, though plaintiffs in the case have argued that the judge has the authority to order an expansion without a public vote.