Supervisors to Appeal Redistricting Ruling : Politics: Conservatives want to contest judge’s finding that Latinos were unfairly denied representation.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to appeal a historic court ruling that they intentionally discriminated against Latinos in drawing their district boundaries in 1981.

With the board splitting along ideological lines, the conservative majority voted to continue the two-year legal battle that has cost the county $3 million in attorneys’ fees. Supervisor Ed Edelman abstained and fellow liberal Supervisor Kenneth Hahn left the closed-door meeting before the roll call.

“We’re going to file an appeal,” board Chairman Pete Schabarum declared after the hour-long session in which county attorneys briefed the supervisors about U.S. District Judge David V. Kenyon’s ruling Monday.

“This man (Kenyon) has embarked on a road of exerting extraordinary personal bias that is nothing more than an attempt to rewrite the Voting Rights (Act),” Schabarum said earlier.

The judge’s 131-page decision came just one day before elections in two of the five supervisorial districts. Kenyon found that the board violated the Voting Rights Act in 1981 by drawing district lines in a way that diluted Latino voting power.

Two of the plaintiffs--the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund--plan to ask the judge at a hearing Thursday to throw out the results of Tuesday’s election. They also want district lines redrawn immediately and a special election held by the end of the year.

If the judge sets aside the election results, county officials said privately they would seek a stay of his order and pursue the appeal.

The judge scheduled Thursday’s hearing to discuss possible remedies for the discrimination that he says has denied Latinos representation on the board.

In the regular board meeting Tuesday, Supervisors Hahn and Edelman urged the rest of the board to settle the lawsuit by expanding the panel to seven or even nine members.

Kenyon’s ruling had recommended that the board consider expanding the board, though he stopped short of finding that it was necessary under the law.

Hahn said there should be one supervisor for each million residents of the county. With the population now pushing 10 million, Hahn said, “It’s time for at least nine supervisors. . . . Let the people decide.”

The supervisor argued that with a nine-member board, black, Latino and Asian communities could all be represented on the board.

Supervisor Deane Dana said considering expansion of the board “is premature.”

“I’d like to see how this plays out,” he said, referring to Thursday’s hearing.

Other supervisors were more outspoken in their opposition to settling the matter.

“I’m willing to bet, if (Kenyon) doesn’t like the outcome, he’ll consider dumping the election on Thursday and come out with another hot flash,” said Schabarum, who was joined in voting to appeal by fellow conservative Supervisors Mike Antonovich and Dana.

Although the conservative majority still opposes expansion, the board delayed a vote on the matter for a week.

A spokesperson for Kenyon said the judge would have no comment.

County attorneys would not specify their grounds for appealing to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or the timing of such action.

“The board authorized attorneys to appeal when it is appropriate,” said County Counsel DeWitt W. Clinton.

Throughout the three-month trial, which ended in April, county attorneys argued that the 1981 redistricting was an effort by the board’s conservative majority to keep control of the board.

But, Kenyon ruled: “It is undeniable, however, that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors knew that by adopting the 1981 redistricting plan, they were further impairing the ability of Hispanics to gain representation on the board. The court finds no legal justification for this form of discrimination based on the protection of supervisorial incumbencies.”

County attorneys also argued that the existing boundary line splitting heavily Latino neighborhoods in East Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley does not dilute the Latino vote. They said that a Latino district could not be created there because many Latino residents are not citizens or old enough to vote.

The county attorneys also argued that the plaintiffs’ case depends on the use of non-citizens to establish a district in which a majority of voters are Latinos.

John McDermott, a private attorney hired by the county, argued during the trial that under that concept, “The moment that somebody comes across the border, legally or illegally, that person is entitled to affect the distribution of political power in this community.”

McDermott said district lines should be drawn based on numbers of Latino citizens, not residents. “We regard political power as fundamental to U.S. citizenship,” McDermott said.

During the board’s regularly scheduled meeting Tuesday, Antonovich called the ruling a “slap in the face” to the 10 candidates running for the 1st District seat being vacated by Schabarum.

“The raw exercise of judicial activism exhibited by Judge Kenyon is contrary to all case law,” Antonovich said.