Validity of 1st District Vote in Doubt After Ruling

Roberto Aguilar, a 70-year-old retired meat packer from South El Monte, was vaguely aware Tuesday of a federal court decision that placed in doubt the validity of two Los Angeles County supervisor contests. He wasn’t sure of the details, but it really didn’t matter.

Aguilar had come to vote for a Latina for supervisor, and he wasn’t going to be deterred.

“I heard something about (a ruling),” Aguilar said. “But I don’t pay much attention to that stuff. I vote what I feel.”

Aguilar said it was not hard deciding to vote for Sarah Flores, a former aide to retiring 1st District Supervisor Pete Schabarum: “She’s Latina. That was good enough for me.”

There was no universal reaction among county voters Tuesday to the election-eve bombshell dropped by U.S. District Judge David V. Kenyon. He ruled on Monday that the board had intentionally discriminated against Latinos when it redrew district boundaries in 1981. The ruling opened the possibility that new supervisorial elections may be called soon and that the results of Tuesday’s vote in the 1st District and in Supervisor Ed Edelman’s 3rd District might be invalidated.

Only about a third of the county’s registered voters showed up to vote. In interviews, many of those who voted said they had not heard about the ruling. Others, like Aguilar, had heard sketchy radio reports about the decision, but were confused about its meaning. Some were ambivalent; others were angry.

“Is it a legal election or is it not legal?” asked Ernestina Corrales, a 56-year-old housewife who cast her ballot in the predominantly Latino community of Pico Rivera.

Like many Latino voters in the vast 1st Supervisorial District--which encompasses much of the San Gabriel Valley--Corrales greeted news of the decision with ambivalence. She said she supported the court’s findings but planned to vote in the supervisor’s race, even though the court had said the election might be voided.

“I’ve always thought (discrimination) was wrong, but I didn’t think we could ever be able to do anything about it,” Corrales said. “But lo and behold, we did. It’s a good thing.”

Flores was considered to be among the strongest contenders in the 1st District--she had raised more money than any of her nine opponents and early returns showed her leading the large field. Many Latino voters in the district--which is about 47% Latino--said they planned to vote for her.

Some non-Latino residents of the district said they disagreed with the court decision. Tom Alex, 52, operations manager of a leasing company, cast his vote in an upscale Glendora neighborhood. He said the judge’s decision was “off base.”

“I think they should expand the number of seats, but not draw the lines for ethnic or racial reason,” Alex said.

Audrey Lynberg, campaign coordinator for Flores, said campaign workers had little trouble getting voters to the polls. She said that publicity surrounding the decision may, in fact, have increased interest in the race.

Other voters, however, said they felt cheated by the court’s ruling and would not cast ballots in the supervisor’s race.

Times staff writers John H. Lee and Amy Pyle contributed to this story.