Supervisors Get Until June 27 to Redraw Lines

A federal judge on Thursday gave Los Angeles County supervisors 20 days to redraw district lines to remedy years of discrimination against Latinos.

U.S. District Judge David V. Kenyon ordered supervisors to submit for his approval a redistricting plan that would help the first Latino to win a seat on the five-member board. If the county fails to draft an acceptable plan by June 27, the judge said he will prepare his own.

A new redistricting plan could jeopardize the political security of incumbents and would change the political representation for a large number of the county’s 8 1/2 million residents.

Kenyon did not rule on whether Tuesday’s election for two supervisorial seats should be thrown out.

But he held out little sympathy for the candidates. “ . . . None of them ran without full knowledge that this lawsuit was pending,” he said.

The judge’s remarks and his redistricting order caused plaintiff’s attorneys and one candidate to conclude that he intends to void the election results and hold a new vote in the redrawn districts.

On the eve of Tuesday’s election, Kenyon ruled that the supervisors in 1981 illegally drew district boundaries that dilute the voting strength of Latinos. He held Thursday’s hearing to determine how to remedy this violation of the federal Voting Rights Act.

“It appears to me the judge has in his mind a primary election in November with new boundaries,” said Gregory O’Brien, a Superior Court judge who is scheduled to face Sarah Flores in a November runoff in the 1st Supervisorial District. “It was implicit in what he said.”

Attorneys for two plaintiffs--the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund--said that Kenyon’s order for a speedy redrawing of district lines indicates that the judge wants a new election held.

“Obviously the implication is that Tuesday’s election doesn’t really mean anything,” said Richard Fajardo, an attorney with MALDEF. “Remember, that election took place under an unconstitutional plan.”

But John McDermott, an attorney for the county, pointed out that the judge has made no decision on the election.

And Gary Mendoza, an attorney representing Flores, said he disagreed with the interpretation expressed by the ACLU and MALDEF attorneys.

“I think the spin is all wrong,” he said. “He (Kenyon) could defer the new lines until after the November election, then adopt a seven-seat plan and have everyone run in 1992.”

Mendoza urged the judge to allow the public to vote on a charter amendment in November that would expand the board from five members to seven.

Opponents in the 1st District runoff, Flores and O’Brien, were seated a few rows apart in the crowded courtroom Thursday. Supervisor Mike Antonovich also was there as an observer, as were aides to a number of Latino politicians who are interested in running for supervisor.

Flores’ attorney, Mendoza, pleaded with the judge to allow the election results to stand. But when he began telling Kenyon that Flores’ first-place finish shows a Latino has an opportunity to win a seat on the board, Kenyon cut him off. “I don’t want politics in here,” the judge snapped.

As Mendoza urged the judge not to make Flores a “victim” by throwing out the election, Kenyon said, “Please, please, please. . . . This is not a political arena. It’s a court of law.”

Flores said later that she was disappointed with Kenyon’s remarks but held out hope that her victory on Tuesday would be validated.

“There’s always been discrimination,” said Flores, a Latina who received 34.7% of the vote Tuesday, compared to 20.1% for O’Brien. “This case, for me, is just one more challenge. I want an opportunity to show that the American system works, that I can get elected and that the American dream can be reached.”

The plaintiffs on Thursday asked the judge to put the new redistricting plan into effect for the November election--an action that they said automatically would invalidate Tuesday’s election. Kenyon did not say when he would put the new plan into effect.

The judge sternly warned county attorneys that he will redraw the district lines himself if the Board of Supervisors fails to submit a plan for his approval by the deadline. The plaintiffs plan to offer their own redistricting maps to the supervisors.

“This is, quite respectfully, a deadline,” Kenyon told McDermott, the county’s lawyer. “Time is important here. . . . The public would like it resolved, and certainly the court would like it resolved.”

Antonovich said after the hearing that he wants the county to pursue its appeal of Kenyon’s ruling Monday before it submits any redistricting plan to the judge.

But McDermott said, “We will respond to the court by the 27th as required.”

Some previous maps prepared by the county and the plaintiffs have carved out a Latino district by expanding the board to seven members, and other maps have placed a Latino majority in Supervisor Ed Edelman’s 3rd District or Pete Schabarum’s 1st District. Edelman was reelected Tuesday, but Schabarum is retiring.

Attorneys for the U.S. Justice Department, also a plaintiff, declined comment on any aspect of the hearing.

In his historic ruling Monday, Kenyon found that supervisors deliberately split heavily Latino neighborhoods in East Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley among three districts, diluting Latino voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act and constitutional guarantees of equal treatment under the law.

The plaintiffs contend that even if a Latino can be elected in existing districts, it does not settle their claim that Latinos are denied an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice to the board. “The Voting Rights Act protects communities, not candidates,” said Mark Rosenbaum, an ACLU attorney.

There is precedent for a judge to void election results, attorneys said. “It has happened dozens of times,” said Richard Larson, legal director for MALDEF.

He said election results have been thrown out before, especially in the Deep South where anti-black gerrymandering led to passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The act served as the basis for the legal challenge of Los Angeles County’s district lines.