San Diego Remap Plan Delayed by U.S. Judge : Redistricting: A magistrate bars the City Council from acting to adopt a plan that has been attacked by Latino activists, prodding the council to reverse itself.

Throwing a redistricting plan into legal and political disarray, a federal magistrate Thursday delayed San Diego City Council action on the proposal and threatened further court intervention unless the council reverses itself.

In a two-page order issued late Thursday, U.S. Magistrate Harry McCue barred the council from proceeding next week, as scheduled, toward formal adoption of a redistricting plan that has been sharply attacked by Latino activists, some community leaders and others since the council tentatively passed it Monday.

Beyond prohibiting the council from acting on any redistricting plan until July 23, McCue’s order also bluntly warns of further court action unless the council approves an alternative proposal that Latino leaders argue better protects minority voting rights.

McCue’s ruling, which concluded a third consecutive day of frenzied maneuvering in the case, shifts the focus in the political-legal contretemps back to City Hall, where the council now faces a grim choice: Either approve a redistricting plan that, as Monday’s action made clear, is opposed by a majority of the members, or return to court for a potentially lengthy, costly battle that could end with the city’s plan being declared unconstitutional.

Thursday’s developments brought the principals in the bitter redistricting dispute--the outgrowth of a 1988 San Diego County Chicano Federation lawsuit challenging the legality of the city’s electoral system--to a precipice that all had hoped to avoid, and, in the process, raised as many questions as it answered.

Some council members questioned whether McCue’s order, as a practical matter, curtails their prerogative to alter the redistricting plan proposed, in accordance with the terms of the lawsuit’s preliminary settlement, by a citizen’s advisory board. Dissatisfaction with that plan, which some argue was tilted toward pro-growth Republicans, led to the evolution of the other proposal that was tentatively passed, 5 to 4, by the council Monday.

Would even minor changes to the advisory board’s map to accommodate two members whose new or future homes are outside their districts’ proposed new boundaries subject the council to a court challenge? And, if Monday’s council majority is willing to engage in brinkmanship, what is to stop it from simply repeating its initial decision on or after July 23?

“Who knows?” Chicano Federation attorney Patricia Meyer asked rhetorically. “The only thing certain is that, if the council approves any map other than the one from the (advisory board), then we’re going to wind up back in court.”

Rather than view McCue’s order as a threat, some council members--notably, those on the losing side of Monday’s vote--characterized it as an opportunity to reevaluate a critical decision made in what even some supporters conceded was an unorthodox, clumsy fashion that embittered many.

“This gives a council that stepped out and did something stupid a chance to rectify it,” said Councilman Ron Roberts, who voted against the plan proposed Monday by Councilman John Hartley. “It sounds like the judge is sending us a signal: ‘Guys, work this out and save yourselves some big problems.’ ”

Councilman Bob Filner, whom many regard as the primary behind-the-scenes architect of the plan passed Monday, did not return telephone calls Thursday. None of the four other council members who support that redistricting map--Abbe Wolfsheimer, John Hartley, Wes Pratt and Linda Bernhardt--could be reached Thursday night.

Under McCue’s order, the council will reconsider both the advisory board’s plan and the one tentatively approved Monday. Furthermore, if the council adopts any plan other than that proposed by the citizens’ task force, the court will review it to determine whether it violates an earlier settlement in the case.

“This court is of the opinion that the issues raised by this action are of grave importance to the city of San Diego and its citizens as a whole,” McCue wrote. “Should the council adopt a plan other than the (advisory board) plan, this court shall review the record to determine if that plan is in conformity with the settlement agreement.”

In its review of both plans, McCue ordered the council to give both “ de novo consideration,” a legal term meaning, as Meyer explained, “to start anew.”

“We’re starting fresh, from scratch--or at least as much as possible,” Meyer said. “Obviously, I’m very pleased, because the court is saying, ‘Let’s look at this one more time.’ ”

Kenneth So, a deputy city attorney, was less voluble upon leaving McCue’s chambers, saying simply that he had “repeated our objections” that court intervention at this point was improper because the redistricting plan had not yet won final council approval.

In its legal arguments, the Chicano Federation has raised objections of both style and substance to Monday’s redistricting plan, faulting how the council acted on it almost as much as the plan’s content--in particular, its dilution of the Latino population in the 8th District.

Under the agreement settling the first phase of the group’s 1988 lawsuit, the city guaranteed that the Chicano Federation and other minority community representatives would have a meaningful role in the development of this year’s redistricting plan. However, by rejecting the advisory board’s map, developed over months of public hearings and substituting Hartley’s proposal--only hours after it was publicized--the city displayed “bad faith” and violated the settlement, attorney Meyer argues.

Hartley’s plan reduces the Latino composition of Filner’s 8th District from the advisory board’s proposed 52.2% to at most 51%--and perhaps, Meyer says, to as low as 45%--and dramatically alters the configuration of a number of other districts. Based on the estimates of some City Hall insiders, the plan would change council representation for up to 300,000 San Diegans.

Stressing legislative, if not political, technicalities, city attorneys emphasized that Monday’s vote was not definitive, noting that it was only the first of several steps toward the redistricting plan’s adoption. The Chicano Federation and others, they argued, would have ample opportunity to comment on the plan--and try to alter it more to their liking--before it was formally approved.

Meyer, however, characterized the remaining legislative steps as “more a matter of form than content,” and Tuesday asked U.S. District Judge John Rhoades to block the council from enacting Monday’s plan. In response, city attorneys argued that it would be premature for the judge to consider such a request until the plan was formally adopted.

Seeking to circumvent that procedural impasse, Rhoades tried to turn back the clock Thursday by suggesting that the San Diego City Council nullify Monday’s tentative approval and repeat its debate on the redistricting plan next week. In essence, Rhoades’ suggestion asked both the council and the Chicano Federation to act as if Monday’s vote never occurred, thereby allowing more time for public comment.

“I don’t know if it’s possible to go back and rewrite history, especially if people’s minds are already made up,” Meyer responded skeptically.

Timing provided another knotty obstacle to Rhoades’ suggestion. Assistant City Atty. Curtis Fitzpatrick, noting that 24 hours’ advance notice is required for any special council meeting, questioned whether the council could even be assembled to consider retracting Monday’s action before a planned Friday court hearing.

Faced with that riddle, Rhoades sent the two sides to McCue for mediation. After separate morning and afternoon sessions, McCue issued his order, which also canceled several previously planned court hearings and scheduled a July 24 status conference.

As a result, the critical question now becomes whether any of the five council members who supported Hartley’s plan changes his vote on July 23 to avert a showdown, or whether that majority remains intact. Though concerned about the latter possibility, Chicano Federation executive Jess Haro said after Thursday’s court action that he believes growing public pressure may prompt a council retreat from Monday’s action.

“This gives them two weeks to reflect on the action they took,” Haro said. “I think that might change some minds.”